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

next/703/20250128/v1 #12492

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jan 28, 2025
Merged

Conversation

coledishington and others added 10 commits January 28, 2025 09:32
If a Suricata inline IPS device is routing traffic over a
non-encrypted tunnel, like IPv6 tunnels, packets in a flow
will be dropped and not be matched. e.g.

The following example is a Suricata inline IPS with an IPv6 tunnel:
request: IPv4]ICMP] -> |IPS| -> IPv6]IPv4]ICMP]
reply:              <- |IPS| <- IPv6]IPv4]ICMP]
Both the IPv4 request and IPv6 reply will be seen by Suricata on
ingress. The flows will not be matched due to flow recursion level.

Optionally use pkt recursion level in flow hash. Excluding recursion
level in flow hash allows matching of packet flows and defrag on an
inline IPS Suricata scenario where the IPS device is a tunnel
terminator.

Feature: 6260
In preparation of libhtp rust
In preparation of libhtp rust
In preparation of libhtp rust
In preparation of libhtp rust
In preparation of libhtp rust
In preparation of libhtp rust

Mainly using htp_header_value_ptr and htp_header_value_len
when possible
In preparation of libhtp rust

Mainly adding some const
In preparation of libhtp rust
Add documentation about the rule types introduced by commit
2696fda.

Add doc tags around code definitions that are referenced in the docs.

Task #https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7031
@victorjulien victorjulien requested review from jufajardini and a team as code owners January 28, 2025 11:20
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 28, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.00000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.58%. Comparing base (53abe1e) to head (a2905ae).
Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #12492      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.55%   80.58%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         925      925              
  Lines      259303   259313      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits       208886   208955      +69     
+ Misses      50417    50358      -59     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 56.14% <83.33%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
livemode 19.40% <4.76%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
pcap 44.24% <69.04%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 63.38% <86.90%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
unittests 58.44% <32.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

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

Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks consistent with approved PRs, good SV branch for test, green CI

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 24392

@victorjulien victorjulien merged commit a2905ae into OISF:master Jan 28, 2025
60 checks passed
@victorjulien victorjulien deleted the next/703/20250128/v1 branch January 28, 2025 15:26
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.

5 participants