Shared Hosting for Everyone, imagined by developers, for developers.Discovering the Public Cloud
To configure the web application firewall, use the administration interface from Web > Sites > Edit the [site] - ⚙️ > WAF.
|Basic||Strict compliance with the HTTP protocol|
|Malicious robot detection|
|Strong||All of the basic profile rules|
|Remote Code Execution (RCE) detection|
|Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) type attack detection|
|SQL injection detection|
|Complete||All of the strong profile rules|
|PHP language related attack detection|
|Local File Inclusion (LFI) attack detection|
|Remote File Inclusion (RFI) attack detection|
|WordPress||All of the complete profile rules|
|WordPress specific rules|
|Drupal||All of the complete profile rules|
|Drupal specific rules|
|Nextcloud||All of the complete profile rules|
|Nextcloud specific rules|
|Dokuwiki||All of the complete profile rules|
|Dokuwiki specific rules|
Activating a protection profile will result in a slight increase in latency when processing an HTTP request. This latency, that represents a few milliseconds, increases with the degree of protection.
Depending on your usage case, the way WAF behaves may be too restrictive. It may also generate false positives during its analysis. If you consider its behavior unsuitable, then you have the option of excluding some of the rules used during the analysis.
Only specify the number of the rule to exclude. You will find this in the Sites logs (
[08/Jan/2019:11:09:19 +0100] [waf] - <attack IP> "GET /?param=%22><script>alert(1);</script> HTTP/1.1" - 941100 | XSS Attack Detected via libinjection' with value: "><script>alert(1);</script> [08/Jan/2019:11:09:19 +0100] [waf] - <attack IP> "GET /?param=%22><script>alert(1);</script> HTTP/1.1" - 941110 | XSS Filter - Category 1: Script Tag Vector' with value: <script> [08/Jan/2019:11:09:19 +0100] [waf] - <attack IP> "GET /?param=%22><script>alert(1);</script> HTTP/1.1" - 941160 | NoScript XSS InjectionChecker: HTML Injection' with value: <script>
941160 could be indicated.
Be sure to progressively add rules as the exclusion is applicable to the entire site. This is because even if adding a large number of rules to exclude may improve browsing in some cases, protection will then be lessened in all other cases.
This kind of exclusion is used to avoid any page analysis starting with the specified path. By entering
/foo/ for example,
www.my-site.com/foo/ will be excluded from the analysis as will the query strings:
www.my-site.com/foo/?param=bar. To also exclude
www.my-site.com/foo/script.php add a wildcard:
/foo/*. Lastly, to substitute any character (especially one that changes regularly),
? may be used.
Therefore, to remove
www.my-site.com/foo/barBaz/ from the analysis,
Baz being ordinary strings, the path to exclude will be:
Let us take the case of a WordPress type site that shows logs similar to those presented previously. If these rules are triggered when browsing the blog administration interface, then it is possible to exclude them permanently. The blog itself however will no longer be protected against these attack attempts. In this case, it is wiser to exclude the path (e.g. /wp-admin/*) so that all of your operations on the administration interface are no longer covered by the WAF analysis.
Query strings can’t be used with these exclusions.
It may be worth excluding safe IPs (specific IPs or IPs ranges) to stop tools or people from being blocked.
Let us take the example of WPScan: by activating it on a WordPress site, some of the requests that it runs may be blocked. Excluding rules or paths would not be effective as it observes numerous URLs. The solution is therefore to exclude the HTTP server that WPScan is installed on so that it can operate normally.