sqlmapproject / sqlmap

Automatic SQL injection and database takeover tool
http://sqlmap.org
Other
32.49k stars 5.71k forks source link

Multiple WAF identification #2806

Closed Ekultek closed 6 years ago

Ekultek commented 6 years ago

What's the problem (or question)?

Not entirely sure if this is an issue, but it is somewhat of an annoyance, identifying multiple WAF's in one run

Do you have an idea for a solution?

Only identify a single WAF at a time instead of multiple, since only one is going to be blocking the request, and the other will be a backup for further requests

How can we reproduce the issue?

n/a

What are the running context details?

My idea is to only identify the WAF that is blocking the request at that time, and identify the secondary WAF if one exists when it starts blocking the requests (might be somewhat ambiguous)

stamparm commented 6 years ago

With the latest patch solved the issue with "BIG-IP". As of "multiple WAF" identification, some users prefer to find out which protection layers are in between.

I agree with you that only the reactive one should be identified. Please report back if you see any other case (like the BIG-IP) in future and I'll try to "patch" it accordingly.

Ekultek commented 6 years ago

On top of this, what if you checked the length of the retval before outputting and warned that multiple firewall instances have been found, and only output the first tested? del retval[retval.index(retval[1])] so that only one is considered (you also have the PRIORITY so you could use that to your advantage?

On second thought this might be a lot of work, not sure if you're WAF retval is a list or string..

stamparm commented 6 years ago

You are over-complicating this. Those tests are just indicators. Not sure what's the current problem, if any.

Sorry, stays as it is.

Ekultek commented 6 years ago

Fair enough, thank man

On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Miroslav Stampar notifications@github.com wrote:

You are over-complicating this. Those tests are just indicators. Not sure what's the current problem, if any.

Sorry, stays as it is.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.