HAProxy OSCP stapling possibly broken

[michaelschefczyk]

Dear PiBa,

I would be glad to. Can you please provide some hints regarding how to apply patches to packages?

Regards,

Michael

[PiBa]

@michaelschefczyk
Well trying it myself, its a bit of an issue that the patch is against 0.59_6 .. so it doesn't apply 'cleanly' against 0.59_4 ..

For now i think the easiest method is copying the whole function from here, and manually putting it into the haproxy.inc on your pfSense installation:
https://github.com/PiBa-NL/FreeBSD-ports/blob/c9eef0900f45448194cc8c83335e88eefd7e2e2b/net/pfSense-pkg-haproxy-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/haproxy/haproxy.inc#L1434
(could use diagnostics\editfile for that, or some scp program if youve enabled ssh)

[PiBa]

@michaelschefczyk
Made a PR for the whole shebang. https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/pull/547 as i'm positive the change will fix this issue..

[michaelschefczyk]

@piba
Dear PiBa,

the new version does solve the issue, as far as I can see. Thank you very much!!

When changing my configuration, I am getting warnings, however, which I did not get before (multiple of the following type):

[WARNING] 215/200912 (42317) : parsing [/var/etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg:110] : a 'http-request' rule placed after a 'redirect' rule will still be processed before.

Do you spontaneously see the issue behind this?

Regards,

Michael

[PiBa]

@michaelschefczyk
i'm not sure where you put the 'redirect' rule.? Probably as a advanced text option? You could possibly make that a 'http-request redirect' action instead? If that doesn't help ill need to see the haproxy.cfg to say more without guessing .

[michaelschefczyk]

Dear PiBa,

I find the following http-requests at various places in my frontends:

http-request set-header		X-Forwarded-Proto http if !https
http-request set-header		X-Forwarded-Proto https if https

http-request set-var(txn.txnhost) hdr(host)
http-request set-var(txn.txnpath) path

The first two seem to be a consequence of the "Use "forwardfor" option" under "Advanced settings" in the frontend. I have no clue about the other two. Do you want me to transmit the haproxy.cfg file? It might be to sensitive to paste the real production file here, however.

Regards,

Michael

[PiBa]

@michaelschefczyk
Yes the complete haproxy.cfg should help tell where the redirect warning comes from.
But indeed do obfuscate passwords/public-ip's/domainnames you don't want to disclose.

[michaelschefczyk]

Dear PiBa,

Sorry, it is long as I selfhost everything from grandmother to children, non-profit assocations, research ...

Regards,

Michael

Automaticaly generated, dont edit manually.

Generated on: 2018-08-04 20:18

global
maxconn 100000
stats socket /tmp/haproxy.socket level admin
uid 80
gid 80
nbproc 1
hard-stop-after 15m
chroot /tmp/haproxy_chroot
daemon
tune.ssl.default-dh-param 4096
server-state-file /tmp/haproxy_server_state

listen HAProxyLocalStats
bind 127.0.0.1:2200 name localstats
mode http
stats enable
stats refresh 10
stats admin if TRUE
stats show-legends
stats uri /haproxy/haproxy_stats.php?haproxystats=1
timeout client 5000
timeout connect 5000
timeout server 5000

frontend WAN1-merged
...

redirect scheme https code 301 if !{ ssl_fc }

    ...

[PiBa]

@michaelschefczyk
Looks like you configured this:

redirect scheme https code 301 if !{ ssl_fc }

And this same effect can be configured with a 'http-request redirect' action.

That would generate the line below with same effect, and it wont 'complain'. Also gives you more control about when its used exactly in relation to other http-request rules..

http-request redirect scheme https code 301  if  !{ ssl_fc } 

---

---

As for the http-request set-var(txn.txnhost) hdr(host) its setting a variable txn.txnhost that is used by the acl's: acl survey-int var(txn.txnhost) -m str -i survey.domeine.de Where previously the acl would use the hdr(Host) header directly, but would never work when used for reply-traffic with http-response rules.
And allows also to use such acl's to perform actions on reply-traffic, where the host header would not have been present.. Its a change in the package to allow for more flexibility 'out of the box'..

[michaelschefczyk]

Dear PiBa,

Again, thank you very much! The complaint did not exist in previous versions. Your way does work. Placing the statement in the "Advanced pass thru" box does work also. I would not have understood this without your explanation!

Regards,

Michael