Decouple stream bypass from TLS encrypted bypass v4 #11831
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
Decouple app.protocols.tls.encryption-handling and stream.bypass. There's no apparent reason why encrypted TLS bypass traffic should depend on stream bypass, as these are unrelated features. Ticket: 6788
lukashino
requested review from
catenacyber,
jufajardini,
victorjulien and
a team
as code owners
|
NOTE: This PR may contain new authors. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #11831 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.57% 79.06% -3.51%
==========================================
Files 912 912
Lines 249357 249203 -154
==========================================
- Hits 205918 197044 -8874
- Misses 43439 52159 +8720
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 22800 |
lukashino
changed the title
|
We also need an addition to the upgrade section, I think. |
|
Blocked by issues in the SV test |
jufajardini
requested changes
Oct 3, 2024
| The TLS and SSH app layer parsers have the ability to stop processing | ||
| encrypted traffic after the initial handshake. By setting the | ||
| `app-layer.protocols.tls.encryption-handling` and | ||
| `app-layer.protocols.tls.encryption-handling` options to `bypass` Suricata |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| `app-layer.protocols.tls.encryption-handling` options to `bypass` Suricata | |
| `app-layer.protocols.ssh.encryption-handling` options to `bypass` Suricata |
Comment on lines
+936
to
+941
| # What to do when the encrypted communications start: | ||
| # - bypass: stop processing this flow as much as possible. | ||
| # Offload flow bypass to kernel or hardware if possible. | ||
| # - full: keep tracking and inspection as normal | ||
| # | ||
| # encryption-handling: bypass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we indicate here what is the default?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the behavior here the same as we have for tls, or is there a difference?
|
goto #11886 |
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.
Following up on #11801
Redmine ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6788
Describe changes:
v4
v3
encryption-handlingallowing to choose whether to continue inspection on SSH once it turns encryptedSV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2047