-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
Support Preconfigured ModSecuirty rules with evaluatePreconfiguredExpr in Terraform #10953
Comments
I noticed you linked the |
I will look at this. I have not been able to determine how to use the user defined CEVAL expression to achieve the desired result. |
Newbie PEBKAC
|
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. |
Community Note
Description
GCP Provides a powerful and easy way to define pre-configured WAF rules into compute security policy.
This is available with gcloud cli, https://cloud.google.com/armor/docs/rule-tuning
But Terraform currently only supports versioned expressions and source ip ranges
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/3.0.0/docs/resources/compute_security_policy#versioned_expr
Incorporating this into terraform will promote security configuration as code. It makes robust boundary security defense a first class citizen in our continuous deployment pipeline. It prevents security configuration from being a feature detached from the environment state or an afterthought bolted on.
Defining this with Terraform has the added benefit of toggling rules from preview to enforced, deny to allow, adjusting the priority, or amending exceptions as iterative and small changes, maintaining prior state to avoid errors from removing and re-applying former rules. Errors are less likely to be be introduced, might be sanity-checked by the provider (such as priority collisions), and rollback becomes simple Config as Code tweaks.
New or Affected Resource(s)
Potential Terraform Configuration
References
#8984
#10020
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: