Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Moved --> keyword from 941180 (PL1) into new stricter sibling rule 941181 (PL2) #2082

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

53cur3M3
Copy link
Contributor

Fix for False Positive #2060, at paranoia level 1, caused by matching of "-->".
Moved --> keyword from 941180 (PL1) into new stricter sibling rule 941181 (PL2)

@dune73 dune73 changed the title Paul Beckett Fix FP #2060. Moved --> keyword from 941180 (PL1) into new stricter s… … 2ad1bdf …ibling rule 941181 (PL2) Moved --> keyword from 941180 (PL1) into new stricter sibling rule 941181 (PL2) May 18, 2021
@dune73
Copy link
Member

dune73 commented May 18, 2021

Cool. Thank you for your contribution.

Would you mind creating a test or two for 941181? See the stuff in tests/regression.

Happy to merge afterwards.

@dune73
Copy link
Member

dune73 commented May 18, 2021

@fzipi it looks like lint does not like contains or --> very much. The test failed. Would you mind taking a peek?

@airween
Copy link
Contributor

airween commented May 18, 2021

@fzipi it looks like lint does not like contains or --> very much. The test failed. Would you mind taking a peek?

PR has sent :).

@azurit
Copy link
Member

azurit commented May 18, 2021

I think you should remove blacklist keyword replacement until issue #2083 is discussed.

@dune73
Copy link
Member

dune73 commented May 18, 2021

In the spirit of keeping things separate, I agree with @azurit that this PR should only do the rules split, now that we have a separate issue and a PR to implement this shift.

@dune73
Copy link
Member

dune73 commented May 18, 2021

Following the merging of secrules_parsing PR 17 we seem to have a new regression with lint on the Webshells response rules.

@airween and @fzipi, could you please check this?

@airween
Copy link
Contributor

airween commented May 18, 2021

Following the merging of secrules_parsing PR 17 we seem to have a new regression with lint on the Webshells response rules.

@airween and @fzipi, could you please check this?

sorry, it's in working progress.

@dune73
Copy link
Member

dune73 commented May 19, 2021

So we're fine with regards to lint again. Thank you for the quick reaction, @airween and @fzipi.

@53cur3M3
Copy link
Contributor Author

Replaced by pull request 2088

@53cur3M3 53cur3M3 closed this May 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants