Difference between revisions of "Litespeed"
(Created page with '== Does ASL work with LiteSpeed? == Partially, but the Web Application Firewall does not. LiteSpeed has a proprietary implementation of mod_security, the Web Application Firewa…') |
(→Does ASL work with LiteSpeed?) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Partially, but the Web Application Firewall does not. LiteSpeed has a proprietary implementation of mod_security, the Web Application Firewall (WAF) module we use in Apache. | Partially, but the Web Application Firewall does not. LiteSpeed has a proprietary implementation of mod_security, the Web Application Firewall (WAF) module we use in Apache. | ||
| − | Litespeeds implementation is is | + | Litespeeds implementation of mod_security is is neither a drop in replacement for the real mod_security module, nor does it support the full rule set or rule language. Because of this, it is not compatible with modern mod_security rules and can not protect against modern web attacks. |
| − | To currently support LiteSpeed we would have to significantly weaken the rules, and they would also be much slower | + | To currently support LiteSpeed we would have to significantly weaken the rules, and, ironically, they would also be much much slower using LiteSpeeds mod_security implementation. This is actually not because LiteSpeed is slower than Apache (Litespeed claims the opposite), but because the LiteSpeed WAF module does not support the new rule language in mod_security that allows us to design in massive performance enhancements. |
| − | If you want to use LiteSpeed, you will either have to forgo web application protection, or you will need to install | + | If you want to use LiteSpeed, you will either have to forgo web application protection (definitely not recommended), or you will need to install a WAF in front of LiteSpeed to get web application protection, either via a standalone WAF or an apache proxy with our WAF module included. |
| − | We do encourage you to encourage LiteSpeed to support the full mod_security rule language, and also to document their implementation - as well as to reply to our emails. We would really like to be able to support it! | + | We do encourage you to encourage LiteSpeed to support the full mod_security rule language, and also to document their implementation (we have had no luck finding any documentation on their implementation) - as well as to reply to our emails regarding their product. We would really like to be able to support it! |
Revision as of 10:05, 4 January 2011
Does ASL work with LiteSpeed?
Partially, but the Web Application Firewall does not. LiteSpeed has a proprietary implementation of mod_security, the Web Application Firewall (WAF) module we use in Apache.
Litespeeds implementation of mod_security is is neither a drop in replacement for the real mod_security module, nor does it support the full rule set or rule language. Because of this, it is not compatible with modern mod_security rules and can not protect against modern web attacks.
To currently support LiteSpeed we would have to significantly weaken the rules, and, ironically, they would also be much much slower using LiteSpeeds mod_security implementation. This is actually not because LiteSpeed is slower than Apache (Litespeed claims the opposite), but because the LiteSpeed WAF module does not support the new rule language in mod_security that allows us to design in massive performance enhancements.
If you want to use LiteSpeed, you will either have to forgo web application protection (definitely not recommended), or you will need to install a WAF in front of LiteSpeed to get web application protection, either via a standalone WAF or an apache proxy with our WAF module included.
We do encourage you to encourage LiteSpeed to support the full mod_security rule language, and also to document their implementation (we have had no luck finding any documentation on their implementation) - as well as to reply to our emails regarding their product. We would really like to be able to support it!
