# Rewriting URLs with Nginx

|

## Summary

In my post HTTPS for Multiple domains using GitHub pages, I was originally using a HTML file with a meta redirect. While this technique does work, I discovered a very annoying flaw. Anyone that had an old, or non-ssl link was redirected to the home page instead of the page or post they wanted. This isn’t a delightful experience so I started doing some research to find a better path.

Fortunately, there’s an easy way to redirect without breaking the links. Nginx refers to this as url rewriting. They have a handy post on creating rewrite rules that I followed to fix my issue.

I removed the root, index, and location sections of my nginx config and replaced it with a config similar to this:

server {
listen 80;
listen 443 ssl;
server_name old-name www.old-name.com;
return 301 $scheme://new-name.com$request_uri;
}


Note: I did change \$scheme from the last line to https as I want to force SSL for all the sites.

## Closing

While these aren’t step-by-step directions, hopefully it’s enough for someone else to solve the same problem I had. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to contact me: @jamesmassardo

# Rego Unit Testing

|

## Summary

This post is going to outline some basics, interesting tidbits, and caveats on unit testing rego policies.

## Unit tests

Let’s start with an obvious question. What is a unit test? Compared to some of the other types of testing in tech, this one is pretty self-explanatory. A unit test is a way to test individual components (or units) of a system. For example, if we had a rego policy that is supposed to deny requests that allow port 80, we’d write a unit test that sent an input that included that port with the expectation that we’d get a deny message back. This gives us a way to validate our policies without having to deploy them to a real system. It also gives us a way to validate that policy changes don’t introduce any insecurities into our environment.

Generally speaking, unit tests are only needed for custom logic and shouldn’t be used for prebuilt rules/functions of a tool. Also, while we’re making general assumptions, do not strive for 100% test coverage. If you are using a provided library (e.g. Styra DAS), the provider already does testing so there’s no need to repeat it. Unit tests can also add considerable delays to CI/CD when testing new policy changes.

## Example

Let’s take a look at an example policy. This policy allows requests to POST to the users path.

# example.rego

package authz

allow {
input.path == ["users"]
input.method == "POST"
}


Now let’s take a look at the accompanying unit test.

# example_test.rego

test_post_allowed {
allow with input as {"path": ["users"], "method": "POST"}
}


Let’s break this down.

• We have a test definition named test_post_allowed
• The test calls the specific policy definition and passes input to it.
• allow is the name of the policy definition
• with is a rego keyword that allows queries to access values in an input object.
• {"path": ["users"], "method": "POST"} is the test data being used as the input.

You can also store more complex data in a variable in the test definition.

test_post_allowed {
in := {"path": ["users"], "method": "POST"}
allow with input as in
}


Now that we have a test, let’s actually run it. Let’s look at two ways we can accomplish this.

• Here’s our example in Rego Playground. It’s easy enough, load the page and click Evaluate.
• Now let’s try it with OPA.
• Let’s put our policy definition in a file example.rego and our test definition in a file example_test.rego
• Now let’s execute the tests by running:
% opa test . -v
data.authz.test_post_allowed: PASS (3.697875ms)


## Testing conventions

There are a few conventions for writing rego tests.

• Tests should be named <policyname>_test.rego. E.g. if your policy is ingress.rego, then your test should be named ingress_test.rego
• All definitions in the test file should start with test_ have a descriptive name. E.g. if your policy definition is allow {...}, then your test might be named test_post_allowed {...}

## Unit testing in Styra DAS

If you are using Styra DAS there are a couple things to consider. The main thing is all of the policy definitions are summed up into a single policy. Let’s take a look at an example.

Here we have 2 definitions, but notice that both at named enforce. Recall that with our unit tests, we call the definition by name to execute a test.

enforce[decision] {
not excludedNamespaces[input.request.namespace]
data.library.v1.kubernetes.admission.workload.v1.block_privileged_mode[message]

decision := {
"allowed": false,
"message": message
}
}

enforce[decision] {
data.library.v1.kubernetes.admission.audit.v1.require_auditsink[message]

decision := {
"allowed": false,
"message": message
}
}


So how do we test this? Well, we have options:

1. Don’t write any tests at all. Since we’re only consuming pre-built content, there’s really no value in writing tests.
2. Write your tests so they test the policy as a whole. Provide “known good” input data in the test so all the definitions pass. This way, if a definition is changed, the test will fail.
3. If we really need to test individual definitions, we can give them specific names so we can call them separately. We lose some of the GUI functionality in DAS by doing this as the definitions become completely custom and not DAS managed. We also need to add an additional definition to include the result of our now custom one into the main DAS policy.

Let’s look at an example of the last option. We’ll use the same enforce definitions above but rename them so we can test them individually.

block_priv_mode[decision] {
data.library.v1.kubernetes.admission.workload.v1.block_privileged_mode[message]

decision := {
"allowed": false,
"message": message
}
}

require_audit[decision] {
data.library.v1.kubernetes.admission.audit.v1.require_auditsink[message]

decision := {
"allowed": false,
"message": message
}
}

enforce[decision] {
block_priv_mode[decision]
}

enforce[decision] {
require_audit[decision]
}


If you’re wondering why there are two enforce rules, remember that in Rego, multiple definitions with the same name act as an OR. In this case, we’re saying that we want enforce to be true if either block_priv_mode OR require_audit are true.

Now that we’ve got our DAS policy structured in a way that allows individual unit testing, let’s look at an example test.

Two things to note:

• On the second line, we import rules package.
• Since our rules package is imported as rules, we need to use that namespace to call the definitions we want to test. In this example, we use rules.block_priv_mode.
package policy["com.styra.kubernetes.validating"].test.test

import data.policy["com.styra.kubernetes.validating"].rules.rules

test_block_priv_mode {
in := {
"kind": "AdmissionReview",
"request": {
"kind": {
"kind": "Pod",
"version": "v1"
},
"object": {
"metadata": {
"name": "myapp"
},
"spec": {
"containers": [
{
"image": "nginx:0.1.0",
"name": "nginx-frontend",
"securityContext": {
"privileged": false
}
},
]
}
}
}
}

actual := rules.block_priv_mode with input as in
count(actual) == 0
}


## Closing

Hopefully this post has been helpful getting started. The Open Policy Agent documentation has a lot more info on policy testing

If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to contact me: @jamesmassardo

# HTTPS for Multiple domains using GitHub pages

|

## Summary

UPDATE:3/16/2021 I found a very annoying bug with this deployment pattern. See the update here: Rewriting URLs with Nginx

In today’s modern Internet, nearly all browsers show a big warning when viewing an insecure/non-ssl site. If you own a single domain name and use GitHub Pages to host your site, this is a simple matter to resolve. One can easily navigate to the project settings (https://github.com/<USERNAME>/<USERNAME>.github.io/) and tick the Enforce HTTPS setting.

So what happens if you own multiple domains that point to the same site? Now we have a bit of a mess to untangle.

If this was a high volume or mission-critical site, I would use fit-for-purpose tooling with load balancers, CDNs, geo-redundant hosts, etc. But what about a simple page that doesn’t get a lot of traffic?

How can we do it on the cheap?

## Problem

Let’s take a look at my needs:

• My primary site, dxrf.com, is Jekyll based and is hosted as a GitHub Pages site.
• I own 4 different domains that have served in various capacities over the years. As it stands right now, I want all 4 to redirect to my primary site.
• I want SSL certificates in place so HTTPS requests are redirected without warning/errors
• Low cost. I don’t mind paying a few bucks for my needs but I don’t want any expensive load balancers, app gateways, or CDN subscriptions.
• I want to learn something through the process.

## Solution

I settled on running a micro VM in a cloud subscription with Nginx serving redirects. The VM is super cheap, can handle multiple domains, and Nginx is compatible with Certbot so I automate the SSL enrollment/renewal process.

Let’s look at the high level steps needed. This assumes you have GitHub pages working with your primary custom domain.

1. Provision VM with public IP address and ports 80-443 open
2. Install Nginx and provision virtual hosts for each domain name (Virtual Server How-to)
3. in the virtual host root directory /var/www/domain.tld/html, create an index.html page with a meta-refresh (see example below) - Don’t do this…
4. Update apex and www DNS records to point to VM’s public IP.
5. Run Certbot to generate SSL certificates

Don’t use this refresh, use the url rewrite from the link above

Example index.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Redirecting to https://dxrf.com</title>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; URL=https://dxrf.com">
</head>

<link rel="canonical" href="https://dxrf.com">
</html>


## Notes/To-do’s

There are a few caveats to this pattern a few things I still need to iron out.

• If the VM goes down, all but the primary domain will stop working as there’s nothing to redirect the request. If downtime isn’t something your site can tolerate, consider other hosting methods/patterns.
• Let’s Encrypt certificates are only good for 90 days so we’ll need something to auto-renew
• Since this is a single VM exposed to the Internet, make sure it stays up to date to reduce the risk of someone hijacking your server and sending your traffic elsewhere (or worse, making your site serve malware).

To-do List

• Automate VM and cloud infra provisioning (e.g. terraform)
• Automate Nginx config (e.g. chef/ansible)
• Automate certbot auto-renewal
• Add Nginx config to redirect 404’s to primary site (e.g. http://www.otherdomain.com/FileThatDoesntExist.html -> https://dxrf.com) - DONE

## Closing

While these aren’t step-by-step directions, hopefully it’s enough for someone else to solve the same problem I had. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to contact me: @jamesmassardo

# Habitat pipelines in Azure DevOps

|

## Summary

I’ve been doing some work related to building and deploying Habitat artifacts using Azure DevOps so I thought I’d blog the basic steps so future me can set it up again…

## Notes

For this post, I’ll be storing my code in GitHub then using the pipeline components in ADO. Also, we’ll be using ADO’s new Multi-stage pipelines for these examples as they let us store all of our steps in a single yml file.

While the pipelines are stored in a single yml file, there are really two main parts: Build and Deployment. The build tasks are handled in a single stage while the deployment tasks are broken into three separate stages. This gives us the ability to follow a standard dev, stage, prod deployment model.

The build stage is very simple. It uses the Habitat extension for almost all its steps. The three deployment stages only differ in one spot. The DeployToDev stage performs a hab pkg upload... while the DeployToStg and DeployToProd stages execute a hab pkg promote ... for their respective channels.

The pipelines are generic as they source the last_build.ps1/last_build.env files from the build. This allows us to pull the artifact name and the package identifier from the build.

## Usage

To consume these pipelines, copy the appropriate yml file from this repository into the root of your project. See my Wildfly repo for an example. The Habitat extension expects the hab specific components to be in a habitat/ subdirectory within your project.

## Example

Let’s walk through an example. Before we get to the actual ADO setup, let’s do a couple prep steps.

• First, we need to make sure our repo is set up correctly.
• The generally accepted best practice is to put your Habitat related files in a habitat/ subdirectory.
• We also need to put our azure-pipelines.yml file in the root of our repo.
├── README.md
├── azure-pipelines.yml
└── habitat
├── config
│   ├── standalone.conf
│   └── wildfly.xml
├── default.toml
├── hooks
│   ├── init
│   └── run
└── plan.sh


NOTE: Here are the links to the example repo and the example pipeline files.

Cool. Now that we have our source repo tuned up, let’s move onto setting up the ADO bits.

• If this is your first foray into ADO, you’ll need to create an organization first.
• Now that we have an org, let’s create a project. Click on the New Project button.
• Name your project, select the appropriate visibility, and click Create.
• Since BLDR requires signing keys and a token to build and upload packages, we need to give that info to ADO.
• Click on the Project Settings in the lower left corner, then scroll down and select Service Connections.
• Most of these attributes should be straightforward. The only one that isn’t obvious is the Revision. It’s the timestamp bit in your public key.

NOTE: You may be wondering about the connection name. You aren’t required to use bldr for the name, however, I would recommend that you make it something very obvious. If you do elect to use something different, you’ll need to edit your azure-pipelines.yml file and update the tasks that reference the bldr Habitat Origin.

• The final prep step is to create the pipeline environments. Since we’re doing a three stage deployment, we’ll need to create three environments. The reason being, environments have the option for a manual approval check. We want the pipeline to build and automatically promote the new package to our dev channel, but we don’t want it to immediately promote to stg or prod without approval.
• On the left-hand sidebar, hover over pipelines, the click Environments.
• Click New environment, type in devthen click create. Repeat for stg and prod.
• Click on the stg environment, then click the vertical ellipsis icon in the top right, and select Checks.
• Click the Create button, select the appropriate user, then click the Create button.
• Repeat for the Prod environment.

We’re almost there, the final steps set up the actual pipeline.

• Now click on Pipelines from the left-hand sidebar, then click Create Pipeline
• As you can see, we have several options:
• In our case, we’ll select GitHub (YAML). Then select our Wildfly repo.
• Since we already added the azure-pipelines.yml file to our repo earlier, there’s actually very little to do on the Review screen. I normally skim the code to make sure there aren’t any errors from ADO’s linter. If everything looks good, go ahead and click Run.
• From here, we should see the pipeline kick off and start a build of our package.

## Closing

Hopefully, you’ve found a couple things that will help you be successful. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to contact me: @jamesmassardo

# Effectively Managing Audits and Compliance

|

## Summary

Greetings! Today, I’ll be sharing some of my experiences working with audit and compliance. In a previous life, I was responsible for providing compliance data and responses for a portion of multiple internal audits and external examinations.

## Discussion

In my experience, audits are really about proving that you did what you said you were going to do. There are sets of standards but they are really only guidance, it’s up to each individual company to define their specific policies. For example, the standard may say that all critical patches must be applied within 30 days of release. However, a company can reclassify a critical browser patch to a lower criticality if they have a mitigating control, like no internet access in the datacenter.

So how do we define what we’re going to do? What I’ve found to be most successful is having the following:

• Policies - These define what you will and won’t do. I.e. All critical patches are installed within 30 days of release, or Administrative user passwords are rotated every 90 days.
• Processes - These are normally a visual representation of your procedures. This is also a good place to show any dependencies on other teams and/or processes.
• Procedures - These define how you do things. These should be step by step and provide detail on everything to complete the task.
• Mitigating controls - This is where you provide additional detail about anything you may have that would lessen the risk and/or attack surface.
• Reporting/Validation - Have reports or accessible data that demonstrates your compliance. Also, have documentation for how the report is produced and validated. I.e. Here’s the source code repository for the report code and the profiles that collect the data.

Story time. A few years ago, we had a new external examiner come in to review some of our processes. We gave him the reports that we had automated and they weren’t in the format he wanted. He told us that we’d had to run his data collection script or we wouldn’t pass because our reports weren’t acceptable. He handed me a USB stick with a set of batch files and VB scripts. I told him we’d need to peer review the script and do some testing with it before we could run it.

He got mad and demanded that we run it THAT day or we would fail. Needless to say, this didn’t sit well with us. I asked him “So you want us to take an untrusted USB drive and plug it into a server in our PCI datacenter; then you want us to run an untested, unverified script without following our peer review/ code testing process; and you want us to violate our change management processes by deploying something straight to production without following our deployment process?”

It was quite funny to watch him look for a hole to crawl in as he realized that there were multiple directors and sr. directors in the room and he had lost all of his credibility.

I’ve had other auditors and examiners push folks to see if they will hold to their processes but some will try to push you around just because they think they can.

## Implementation

For the policies and procedures, I normally keep these in documents that support change tracking (Word Docs stored in SharePoint or Google Docs). This allows you to show changes over time in your docs. It also allows you to show the auditor/examiner that you regularly update documentation.

The same things apply to the process docs/diagrams as well. I’ve used Visio, Draw.io, and LucidChart but any tool should work. Standard flow charts work for some processes but in general, I’ve found that cross-functional flow charts (sometimes called swimlanes) work the best as they allow you to accurately represent how requests flow between the various teams. These have a tremendous value outside of the audit process as well. It helps all the teams involved understand their parts. It also helps when you onboard new employees. It’s easy for them to understand how work gets done.

In larger enterprises, mitigating controls are normally tracked along with the risk acceptance documentation in a GRC tool. For smaller organizations, you can track these in documents and store it with your other documentation. Really, the main thing is to explicitly call out the specific requirement (i.e. PCI 6.1) and identify what you’re changing and why you’re changing.

For the reporting piece, a code driven process is definitely a plus. Store the profiles you use to test the audit items version control. Follow a standardized SDLC process. Use this information to demonstrate your processes.

Example:

• Profile changes are stored in version control
• Changes are peer reviewed before merging
• Changes follow an approval process to merge
• Merged changes flow through a standardized pipeline that requires testing/validation
• After testing, changes have an approval process for release to production.

With this, you can show that every change was tracked, reviewed, and had the appropriate approvals.

One other recommendation is to track the requirement information in the metadata of the control/test. This allows you to quickly find information about a specific control when you are working with the auditor/examiner.

Metadata example:

control 'sshd-8' do
impact 0.6
title 'Server: Configure the service port'
desc 'Always specify which port the SSH server should listen.'
desc 'rationale', 'This ensures that there are no unexpected settings' # Requires Chef InSpec >=2.3.4
tag 'ssh','sshd','openssh-server'
tag cce: 'CCE-27072-8'
ref 'NSA-RH6-STIG - Section 3.5.2.1', url: 'https://www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/os/redhat/rhel5-guide-i731.pdf'

describe sshd_config do
its('Port') { should cmp 22 }
end
end


## Closing

In closing, be prepared, be confident, and be thorough and you’ll do fine. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to contact me: @jamesmassardo