If for no other reason then its a good idea.
Anything new to report here ?
I have been really busy at work but next week I will create a template for everyone to review.
I am a little busy at the moment to produce a policy file.
Draft 0.1 for mod_security policy
this rules.conf file does very little. All it does is prevent users from seeing any defaced websites.
I think it would make more sense to run with SecRuleEngine DetectionOnly and a larger set of rules.
I've tried to create a rules-set based on default that reduce false positives:
mod_security.conf: main config
mod_security.rules.conf: rules definitions
modsec_rules_test.sh: small shell script to test some rules.
Forgot to mention that I worked with:[[BR]]
AFAIK, there's two scenarios of deployment:[[BR]]
I forgot to remove meeting keyword, since we've already discussed about it
I can't fine any more recent info about this then the meeting of 09-06-2011 (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-09/infrastructure.2011-06-09-19.00.log.txt).
Has there been any progress on this?
I think the question here was: What advantages does this give us? I guess it allows us to mitigate security bugs before there is a fix in packages?
Would someone care to make a case that this is needed? If not, I am inclined to just close it for now until there is some reasoning for it.
IIRC, we've raised the following points:
Anyway, I'll be happy to help if we still interested in this (I'm the current maintainer mod_security and its core rules in fedora and epel)
Yeah, I am inclined to say lets skip it for now... until we come up with a more compelling use case, or the yummy vs trouble ratio changes a lot more to the yummy side. ;)
to comment on this ticket.
Copyright © 2014-2016 Red Hat