Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Focus-IDS
[Top] [All Lists]

Ha: RE: Juniper and ISS Protocol Anomaly Detection Evaluation

Subject: Ha: RE: Juniper and ISS Protocol Anomaly Detection Evaluation
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:26:27 +0400
I would also mention the Tolly Group as an organization which performs 
"indpendent" analysis of IT products in general and ID(P)S products in 
particular.
But I would not fully rely on their results as though all of them state 
that their results are not influenced by the sponsor founding their tests 
still they sometimes get quite diverse results.
The best solution would be of course to make a pilot and test the products 
having them at full control. The aforementioned organizations have their 
test scenarios described but you can figure out your own tests to make 
sure the features you require from the product are actually present in the 
ID(P)S and not in the marketing brochure.

Best regards, 
Dmitriy Ushakov.

Technical expert
Information Security Department
"TechnoServ A/S" Company 

"Chris Hummel" <chris_hummel@hotmail.com> написано 16.05.2006 04:50:14:

Mike,

In this day in age, it has become increasingly difficult to wade through 
the 
vendor bs in an attempt to get an apples to apples comparision of the 
technology that drives the products.  Fortunately, there are other 
groups in 
this world who feel the same way and have taken matters into their own 
hands.  One of the best independent test and evaluation bodies for 
various 
security products is The NSS Group, based out of southern France (I 
believe).  After you locate their web site, find the latest online 
report 
for NIPS and see for yourself the amount of work that is put into their 
evaluations.  Some of the reports (online html version only) are free, 
but 
the vast majority are $100, which isn't that bad when you consider the 
total 
investment that your company is about to make.

Of course, if you prefer to do the testing yourself and also have a 
decent 
lab setup, locate the ISIC (IP Stack Integrity Checker) test tool and 
have 
some fun.  The NSS reports actually delves into the details of their 
testing 
methodology, so one could re-create that portion of the test.

Your last statement hints at signature detection in the attack packet 
versus 
it being spread out over the course of multiple packets (a TCP stream or 
IP 
fragments).  Once again, the NSS report dedicates an entire section to 
this 
type of activity.

Good luck,
-Chris

---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Youngs" <myoungs@glenergy.com>
To: <focus-ids@lists.securityfocus.com>
Subject: Juniper and ISS Protocol Anomaly Detection Evaluation
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:05:47 -0400

Hello Everyone,

I am doing a network based intrusion detection and prevention system
evaluation, and have come across something I would like this groups
collective experience to give an opinion on.

For various reasons, we have settled on making a selection between the
Juniper IDP 600C and the ISS Proventia GX5008.  During our evaluation, 
we
have found that Juniper and ISS offer their protocol anomaly detection 
means
in much different ways.  What I would like to hear from this group is 
your
experience and insight with either product's protocol anomaly detection. 
 If
someone has insight and/or experience with both products, that will be 
that
much better.  I hope to find out if each vendor's protocol anomaly 
detection
features are essentially the same thing, or if one is superior over the 
other
and why, so I can make a more informed decision on this feature.

Another way to say it is, does "protocol anomaly detection" mean the 
same
thing to both vendors?  It appears that "attack pattern" means something
different to each vendor.  One considers in the actual string or pattern 
to
look for in a packet, and the other considers is it multiple events when
viewed as a whole could mean an attack on a system.

Any insight would be appreciated!  Thanks in advance,

Mike Youngs
Network Manager
Great Lakes Energy



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS

Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it 
with real-world attacks from CORE IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 

to learn more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>