-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Complete merging of particular rule properties #1978
Complete merging of particular rule properties #1978
Conversation
The PR may be incomplete, see |
Hi @defanator, Thank you for the report :) that is an interesting subject, because it lead us to a bigger discussion. Back on v2, some configuration items had o global scope even when placed inside a virtual host. That is annoying as hell, as it was counterintuitive. Reading the name of the configuration is/was not possible to tell (or to expect) when/how/if it is going to work. There are some technical limitations that are important, for instance, very earlier on the request - when the vhost and/or the destination folder is not know - is the place that we want to threat slow dos. Therefore this particular configuration will no be able to target a single vhost, but the entire server. That may not be the case of SecRequestBodyLimit. Yet, it is on the same set of the configurations class that will be good to be not-global. IMHO, the only configurations that should be global are the ones that can't be different due to technical limitations. Working towards it. On v3/dev/reload we are have a differentiation between what is a rule and what is a configuration. As v3/dev/reload is not yet ready for production, let me see what can i do to circumvent this specific problem. |
@zimmerle in other words, a configuration like the one described in Let me know if you have any other concerns that may (or may not) be related to v3/dev/reload in this context (i.e. if that branch is going to be heavily refactored and will unlikely go into 3.0.4, I'd merge this one into v3/master as it fixes the initial issue reported at owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity-nginx#142 - it wasn't about redefining values, it's about the fact that the documented behavior of SecRequestBodyLimit does not work entirely if |
Merged! Thanks :) |
@zimmerle oh, I was going to update the PR to do actual merges like here - Also, here's the full list of directives which do not get merged:
|
See the following for details: #142 owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity#1978 #143 owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity#1990
Closes owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity-nginx#142 issue.