Your site talks of BunkerWeb PRO, which is, by the sound of it, not open source. But I have no idea what is actually different about it: https://panel.bunkerweb.io/knowledgebase/105/What-is-BunkerW... flatly doesn’t answer the question: “additional features and services responding to professional needs” is impressively vague.
I just love this project! BunkerWeb was a huge help when I was self-hosting my products with Docker Swarm. It offers tons of configuration options—especially useful for those needing a WAF and dealing with heavy bot traffic.
Since moving to Kubernetes, I haven’t used or evaluated it there yet, but kudos to the team for continuing to update and improve the project. Keep up the great work!
While neat, I feel like in the current age of "let's throw shitloads of packets and see how they like that", this solves _a problem_, but I feel that most of the security products solve it by anycasting IP ranges.
looks very cool, I could use this. Given how much I have watched all sorts of automated things hammer websites on multiple servers, I believe everyone should use something like this.
Had a hard time finding the premium version price, aka pro - saw $170 and thought to myself, I don't know. Then I saw it was a monthly fee.
$1500 per year, and I'm not sure what 10 services even means, for me I'd probably need more, and I wouldn't spend 1500 on it if it was a one time lifetime.
I get that I am not the target market. I just wish it was faster to find that out.
Glad I didn't waste more time looking at the cool features.
What % of cloudflare's protection can this provide? I've been looking at bunkerweb + anubis as alternative to cloudflare tunnel (im actually not sure if this provides WAF)
This isn't really comparable to any of the SaaS based products.
While this offers many of the same technical capabilities as Cloudflare, a lot of Cloudflare's value is in having high-level, aggregate insight into threats.
They're both reverse proxies built on nginx, but the whole point of BunkerWeb is that it's a WAF, which NPM is not, so that's a significant difference.
WAFs have a few valid uses in my opinion: "virtual patching" and the ability to create custom rules such as blocking/challenging/rate limiting obviously bad traffic. But the giant rulesets are actively harmful IMO. "Defense in depth" is not a valid justification for doing something actively harmful to both your users and the time budget of your security team.
You are correct. Actual security needs to be inherently part of the application; you can't get it just by slapping something in front of it. And the way most WAFs work is basically just a fancier version of what https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Injection_Rejection does, which is horrifically bad on sites where people try to discuss HTML or SQL.
A properly configured WAF is arguably necessary to maintain SLAs on an API available on the web. Bad actors will hammer any open API endlessly unless the API shows signs of defense. This can affect connection latency for good users and cost for the business. Why would you ever bother processing (and cause server and database load and charges) for a million bogus login or search requests if the WAF can handle it automatically and basically for free?
Most bad actors are looking for easy targets and will move on when seeing minimal defenses. If we want to continue enjoying an open and accessible internet where any client that speaks the protocol can connect, then WAFs are an integral part of maintaining that public service.
In addition to defense-in-depth—simply adding a bunch of imperfect layers and acknowledging that no individual layer like this is all that effective on its own—there’s a component of creating signal: it can be pretty trivial for a motivated attacker to bypass a WAF, however it may not be trivial to do so without creating a paper trail of event logs, which can be used to trigger automated blocks or escalate alarms for a human to intervene.
I mean ... You're not completely wrong, but you're not completely right either. For context: I've been working full-time in security for 15 years and on the fringes (reversing) for many more.
WAFs in and of themselves provide virtually zero security. They can block naive attacks -- catching the most obvious payloads -- and act as an early-warning signal that an attack may be underway (though the SNR on this is awful). But frankly, this is far less important in practice than the fact that it just makes things more difficult and annoying for attackers. Enough so that it can make a semi-attractive target into a no-go.
This is like defense-in-depth, but instead of layering protections in place so that the holes in the swiss cheese don't like up, you're making the cheese smell awful enough to ignore the juicy apple behind it.
If you're a valuable enough target, they're gonna go for the apple regardless of how bad the cheese is. ... And this analogy may have gotten away from me.
WAFs aren't bullshit but have limitations - they're effective against known attack patterns (SQLi, XSS) but can be bypassed with sophisticated techniques. They're best as one layer in a defense-in-depth strategy, not a complete security solution.
Your site talks of BunkerWeb PRO, which is, by the sound of it, not open source. But I have no idea what is actually different about it: https://panel.bunkerweb.io/knowledgebase/105/What-is-BunkerW... flatly doesn’t answer the question: “additional features and services responding to professional needs” is impressively vague.
Features with a crown icon are PRO, you will find full list of free and PRO features here : https://docs.bunkerweb.io/latest/features/
Might I suggest at the very least linking to that from https://panel.bunkerweb.io/knowledgebase/105/What-is-BunkerW... and https://panel.bunkerweb.io/store/bunkerweb-pro.
I just love this project! BunkerWeb was a huge help when I was self-hosting my products with Docker Swarm. It offers tons of configuration options—especially useful for those needing a WAF and dealing with heavy bot traffic.
Since moving to Kubernetes, I haven’t used or evaluated it there yet, but kudos to the team for continuing to update and improve the project. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the kind words!
Kubernetes integration is really awesome, you can use BunkerWeb ingress controller or mix it with an existing ingress controller.
While neat, I feel like in the current age of "let's throw shitloads of packets and see how they like that", this solves _a problem_, but I feel that most of the security products solve it by anycasting IP ranges.
Neat to see another use case for NGNIX though!
How is this better than Caddy?
Caddy does not offer full application protection besides HTTPS and basic stuff.
What's the benefit of just using plain owasp modsecurity?
It also exists as a docker container as an nginx reverse proxy with modsecurity extension.
https://coreruleset.org/docs/6-development/6-6-useful_tools/...
ModSecurity doesn't offer antibot, bad behavior, certificate management, ... You can find the full list of features here : https://docs.bunkerweb.io/latest/features/
looks very cool, I could use this. Given how much I have watched all sorts of automated things hammer websites on multiple servers, I believe everyone should use something like this.
Had a hard time finding the premium version price, aka pro - saw $170 and thought to myself, I don't know. Then I saw it was a monthly fee.
$1500 per year, and I'm not sure what 10 services even means, for me I'd probably need more, and I wouldn't spend 1500 on it if it was a one time lifetime.
I get that I am not the target market. I just wish it was faster to find that out.
Glad I didn't waste more time looking at the cool features.
What % of cloudflare's protection can this provide? I've been looking at bunkerweb + anubis as alternative to cloudflare tunnel (im actually not sure if this provides WAF)
This isn't really comparable to any of the SaaS based products.
While this offers many of the same technical capabilities as Cloudflare, a lot of Cloudflare's value is in having high-level, aggregate insight into threats.
Is there a significant difference between this and nginx proxy manager?
They're both reverse proxies built on nginx, but the whole point of BunkerWeb is that it's a WAF, which NPM is not, so that's a significant difference.
In short, NPM doesn't do any of the stuff listed under Security Features here: https://docs.bunkerweb.io/latest/#security-features
NPM will automate Let's Encrypt certificate generation but you're right about the other listed features.
I can't unban myself from the demo :)
I'm still strongly suspecting this whole WAF thing is mostly complete bullshit intended for projects doing security works mostly from spreadsheets.
Could someone with a proper background in security confirm or invalidate my suspicion ?
I'd generally confirm that suspicion: https://www.macchaffee.com/blog/2023/wafs/
WAFs have a few valid uses in my opinion: "virtual patching" and the ability to create custom rules such as blocking/challenging/rate limiting obviously bad traffic. But the giant rulesets are actively harmful IMO. "Defense in depth" is not a valid justification for doing something actively harmful to both your users and the time budget of your security team.
+1 Absolutely. (Source: Original author of ModSecurity.)
Just wanted to say that it's a great blog post, thanks for writing it!
You are correct. Actual security needs to be inherently part of the application; you can't get it just by slapping something in front of it. And the way most WAFs work is basically just a fancier version of what https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Injection_Rejection does, which is horrifically bad on sites where people try to discuss HTML or SQL.
A properly configured WAF is arguably necessary to maintain SLAs on an API available on the web. Bad actors will hammer any open API endlessly unless the API shows signs of defense. This can affect connection latency for good users and cost for the business. Why would you ever bother processing (and cause server and database load and charges) for a million bogus login or search requests if the WAF can handle it automatically and basically for free?
Most bad actors are looking for easy targets and will move on when seeing minimal defenses. If we want to continue enjoying an open and accessible internet where any client that speaks the protocol can connect, then WAFs are an integral part of maintaining that public service.
In addition to defense-in-depth—simply adding a bunch of imperfect layers and acknowledging that no individual layer like this is all that effective on its own—there’s a component of creating signal: it can be pretty trivial for a motivated attacker to bypass a WAF, however it may not be trivial to do so without creating a paper trail of event logs, which can be used to trigger automated blocks or escalate alarms for a human to intervene.
Well not entirely because you always want defense in depth. Let’s say you are running 20 apps and 10 of them have security vulnerabilities like RCE.
Testing and deploying patches takes time probably you cannot just update 10 apps at once with single click.
Deploying WAF rule should cover that.
I mean ... You're not completely wrong, but you're not completely right either. For context: I've been working full-time in security for 15 years and on the fringes (reversing) for many more.
WAFs in and of themselves provide virtually zero security. They can block naive attacks -- catching the most obvious payloads -- and act as an early-warning signal that an attack may be underway (though the SNR on this is awful). But frankly, this is far less important in practice than the fact that it just makes things more difficult and annoying for attackers. Enough so that it can make a semi-attractive target into a no-go.
This is like defense-in-depth, but instead of layering protections in place so that the holes in the swiss cheese don't like up, you're making the cheese smell awful enough to ignore the juicy apple behind it.
If you're a valuable enough target, they're gonna go for the apple regardless of how bad the cheese is. ... And this analogy may have gotten away from me.
WAFs aren't bullshit but have limitations - they're effective against known attack patterns (SQLi, XSS) but can be bypassed with sophisticated techniques. They're best as one layer in a defense-in-depth strategy, not a complete security solution.
How this compare against safeline?
SafeLine is much easier to config, more user friendly. BunkerWeb requires much more time for tuning.
Is the syntax same as nginx?
Custom nginx configs are supported (more info here : https://docs.bunkerweb.io/latest/advanced/#custom-configurat...) but BunkerWeb also includes its own list of settings.