Bypass "Bad unescape" in Body POST (ASM, POST, JSON)
Here the Block. As you can see is "%" is detected without encoding meaning. This is normal since the "%" is in the Body of the post as JSON data (see below) Of course if I disable the "Bad unescape" in " Learning and Blocking Settings" it works, but my Goal is to bypass using rule on parameter or similar, till now without success. Does anyone have a solution ? ======= JSON on POST Dody Request =======================F5 BIG-IP and NetApp StorageGRID - Providing Fast and Scalable S3 API for AI apps
F5 BIG-IP, an industry-leading ADC solution, can provide load balancing services for HTTPS servers, with full security applied in-flight and performance levels to meet any enterprise’s capacity targets. Specific to S3 API, the object storage and retrieval protocol that rides upon HTTPS, an aligned partnering solution exists from NetApp, which allows a large-scale set of S3 API targets to ingest and provide objects. Automatic backend synchronization allows any node to be offered up at a target by a server load balancer like BIG-IP. This allows overall storage node utilization to be optimized across the node set, and scaled performance to reach the highest S3 API bandwidth levels, all while offering high availability to S3 API consumers. S3 compatible storage is becoming popular for AI applications due to its superior performance over traditional protocols such as NFS or CIFS, as well as enabling repatriation of data from the cloud to on-prem. These are scenarios where the amount of data faced is large drive the requirement for new levels of scalability and performance; S3 compatible object storages such as NetApp StorageGRID are purpose-built to reach such levels. Sample BIG-IP and StorageGRID Configuration This document is based upon tests and measurements using the following lab configuration. All devices in the lab were virtual machine-based offerings. The S3 service to be projected to the outside world, depicted in the above diagram and delivered to the client via the external networks, will use a BIG-IP virtual server (VS) which is tied to an origin pool of three large-capacity StorageGRID nodes. The BIG-IP maintains the integrity of the NetApp nodes by frequent HTTP-based health checks. Should an unhealthy node be detected, it will be dropped from the list of active pool members. When content is written via the S3 protocol to any node in the pool, the other members are synchronized to serve up content should they be selected by BIG-IP for future read requests. The key recommendations and observations in building the lab include: Setup a local certificate authority such that all nodes can be trusted by the BIG-IP. Typically the local CA-signed certificate will incorporate every node’s FQDN and IP address within the listed subject alternate names (SAN) to make the backend solution streamlined with one single certificate. Different F5 profiles, such as FastL4 or FastHTTP, can be selected to reach the right tradeoff between the absolute capacity of stateful traffic load-balanced versus rich layer 7 functions like iRules or authentication. Modern techniques such as multi-part uploads or using HTTP Ranges for downloads can take large objects, and concurrently move smaller pieces across the load balancer, lowering total transaction times, and spreading work over more CPU cores. The S3 protocol, at its core, is a set of REST API calls. To facilitate testing, the widely used S3Browser (www.s3browser.com) was used to quickly and intuitively create S3 buckets on the NetApp offering and send/retrieve objects (files) through the BIG-IP load balancer. Setup the BIG-IP and StorageGrid Systems The StorageGrid solution is an array of storage nodes, set up with the help of an administrative host, the “Grid Manager”. For interactive users, no thick client is required as on-board web services allow a streamlined experience all through an Internet browser. The following is an example of Grid Manager, taken from a Chrome browser; one sees the three Storage Nodes setup have been successfully added. The load balancer, in our case, the BIG-IP, is set up with a virtual server to support HTTPS traffic and distributed that traffic, which is S3 object storage traffic, to the three StorageGRID nodes. The following screenshot demonstrates that the BIG-IP is setup in a standard HA (active-passive pair) configuration and the three pool members are healthy (green, health checks are fine) and receiving/sending S3 traffic, as the byte counts non-zero. On the internal side of the BIG-IP, TCP port 18082 is being used for S3 traffic. To do testing of the solution, including features such as multi-part uploads and downloads, a popular S3 tool, S3Browser was downloaded and used. The following shows the entirety of the S3Browser setup. Simply create an account (StorageGRID-Account-01 in our example) and point the REST API endpoint at the BIG-IP Virtual Server that is acting as the secure front door for our pool of NetApp nodes. The S3 Access Key ID and Secret values are generated at turn-up time of the NetApp appliances. All S3 traffic will, of course, be SSL/TLS encrypted. BIG-IP will intercept the SSL traffic (high-speed decrypt) and then re-encrypt when proxying the traffic to a selected origin pool member. Other valid load balancer setups exist; one might include an “off load” approach to SSL, whereby the S3 nodes safely co-located in a data center may prefer to receive non-SSL HTTP S3 traffic. This may see an overall performance improvement in terms of peak bandwidth per storage node, but this comes at the tradeoff of security considerations. Experimenting with S3 Protocol and Load Balancing With all the elements in place to start understanding the behavior of S3 and spreading traffic across NetApp nodes, a quick test involved creating a S3 bucket and placing some objects in that new bucket. Buckets are logical collections of objects, conceptually not that different from folders or directories in file systems. In fact, a S3 bucket could even be mounted as a folder in an operating system such as Linux. In their simplest form, most commonly, buckets can simply serve as high-capacity, performant storage, and retrieval targets for similarly themed structured or unstructured data. In the first test, we created a new bucket (“audio-clip-bucket”) and uploaded four sample files to the new bucket using S3Browser. We then zeroed the statistics for each pool member on the BIG-IP, to see if even this small upload would spread S3 traffic across more than a single NetApp device. Immediately after the upload, the counters reflect that two StorageGRID nodes were selected to receive S3 transactions. Richly detailed, per-transaction visibility can be obtained by leveraging the F5 SSL Orchestrator (SSLO) feature on the BIG-IP, whereby copies of the bi-directional S3 traffic decrypted within the load balancer can be sent to packet loggers, analytics tools, or even protocol analyzers like Wireshark. The BIG-IP also has an onboard analytics tool, Application Visibility and Reporting (AVR) which can provide some details on the nuances of the S3 traffic being proxied. AVR demonstrates the following characteristics of the above traffic, a simple bucket creation and upload of 4 objects. With AVR, one can see the URL values used by S3, which include the bucket name itself as well as transactions incorporating the object names at URLs. Also, the HTTP methods used included both GETS and PUTS. The use of HTTP PUT is expected when creating a new bucket. S3 is not governed by a typical standards body document, such as an IETF Request for Comment (RFC), but rather has evolved out of AWS and their use of S3 since 2006. For details around S3 API characteristics and nomenclature, this site can be referenced. For example, the expected syntax for creating a bucket is provided, including the fact that it should be an HTTP PUT to the root (/) URL target, with the bucket configuration parameters including name provided within the HTTP transaction body. Achieving High Performance S3 with BIG-IP and StorageGRID A common concern with protocols, such as HTTP, is head-of-line blocking, where one large, lengthy transaction blocks subsequent desired, queued transactions. This is one of the reasons for parallelism in HTTP, where loading 30 or more objects to paint a web page will often utilize two, four, or even more concurrent TCP sessions. Another performance issue when dealing with very large transactions is, without parallelism, even those most performant networks will see an established TCP session reach a maximum congestion window (CWND) where no more segments may be in flight until new TCP ACKs arrive back. Advanced TCP options like TCP exponential windowing or TCP SACK can help, but regardless of this, the achievable bandwidth of any one TCP session is bounded and may also frequently task only one core in multi-core CPUs. With the BIG-IP serving as the intermediary, large S3 transactions may default to “multi-part” uploads and downloads. The larger objects become a series of smaller objects that conveniently can be load-balanced by BIG-IP across the entire cluster of NetApp nodes. As displayed in the following diagram, we are asking for multi-part uploads to kick in for objects larger than 5 megabytes. After uploading a 20-megabyte file (technically, 20,000,000 bytes) the BIG-IP shows the traffic distributed across multiple NetApp nodes to the tune of 160.9 million bits. The incoming bits, incoming from the perspective of the origin pool members, confirm the delivery of the object with a small amount of protocol overhead (bits divided by eight to reach bytes). The value of load balancing manageable chunks of very large objects will pay dividends over time with faster overall transaction completion times due to the spreading of traffic across NetApp nodes, more TCP sessions reaching high congestion window values, and no single-core bottle necks in multicore equipment. Tuning BIG-IP for High Performance S3 Service Delivery The F5 BIG-IP offers a set of different profiles it can run via its Local Traffic Manager (LTM) module in accordance with; LTM is the heart of the server load balancing function. The most performant profile in terms of attainable traffic load is the “FastL4” profile. This, and other profiles such as “OneConnect” or “FastHTTP”, can be tied to a virtual server, and details around each profile can be found here within the BIG-IP GUI: The FastL4 profile can increase virtual server performance and throughput for supported platforms by using the embedded Packet Velocity Acceleration (ePVA) chip to accelerate traffic. TheePVA chip is a hardware acceleration field programmable gate array (FPGA) that delivers high-performance L4 throughput by offloading traffic processing to the hardware acceleration chip. The BIG-IP makes flow acceleration decisions in software and then offloads eligible flows to the ePVA chip for that acceleration. Forplatforms that do not contain the ePVA chip, the system performs acceleration actions in software. Software-only solutions can increase performance in direct relationship to the hardware offered by the underlying host. As examples of BIG-IP virtual edition (VE) software running on mid-grade hardware platforms, results with Dell can be found here and similar experiences with HPE Proliant platforms are here. One thing to note about FastL4 as the profile to underpin a performance mode BIG-IP virtual server is that it is layer 4 oriented. For certain features that involve layer 7 HTTP related fields, such as using iRules to swap HTTP headers or perform HTTP authentication, a different profile might be more suitable. A bonus of FastL4 are some interesting specific performance features catering to it. In the BIG-IP version 17 release train, there is a feature to quickly tear down, with no delay, TCP sessions no longer required. Most TCP stacks implement TCP “2MSL” rules, where upon receiving and sending TCP FIN messages, the socket enters a lengthy TCP “TIME_WAIT” state, often minutes long. This stems back to historically bad packet loss environments of the very early Internet. A concern was high latency and packet loss might see incoming packets arrive at a target very late, and the TCP state machine would be confused if no record of the socket still existed. As such, the lengthy TIME_WAIT period was adopted even though consuming on-board resources to maintain the state. With FastL4, the “fast” close with TCP reset option now exists, such that any incoming TCP FIN message observed by BIG-IP will result in TCP RESETS being sent to both endpoints, normally bypassing TIME_WAIT penalties. As mentioned, other traffic profiles on BIG-IP are directed towards Layer 7 and HTTP features. One interesting profile is F5’s “OneConnect”. The OneConnect feature set works with HTTP Keep-Alives, which allows the BIG-IP system to minimize the number of server-side TCP connections by making existing connections available for reuse by other clients. This reduces, among other things, excessive TCP 3-way handshakes (Syn, Syn-Ack, Ack) and mitigates the small TCP congestion windows that new TCP sessions start with and only increases with successful traffic delivery. Persistent server-side TCP connections ameliorate this. When a new connection is initiated to the virtual server, if an existing server-side flow to the pool member is idle, the BIG-IP system applies the OneConnect source mask to the IP address in the request to determine whether it is eligible to reuse the existing idle connection. If it is eligible, the BIG-IP system marks the connection as non-idle and sends a client request over it. If the request is not eligible for reuse, or an idle server-side flow is not found, the BIG-IP system creates a new server-side TCP connection and sends client requests over it. The last profile considered is the “Fast HTTP” profile. The Fast HTTP profile is designed to speed up certain types of HTTP connections and reduce the number of connections opened to the back-end HTTP servers. This is accomplished by combining features from the TCP, HTTP, and OneConnect profiles into a single profile that is optimized for network performance. A resulting high performance HTTP virtual server processes connections on a packet-by-packet basis and buffers only enough data to parse packet headers. The performance HTTP virtual server TCP behavior operates as follows: the BIG-IP system establishes server-side flows by opening TCP connections to pool members. When a client makes a connection to the performance HTTP virtual server, if an existing server-side flow to the pool member is idle, the BIG-IP LTM system marks the connection as non-idle and sends a client request over the connection. Summary The NetApp StorageGRID multi-node S3 compatible object storage solution fits well with a high-performance server load balancer, thus making the F5 BIG-IP a good fit. S3 protocol can itself be adjusted to improve transaction response times, such as through the use of multi-part uploads and downloads, amplifying the default load balancing to now spread even more traffic chunks over many NetApp nodes. BIG-IP has numerous approaches to configuring virtual servers, from highest performance L4-focused profiles to similar offerings that retain L7 HTTP awareness. Lab testing was accomplished using the S3Browser utility and results of traffic flows were confirmed with both the standard BIG-IP GUI and the additional AVR analytics module, which provides additional protocol insight.
Check how long it takes for a request to switch from a pool member to another if one is not available
Hello there :) I'm trying to find out how long it takes a request to switch from a pool member to another if one is not available. For example : I have a configuration for load balancing that includes a pool with 2 members (A and B) Let's say Server 'A' is unable to handle a request, and so it should be transfered to Server 'B'. Is there any way to check the duration of this switch? How long it takes for the request to be transfered from A to B after A becomes unavailable? Thank you!
Unable to login with Certificate Manager local user
I've created a local user account with the Certificate Manager role on All partitions - and have enabled tmsh access. However, when I attempt to login with this account - either GUI or SSH - I am receiving a login failed message. We don't have any password enforcement in place and access restrictions are tied to the RFC1918 address space, so that is not coming into play. We have remote auth (TACACS) enabled with fallback to local and other local accounts are able to login successfully. Thoughts? Version: 17.1.1.2 Username - cert-mgr Role - Certificate Manager Partition: All Terminal Access: tmsh Wed Sep 11 10:51:20 CDT 2024 cert-mgr 0-0 httpd(pam_audit): User=cert-mgr tty=(unknown) host=x.x.x.x failed to login after 1 attempts (start="Wed Sep 11 10:51:18 2024" end="Wed Sep 11 10:51:20 2024").: Wed Sep 11 11:00:20 CDT 2024 cert-mgr 0-0 httpd(pam_audit): User=cert-mgr tty=(unknown) host=x.x.x.x failed to login after 1 attempts (start="Wed Sep 11 11:00:18 2024" end="Wed Sep 11 11:00:20 2024").:VIPTest: Rapid Application Testing for F5 Environments
VIPTest is a Python-based tool for efficiently testing multiple URLs in F5 environments, allowing quick assessment of application behavior before and after configuration changes. It supports concurrent processing, handles various URL formats, and provides detailed reports on HTTP responses, TLS versions, and connectivity status, making it useful for migrations and routine maintenance.Intermediate iRules: Nested Conditionals
Conditionals are a pretty standard tool in every programmer's toolbox. They are the functions that allow us to decided when we want certain actions to happen, based on, well, conditions that can be determined within our code. This concept is as old as compilers. Chances are, if you're writing code, you're going to be using a slew of these things, even in an Event based language like iRules. iRules is no different than any other programming/scripting language when it comes to conditionals; we have them. Sure how they're implemented and what they look like change from language to language, but most of the same basic tools are there: if, else, switch, elseif, etc. Just about any example that you might run across on DevCentral is going to contain some example of these being put to use. Learning which conditional to use in each situation is an integral part to learning how to code effectively. Once you have that under control, however, there's still plenty more to learn. Now that you're comfortable using a single conditional, what about starting to combine them? There are many times when it makes more sense to use a pair or more of conditionals in place of a single conditional along with logical operators. For example: if { [HTTP::host] eq "bob.com" and [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri1" } { pool pool1 } elseif { [HTTP::host] eq "bob.com" and [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri2" } { pool pool2 } elseif { [HTTP::host] eq "bob.com" and [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri3" } { pool pool3 } Can be re-written to use a pair of conditionals instead, making it far more efficient. To do this, you take the common case shared among the example strings and only perform that comparison once, and only perform the other comparisons if that result returns as desired. This is more easily described as nested conditionals, and it looks like this: if { [HTTP::host] eq "bob.com" } { if {[HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri1" } { pool pool1 } elseif {[HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri2" } { pool pool2 } elseif {[HTTP::uri] starts_with "/uri3" } { pool pool3 } } These two examples are logically equivalent, but the latter example is far more efficient. This is because in all the cases where the host is not equal to "bob.com", no other inspection needs to be done, whereas in the first example, you must perform the host check three times, as well as the uri check every single time, regardless of the fact that you could have stopped the process earlier. While basic, this concept is important in general when coding. It becomes exponentially more important, as do almost all optimizations, when talking about programming in iRules. A script being executed on a server firing perhaps once per minute benefits from small optimizations. An iRule being executed somewhere in the order of 100,000 times per second benefits that much more. A slightly more interesting example, perhaps, is performing the same logical nesting while using different operators. In this example we'll look at a series of if/elseif statements that are already using nesting, and take a look at how we might use the switch command to even further optimize things. I've seen multiple examples of people shying away from switch when nesting their logic because it looks odd to them or they're not quite sure how it should be structured. Hopefully this will help clear things up. First, the example using if statements: when HTTP_REQUEST { if { [HTTP::host] eq "secure.domain.com" } { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" pool sslServers } elseif { [HTTP::host] eq "www.domain.com" } { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" pool httpServers } elseif { [HTTP::host] ends_with "domain.com" and [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/secure"} { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" pool sslServers } elseif {[HTTP::host] ends_with "domain.com" and [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/login"} { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" pool httpServers } elseif { [HTTP::host] eq "intranet.myhost.com" } { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" pool internal } } As you can see, this is completely functional and would do the job just fine. There are definitely some improvements that can be made, though. Let's try using a switch statement instead of several if comparisons for improved performance. To do that, we're going to have to use an if nested inside a switch comparison. While this might be new to some or look a bit odd if you're not used to it, it's completely valid and often times the most efficient you’re going to get. This is what the above code would look like cleaned up and put into a switch: when HTTP_REQUEST { HTTP::header insert "Client-IP:[IP::client_addr]" switch -glob [HTTP::host] { "secure.domain.com" { pool sslServers } "www.domain.com" { pool httpServers } "*.domain.com" { if { [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/secure" } { pool sslServers } else { pool httpServers } } "intranet.myhost.com" { pool internal } } } As you can see this is not only easier to read and maintain, but it will also prove to be more efficient. We've moved to the more efficient switch structure, we've gotten rid of the repeat host comparisons that were happening above with the /secure vs /login uris, and while I was at it I got rid of all those examples of inserting a header, since that was happening in every case anyway. Hopefully the benefit this technique can offer is clear, and these examples did the topic some justice. With any luck, you'll nest those conditionals with confidence now.How to get a F5 BIG-IP VE Developer Lab License
(applies to BIG-IP TMOS Edition) To assist DevOps teams improve their development for the BIG-IP platform, F5 offers a low cost developer lab license.This license can be purchased from your authorized F5 vendor. If you do not have an F5 vendor, you can purchase a lab license online: CDW BIG-IP Virtual Edition Lab License CDW Canada BIG-IP Virtual Edition Lab License Once completed, the order is sent to F5 for fulfillment and your license will be delivered shortly after via e-mail. F5 is investigating ways to improve this process. To download the BIG-IP Virtual Edition, please log into downloads.f5.com (separate login from DevCentral), and navigate to your appropriate virtual edition, example: For VMware Fusion or Workstation or ESX/i:BIGIP-16.1.2-0.0.18.ALL-vmware.ova For Microsoft HyperV:BIGIP-16.1.2-0.0.18.ALL.vhd.zip KVM RHEL/CentoOS: BIGIP-16.1.2-0.0.18.ALL.qcow2.zip Note: There are also 1 Slot versions of the above images where a 2nd boot partition is not needed for in-place upgrades. These images include_1SLOT- to the image name instead of ALL. The below guides will help get you started with F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition to develop for VMWare Fusion, AWS, Azure, VMware, or Microsoft Hyper-V. These guides follow standard practices for installing in production environments and performance recommendations change based on lower use/non-critical needs fo Dev/Lab environments. Similar to driving a tank, use your best judgement. DeployingF5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition on VMware Fusion Deploying F5 BIG-IP in Microsoft Azure for Developers Deploying F5 BIG-IP in AWS for Developers Deploying F5 BIG-IP in Windows Server Hyper-V for Developers Deploying F5 BIG-IP in VMware vCloud Director and ESX for Developers Note: F5 Support maintains authoritativeAzure, AWS, Hyper-V, and ESX/vCloud installation documentation. VMware Fusion is not an official F5-supported hypervisor so DevCentral publishes the Fusion guide with the help of our Field Systems Engineering teams.F5 BIG-IP deployment with Red Hat OpenShift - keeping client IP addresses and egress flows
Controlling the egress traffic in OpenShift allows to use the BIG-IPfor several use cases: Keeping the source IP of the ingress clients Providing highly scalable SNAT for egress flows Providing security functionalities for egress flows
