[Oisf-devel] libhtp 0.5.x integration - bug 775

Anoop Saldanha anoopsaldanha at gmail.com
Thu Apr 11 16:46:35 UTC 2013


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ristic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't advise you to do any buffering anyhow.
> But I am curious if you're
> deleting transactions once you're done with them. Because, if you're not,
> you may be allocating a lot of memory (all tx instances) on long-lived HTTP
> connections.
>

We do delete them, once we're done.

>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Anoop Saldanha <anoopsaldanha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Victor Julien <victor at inliniac.net> wrote:
>> > (bad juju to brian and ivan for top posting and/or html emails! :)
>> >
>> > On 04/09/2013 10:21 AM, Ivan Ristic wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Anoop Saldanha <anoopsaldanha at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:anoopsaldanha at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Brian Rectanus <brectanu at gmail.com
>> >>     <mailto:brectanu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>     >
>> >>     > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Brian Rectanus
>> >> <brectanu at gmail.com
>> >>     <mailto:brectanu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Anoop Saldanha
>> >>     <anoopsaldanha at gmail.com <mailto:anoopsaldanha at gmail.com>>
>> >>     >> wrote:
>> >>     >>>
>> >>     >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Victor Julien
>> >>     <victor at inliniac.net <mailto:victor at inliniac.net>>
>> >>     >>> wrote:
>> >>     >>> > (moving to oisf-devel)
>> >>     >>> >
>> >>     >>> > On 04/08/2013 06:17 AM, Anoop Saldanha wrote:
>> >>     >>> >>>> I recollect we introduced path and query double decoding
>> >>     through
>> >>     >>> >>>> configurable params, and also we had this thing with query
>> >>     >>> >>>> decoding(single level).  Can you explain a bit what the
>> >>     status was
>> >>     >>> >>>> previously.  Seeing related failed uts.
>> >>     >>> >>>>
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>> We run the path normalization on the query through our
>> >>     >>> >>> HTPCallbackRequestUriNormalizeQuery callback. Previously we
>> >> used
>> >>     >>> >>> htp_decode_path_inplace to normalize the query (e.g. for
>> >>     >>> >>> uridecoding).
>> >>     >>> >>> However, this was causing issues (remember that pcre "bug"
>> >> we
>> >>     >>> >>> discussed
>> >>     >>> >>> a while back, where http:// turned into http:/).
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>> In libhtp I copied htp_decode_path_inplace to
>> >>     >>> >>> htp_decode_query_inplace
>> >>     >>> >>> and also copied the config params and cfg funcs:
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/inliniac/suricata/commit/d41c762689a08e6814dc93e8bfebeceab97175c3
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>> Hack of the 1st order, which is wrong in many ways. But it
>> >>     basically
>> >>     >>> >>> allowed me to make sure we don't normalize the query as if
>> >>     it's path,
>> >>     >>> >>> esp with turning ftp:// into ftp:/ and such.
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>> For 0.5 integration I think we need a proper solution. The
>> >> only
>> >>     >>> >>> reason I
>> >>     >>> >>> pushed my hack like this was that I knew in 0.5 we would
>> >>     make things
>> >>     >>> >>> right.
>> >>     >>> >>>
>> >>     >>> >>
>> >>     >>> >> I think if we still want to double decode, we still require
>> >>     all of
>> >>     >>> >> these above things from our bundled htp.
>> >>     >>> >>
>> >>     >>> >> -----
>> >>     >>> >>
>> >>     >>> >> In 0.5.x, tx->request_uri_normalized has been removed, and
>> >>     we'd now
>> >>     >>> >> have to use the REQUEST_URI hook.  We'll have to carry out
>> >> the
>> >>     >>> >> reconstruction ourselves, and store it ourselves in our
>> >> HTPState.
>> >>     >>> >>
>> >>     >>>
>> >>     >>> What are your thoughts on this?
>> >>     >>>
>> >>     >>> >
>> >>     >>> > IIRC there is some function in libhtp that does just the
>> >>     decoding of
>> >>     >>> > uriencoding and unicode. We should probably just use that on
>> >>     the query
>> >>     >>> > and do the full normalization on the path.
>> >>     >>> >
>> >>     >>> > As a side thought: I think it would be nice to store path and
>> >>     query
>> >>     >>> > separately so that we can add http_path and http_query
>> >>     keywords later
>> >>     >>> > on.
>> >>     >>> >
>> >>     >>>
>> >>     >>> We'd pretty much extract it directly from parsed_uri.  Will
>> >> have to
>> >>     >>> check if we need the extract double decode phase we have
>> >>     currently in
>> >>     >>> our bundled htp, in which case we'd need to store them
>> >> separately.
>> >>     >>>
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >> Yes, all the normalized components are in tx->parsed_uri.  This
>> >>     is what is
>> >>     >> used in ironbee to expose all the various parts like
>> >>     tx->parsed_uri->path
>> >>     >> and tx->parsed_uri->query.
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >> Also note that the hostname should now be obtained from
>> >>     >> tx->request_hostname in 0.5.
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >> -B
>> >>     >
>> >>     >
>> >>     > FYI, for an example using libhtp 0.5 see ironbee code.  This was
>> >> all
>> >>     > recently updated for 0.5.
>> >>     >
>> >>     > https://github.com/ironbee/ironbee/blob/0.7.x/modules/modhtp.c
>> >>     >
>> >>
>> >>     Will have a look.  Thanks.
>> >>
>> >>     Previously we would use tx->connp->conn->transactions to access txs
>> >>     in the state.  Now that htp_connp_t is an opaque pointer how do I
>> >>     access the txs? Tried locating helper functions to retrieve it, but
>> >> I
>> >>     didn't find any.
>> >>
>> >> It's an oversight that there isn't a helper function to retrieve
>> >> transactions on a connections. I will add one tomorrow.
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, what is your use case that you require to retrieve
>> >> transactions? I thought your code was driven by the callbacks, which >
>> >> all
>> >> come with a tx instance (via connp)? For my education, can you explain
>> >> how you process connection data?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > One of the things that we don't do out of the callbacks is logging the
>> > requests. This is one of the things we need access to the TX store for.
>> >
>>
>> And to add to it, since we already have the txs stored in a list
>> inside libhtp, re-buffering the txs would come as a redundant task,
>> from where I see it.
>>
>> --
>> Anoop Saldanha
>> _______________________________________________
>> Suricata IDS Devel mailing list: oisf-devel at openinfosecfoundation.org
>> Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Participate:
>> http://suricata-ids.org/participate/
>> List: https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-devel
>> Redmine: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan Ristić



-- 
Anoop Saldanha



More information about the Oisf-devel mailing list