SSLproxy icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
SSLproxy copied to clipboard

Question: Suricata and sslproxy

Open primmus opened this issue 6 years ago • 5 comments

Hello, is it possible to make suricata-ids read the sslproxy header, to identify the source and destination correctly?

Best regards; Primmus

primmus avatar Oct 05 '18 16:10 primmus

You are asking the same question as in here and here. I had seen those requests before, but I am not familiar with the source code of Suricata (I have used it, but never needed to look into its source code, and can't remember much). I don't even know/remember if it has preprocessors as with Snort. But even if it doesn't have preprocessors, it must be still possible as I did with other UTM software on UTMFW. I can try to look into it in the future, but I cannot promise anything.

sonertari avatar Oct 05 '18 18:10 sonertari

Hi, I'm looking at this. Will be sharing a PoC as a PR to the Suricata repository soon.

victorjulien avatar Dec 03 '20 15:12 victorjulien

Hi Victor, that's great. When you push your PR, please inform us (this issue) too. I will try to test it. Thanks.

sonertari avatar Dec 03 '20 16:12 sonertari

@victorjulien Hi, any news on this?

Raifeg avatar Apr 08 '22 15:04 Raifeg

Hi @victorjulien, thanks for creating https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4122 to track the effort. We were hoping to see some changes in suricata 7.0, but it looks like this is pushed out to 8 again.

Any thought has put into the change where you would detect and remove the inserted header? We don't really require the detection to operate on the original src/dst tuples, but would like to have the detection still operate on the content, i.e. without removing the header, the protocol detection will unlikely find the correct protocol. We are looking at an intermediate solution before 8.0 release(even with some changes to suricata). There is the replace action with the content filter, would that be useful if modified to remove the header? One restriction we found for the replace action was that the length of the replacement has to match. Is there any way to workaround that? Or is it best to alter the packet at even an earlier stage? and recalculate the checksum?

tugtugtug avatar Dec 12 '22 15:12 tugtugtug