In the documentation the step to import the firewallanalyzerapiclient is wrong
it states: from algosec.api_clients import FirewallAnalyzerAPIClient while it should be from algosec.api_clients.firewall_analyzer import FirewallAnalyzerAPIClient

If we need to create a change request for ICMP rule in Algosec through algosec python module, currently there is no option to provide application parameter input. It will great if application parameter can be provided with the fireflow.py. It will help to deploy the ICMP rules by creating change request in algosec.

Hi there Algosec Team

I was wondering if there is a way to export the query to pdf from this python SDK?

Where may I find the API guide for REST and SOAP?

I don't see a way to set the device IP in create_change_request. There is no argument for it, and it's not part of traffic_lines. When I submit a CR, I get a good request, but with no device selected.

client = FireFlowAPIClient("algosec.test.local", "(UserID)", "(Password)", verify_ssl=False)

subject="Test - please ignore"
description="This is a test"
requestor_name="Ansible"
email="[email protected]"
template="Firewall Rule Request template 601"
traffic_lines = [
    ChangeRequestTrafficLine(
        ChangeRequestAction.ALLOW,
        # IP, IP subnets and object names that are defined on AFF
        ['0.0.0.0/0'],
        ['0.0.0.0/0'],
        ['*']
    )
]
NewReq = client.create_change_request( subject,requestor_name,email,traffic_lines,description,template)

If I use get_change_request_by_id to pull an existing request that used the same template, besides the rest of the data that I expect, I get a value for devices, which contains the actual IP of the firewall the change was requested for, in underscore notation (data has been scrubbed):

(ticket){
   template = "Firewall Rule Request template 601"
   cc = None
   description = "This is a bogus request"
   devices[] =
     "10_10_10_10",
   due = None
   owner = "xyz123"
   priority = "0"
   requestor = "Ansible user"
   subject = "Test rule"
   trafficLines[] =
      (trafficLine){
         action = 1
         nat =
            (trafficNAT){
               type = -1
            }
         trafficDestination[] =
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "10.255.255.19"
            },
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "10.255.255.20"
            },
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "10.255.255.21"
            },
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "10.255.255.18"
            },
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "10.255.255.16"
            },
         trafficService[] =
            (trafficService){
               service = "icmp/*"
            },
            (trafficService){
               service = "tcp/1521"
            },
         trafficSource[] =
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "192.168.255.220"
            },
            (trafficAddress){
               address = "192.168.255.221"
            },
         trafficUser[] =
            (trafficUser){
               user = "Any"
            },
         trafficApplication[] =
            (trafficApplication){
               application = "Any"
            },
         trafficLineOriginalId = "1;2"
      },
   status = "resolved"
   id = 5367
 }

How do I submit this via the SDK?

Should support python 3.5 and python 3.6 (maybe 3.7 as well).

I'm reposting @julien2404 post from here for proper tracking of issues. I'll follow up with a response.

Hi,

I've installed the latest client version V1.1.0 and started writting a little script. However I'm getting an error.
Here is the script :

#!/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/bin/python

from algosec.api_clients.firewall_analyzer import FirewallAnalyzerAPIClient

ip='XX.XX.XX.XX'
username='admin'
password='hidexxx'
verify_ssl=0

source='YY.YY.YY.YY'
dest='ZZ.ZZ.ZZ.ZZ'
service='tcp/80'

client = FirewallAnalyzerAPIClient(ip, username, password, verify_ssl)
query_result = client.run_traffic_simulation_query(source,dest,service)
here is the error :

<suds.sax.document.Document object at 0x7f883954aac8>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds_requests.py", line 16, in wrapper
return f(*args, **kwargs)
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds_requests.py", line 54, in send
resp.raise_for_status()
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/requests/models.py", line 939, in raise_for_status
raise HTTPError(http_error_msg, response=self)
requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 500 Server Error: Internal Server Error - AFA for url: https://XX.XX.XX.XX/AFA/php/ws.php

During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds/client.py", line 613, in send
reply = self.options.transport.send(request)
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds_requests.py", line 22, in wrapper
buf,
suds.transport.TransportError: Error in requests
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds_requests.py", line 16, in wrapper
return f(*args, **kwargs)
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/suds_requests.py", line 54, in send
resp.raise_for_status()
File "/opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/requests/models.py", line 939, in raise_for_status
raise HTTPError(http_error_msg, response=self)

Question : is the URL correct : https://XX.XX.XX.XX/AFA/php/ws.php ? I saw in algosec doc that the URL must be https://XX.XX.XX.XX/AFA/php/ws.php?wsdl

I'm not sure if I'm writting this comment in the good section. Feel free to tell me.

Thank you in advance

Does algosec aff module support Implementation of NAT rules? How do we implement NAT through algosec aff python module ?

Would be pretty easy to do so, and add travis to this repo.

Most of the mock responses needed for the API could be copied from the algosec-ruby package that have full unittest coverage.

Once implemented, it would be really easy to implement #13