Closed
Conversation
The problem fixed here comes with multiple requests in the same session, when the second (or later) request is split over multiple chunks, and more precisely when the HTTP method in the request line gets splitted over multiple chunks. In this case, htp_connp_REQ_FINALIZE probed to recongize a known HTTP method, and failed, as for instance it only analyzed "GE" when the final T for "GET" is in the next chunk. The logic is now to peek enough data to have a full request line. This way, we can decide if this input is the beginning of a new request, or if it is the junk body of the previous one.
same as request
Member
|
Does this address #270 (comment) as well? |
Member
Not sure. Can you create a pcap based test (SV test) to see how this affects logging/matching in Suricata? |
Contributor
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is not ready yet and needs more testing.
The point of this PR is for libhtp to handle requests/responses ending and beginning in the middle of network provided chunks.
That is the added test case 97-requests-cut.t and 98
So
htp_connp_REQ_FINALIZEprobes a whole request line to say if we handle it as body or a new request, unless the connection is closed, in which case we complete the request.Several test cases result change :
tx->request_ignored_lines == 1as the ignored line is now part of the previous request bodytx->request_progress == HTP_REQUEST_COMPLETE. Should we rather change the test framework ?cf https://github.com/OISF/libhtp/blob/0.5.x/test/test.c#L357 versus https://github.com/OISF/libhtp/blob/0.5.x/test/test.c#L417
See https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/2655 for the latest changes to
htp_connp_REQ_FINALIZEFollows #270 by fixing same bug for responses and using HTTP/1.1 for real test case with pipelining