WordPress.org

Forums

BruteProtect
[resolved] Reducing server load (12 posts)

  1. Mark Barnes
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    Thanks so much for this plugin. Like many users, one of the problems I have with brute force attacks is the server load is killing my server. Glancing through BruteProtect's code, I can see that it works by hooking into wp_authenticate or wp_login_failed. The problem with this approach is that a decent chunk of the WordPress framework is already loaded by that point, and it would be nice to do any checking as early as possible, and there are several possible options you have for doing that at an earlier point.

    The earliest would be by just adding an IF statement in bruteprotect.php, and not using actions. For example, you could check for the $pagenow variable or look at the $_SERVER variable. If wp-login.php was being called, you could then run brute_check_loginability. The only code you need to add is:

    if (isset($pagenow) && $pagenow == 'wp-login.php')
        brute_check_loginability();

    On my test server, adding this to the code reduces the length of time the PHP process runs for from an average of 166.1ms to just 84.9ms (assuming a cached block). If you're being hit every few seconds, as mine is, that makes quite a difference to server load. As it stands, the plugin makes almost no difference to server load (unless the bot is intelligent enough to stop trying when it gets a 403 error, which judging by my server log, most aren't).

    PS - I noticed two bugs:

    1. You're missing a closing PHP tag in index.php.
    2. Your local IP check ought to have IPv6 compatability, and therefore check for '::1' in addition to '127.0.0.1'. It would also be very slightly more efficient to check for this IP before doing get_site_transient(), though server load on localhost is never likely to be an issue.

    http://wordpress.org/plugins/bruteprotect/

  2. Mark Barnes
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    On a similar theme, it would be great if there could be an option for IP addresses with very high activity to receive a permanent block in .htaccess, to reduce load almost entirely. Perhaps now that you're counting attempts over a particular period of time, your API could send an additional flag if there's a two year block on the IP. I presume that the 65 failed attempts is not per-site, but spread over your entire userbase?

  3. rwilki
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    Mark, thanks for your post. Have you privately heard from them about this? I'm considering using this plugin. Where do you suggest using your "IF" statement? Have you tried it?

    Thanks,
    Bob

  4. David Anderson
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    > You're missing a closing PHP tag in index.php.

    I'm not part of the BruteProtect team, but this isn't a bug. This is now the coding style preferred in WordPress core - in my opinion, for good reasons (for one, it protects you against problems caused by extra whitespace after the close tag).

    David

  5. Mark Barnes
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    Mark, thanks for your post. Have you privately heard from them about this? I'm considering using this plugin. Where do you suggest using your "IF" statement? Have you tried it?

    I haven't heard anything about my suggestion. If you want to try it, it is easiest to add the code at the very end of the file. I'm using the modified code without any problems on WordPress 3.6.

    I'm not part of the BruteProtect team, but this isn't a bug. This is now the coding style preferred in WordPress core

    Thanks for letting me know. I'm obviously behind the times!

  6. TJGreene
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    It would be good to hear from the developer on this.

    We are testing BruteProtect to determine if we can recommend it to our blog readers and WordPress clients. However, we just experienced a brute force attack on our server that brought it to its knees for 3 hours. CPU and other resources were being maxed out. BruteProtect showed over 3,000 attempts on just one site during that time.

    The (shared) hosting provider we are testing it on is saying that the server problem is due to BruteProtect and that we’ll either need to fix the issue (remove/repair BP) or upgrade to a VPS or dedicated server.

    Clearly, the problem is with the actual brute force attacks and not a malfunctioning plugin. However, if BP can’t somehow mitigate an attack’s deleterious effect on server load, then it won’t be a truly viable tool against BFAs.

    What say you, Sam?

    Regards,

    TJ

  7. Sam Hotchkiss
    Member
    Plugin Author

    Posted 1 year ago #

    Hi TJ-- this is interesting.

    So, we have to do a few things:

    1. When someone accesses the login page, check their IP against the BP servers. We cache the results in your local DB so that you don't have to call out every time if the user keeps trying. We call this process "checking loginability"
    2. When someone attempts to authenticate, we check their loginability again. This allows us to protect against a bot that is directly POSTing login attempts, and to protect sites that are allowing log ins from the front end of the theme, among other reasons. Since we've cached the BP results, this process normally just involves a single DB query
    3. When there is a failed login attempt, report that IP back to the BP servers

    So, the first time a new IP tries to connect, there is a little bit of overhead as the API is pinged. At a maximum, this involved running 9 additional queries, and waiting a moment while the remove server is connected to. Once the IP has been checked and cached, we're down to 2 queries and minimal increased load time (in the range of a rounding error-- in my tests, on average, you're talking about one or two thousandths of a second).

    That said, it's worth noting that an out of the box WP install with NO plugins installed uses 28 queries to load your homepage.

    At the end of the day-- is there a performance "hit"? Sure-- any code you execute on your site is going to require resources. Is there a more efficient way to do it? Not that I can devise, although I've never proclaimed myself to be the smartest guy in any room.

    However, if your host is really complaining because you're trying to keep bad guys from logging in, then I'd be in the market for a new host. To me, this sounds like your host calling you and saying "Hey TJ, You're getting a lot of spam comments and all of those Akismet API calls are slowing our servers down, can you just turn off Akismet and let your site fill up with spam?"

    Mark-- I like your $pagenow approach for our initial loginability check, as opposed to login_head. I'll be testing that and, if there are no issues, including it in our 1.0 release, which is slated for early October with lots of cool stuff in the pipeline!

  8. Mark Barnes
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    @Sam

    I'm not sure you've fully understood the initial question/concern. We're not really concerned that BruteProtect adds additional server load through extra queries and http calls. That's inevitable if it's going to do it's job. But we're much more concerned that BruteProtect doesn't reduce server load by preventing the WordPress framework from loading every time wp-login.php is requested.

    Our servers can't afford to process wp-login.php if the server is being hit multiple times per second. Currently, BruteProtect does a great job of preventing attackers from gaining access to the site, but it does a lousy job of preventing attackers from bringing the site down. We need a way of blocking attackers, without loading the whole WordPress framework. Blocking IP addresses through .htaccess is one method, but it doesn't really work with distributed attacks. The $pagenow method I suggest is another way, which halves the problem, but doesn't eliminate it.

    But the most important point is that the earlier you can block the attack, the less server resources are used, and the more useful the plugin will be.

    The ideal solution for me would be to modify .htaccess so that wp-login.php actually ran a standalone version of BruteProtect, rather than the real wp-login.php page (by 'standalone', I mean a version that has no WordPress dependencies). If there was no attack, the real wp-login.php file would be served (perhaps by redirection, or by simply requiring the file). If there was an attack it would be blocked, without any of the WordPress framework ever loading. The only server load would be BruteProtect itself, which should be pretty minimal.

  9. Sam Hotchkiss
    Member
    Plugin Author

    Posted 1 year ago #

    Hey Mark-- thanks for your feedback here.

    This would introduce a number of potential complexities for wide distribution, not the least of which would be getting DB access. If we include wp-config.php, it then loads wp-settings.php, which then loads the rest of core. So this standalone script would have to include your DB credentials.

    The $pagenow method seems like a good solution that would "just work".

    We could also potentially store an array of blocked IPs in a file, negating the DB access issue, although I'm not sure what the read/write tax would be.

    We're working with a hosting provider right now on helping them develop and implement a low-level brute force attack prevention system. Hopefully this will develop into something that will be widely applicable.

    I really appreciate your feedback here, Mark, and we're open to any further thoughts you might have!

    Best,
    Sam

  10. TJGreene
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    Hi Sam,

    I agree that we received an unacceptable response from our web host. When we went up the chain of command the tone changed and they acknowledged the BFA, saying server logs showed, “approximately 20,000 hits between 1pm and 5pm”. FWIW, BP showed it blocked 3,256 malicious attempts during that time.

    However, @Mark is correct, it’s not the plugin’s effect on server load that is our concern, but, that it doesn’t help to prevent a BFA from overloading the server. Being able to block attackers, as @Mark describes, is what would make BP a standout product.

    I know you are working on a lot of enhancements to BP and I appreciate your dedication to making it better. I am looking forward to testing future updates as BP continues to evolve.

    Regards,
    TJ

  11. Mark Barnes
    Member
    Posted 1 year ago #

    I really appreciate your feedback here, Mark, and we're open to any further thoughts you might have!

    On reflection, I do have a further thought, which I think would certainly help:

    1. Create a cron job to cache the blank wp-login.php form as a static html file.
    2. Before writing the static html file, change the form's action to a random address (e.g. http://www.mysite.com/wp-login-a7f45f3b4.php)
    3. Add a WordPress action to intercept requests for the random address, and tells WordPress to handle it as a proper login, using BruteProtect's existing API.
    4. Modify .htaccess so that requests for wp-login.php are redirected to the static .html file

    Using this method (or something similar), you should significantly reduce server load, as for almost all brute force attempts you'd only be serving static files rather than PHP files.

  12. Sam Hotchkiss
    Member
    Plugin Author

    Posted 1 year ago #

    Hey Mark-- I'm going to keep working on this, but I wanted to let you know that I did just release version 0.9.9 which includes your $pagenow mod

    Best,
    Sam

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Plugin

  • BruteProtect
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Support Threads
  • Reviews

About this Topic

Tags

No tags yet.