Extending the ModSecurity WAF, with Denial Of Service protection — using HAProxy
Our long time partner Metaswitch, desperately needed to stop brute force login attacks on the enterprise phone system that they supply to large telecom companies...
Dave brings over a decade of system administration authority from IBM to his role. His expertise in high-availability systems is demonstrated through deep technical writing on essential load balancing topics: WAF (ModSecurity), GSLB, L4/L7 comparisons, backup/restore procedures, and security (Zero trust architectures). He ensures resilient infrastructure and top-tier support for a diverse range of customer environments. He also loves walking his dog, Charlie.
Our long time partner Metaswitch, desperately needed to stop brute force login attacks on the enterprise phone system that they supply to large telecom companies...
Well, do you? After all, everyone likes to have choices, don't they?..
OK, so I probably should have read the manual first... But what kind of engineer does that?!..
Getting on board with zero trust is the easy part. Actually applying these principles to your architecture is less black and white...
The first question we always ask our customers is: "are you looking for performance, reliability, maintainability — or all three?"..
It is understandable that SysAdmins, DevOps, and most in the IT and Security Departments involved want to ensure all load balancers are fully patched and protected, given that our product plays an important role in their topology...
The X-Forwarded-For Header is a simple yet powerful solution to a very common problem. I'm not sure why, but for some reason it also seems to cause a lot of confusion...
The long and short of it is, there are updates to the Linux kernel and glibc packages which will 'fix' the issue..
For several years, if an instance was launched in AWS and during the initial configuration an IAM role was not defined, the only option available was to stop/terminate the instance and launch another, however, this has now changed!..
Due to the way that PuTTY uses a signed integer variable to store the number of characters to be erased and there was inadequate checking for overflow, there was the potential for an attacker to corrupt important data in certain circumstances...
We are pretty sure Microsoft have quietly fixed this bug and not told anyone... But the story is quite fun so lets leave it here for a lesson in corporate stupidity..