feat: Remove rules for lack of viable attack scenario (920220 PL1, 920221 PL1) #3969
Conversation
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
|
📊 Quantitative test results for language: |
…0221 PL1) Rules 920220 and 920221 caused a lot of FPs in CRS4. After discussing the rules and potential fixes in issue 3926, we decided to remove the rules. Mainly because we can not think of a generic attack scenario that uses / abuses encoding this way.
|
Where are the rules coming from, initially? What were they supposed to protect us from? Is this coming from the BB? |
|
This is the conclusion from #3926. The two rules were initially one rule from the original Trustwave rule set. We don't know what the intent of the original rule was, which is one of the reasons we've decided to remove them. |
fzipi
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Rules 920220 and 920221 caused a lot of FPs in CRS4. After discussing the rules with @franbuehler and @theseion and potential fixes in issue 3926, we decided to remove the rules. Mainly because we can not think of a generic attack scenario that uses / abuses encoding this way.
Fixes #3926