mod安全性，http：BL用于手机浏览器的不同配置？
我在Ubuntu VM中测试了Firefox上的规则，它起作用了，因为它给了我一个禁止的错误代码页。当我在手机浏览器上测试它时，它不起作用，因为它仅显示没有错误的索引页面。我需要做不同的配置，还是在手机浏览器上不起作用？
我使用的URL是“ http://vhost1.group21.com/?id=103.50.84.114”。
SecHttpBlKey (key here)
SecAction "id:900500,\
phase:1,\
nolog,\
pass,\
t:none,\
setvar:tx.block_search_ip=0,\
setvar:tx.block_suspicious_ip=1,\
setvar:tx.block_harvester_ip=1,\
setvar:tx.block_spammer_ip=1"
I tested the rule on Firefox within Ubuntu VM and it worked as it gave me a forbidden error code page. When I tested it on my phone browser, it does not work as it just shows the index page with no errors. Is there a different configuration I needed to do for it or it just does not work on a mobile phone browser?
The URL I used is, "HTTP://vhost1.group21.com/?ID=103.50.84.114".
SecHttpBlKey (key here)
SecAction "id:900500,\
phase:1,\
nolog,\
pass,\
t:none,\
setvar:tx.block_search_ip=0,\
setvar:tx.block_suspicious_ip=1,\
setvar:tx.block_harvester_ip=1,\
setvar:tx.block_spammer_ip=1"
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
这不应该是一回事。这是关于IP连接的，而不是关于请求的来源。
我看到的唯一区别是IP地址。因此，VM和移动设备具有不同的IP，RBL查找为两者带来了不同的结果。
为了调试此问题，我建议您将910规则文件中的所有规则放在“日志”（现在“ nolog”）中，然后检查错误日志并比较何时阻止以及何时不屏蔽。这应该使您能够隔离不当行为。
This should not be a thing. This is about IP connections and not about the origin of the request.
The only difference I see is the IP address. So the VM and the mobile device have different IPs and the RBL lookup gives a different result for the two.
In order to debug this, I suggest you put all the rules in the 910 rule file to "log" (now "nolog") and then check the error log and compare when it blocks and when it does not. This should allow you to isolate the misbehaviour.