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

Decouple stream bypass from TLS encrypted bypass v9.2 #12655

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lukashino
Copy link
Contributor

Following up on #12573

Redmine ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6788

Describe changes:
v9.2:

  • rebased

v9.1:

  • separated mixed changes into their respective commits

v9:

  • changed mutex to atomicu8 for SSH encryption handling choice
  • rebased

v8.1:

  • specify the correct SV test

v8:

v7

  • Style guide changes as suggested in the prev PR
  • Encryption Handling has now three states, similar to TLS
  • rebased

v6

  • rebased

v5

  • rebased
  • added upgrade section
  • fixed docs - Thanks Juliana
  • SV tests should pass now

v4

  • rebased
  • changed SSH bypass defaults to hopefully be in sync with the previous settings

v3

  • added SSH app-layer option encryption-handling allowing to choose whether to continue inspection on SSH once it turns encrypted
  • added SV tests
  • minor docs updates

SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2315

Lukas Sismis and others added 4 commits February 22, 2025 10:11
Decouple app.protocols.tls.encryption-handling and stream.bypass.
There's no apparent reason why encrypted TLS bypass traffic should
depend on stream bypass, as these are unrelated features.

Ticket: 6788
@lukashino
Copy link
Contributor Author

digging up a comment from PR #12388 :

@catenacyber wrote:

@victorjulien could I review this ? (asking since you self-assigned yourself)

I want to dig into the QA diff and the explanation of it in the previous version especially...

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.77%. Comparing base (3bc2a14) to head (0008355).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12655   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.77%   80.77%           
=======================================
  Files         932      932           
  Lines      259517   259549   +32     
=======================================
+ Hits       209629   209661   +32     
  Misses      49888    49888           
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 56.97% <42.50%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
livemode 19.36% <12.50%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
pcap 44.15% <42.50%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
suricata-verify 63.51% <82.05%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittests 58.31% <42.50%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@suricata-qa
Copy link

WARNING:

field baseline test %
SURI_TLPR1_stats_chk
.uptime 637 670 105.18%
.flow.end.state.local_bypassed 26015 17671 67.93%
IPS_AFP_stats_chk
.flow.end.state.local_bypassed 1080 0 -
.flow_bypassed.local_pkts 25920 0 -
.flow_bypassed.local_bytes 2833920 0 -

Pipeline 24863

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants