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. |

| Subject: | Re: automatic signature generation |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 24 May 2007 13:08:36 +0200 |
> Therefore, the early thought that comes > into my mind is "creating an automated signature generation tool is as > difficult as creating an automated attack generation tool". I would > like to know your opinion on this.
I would say no. That is, I think it would be easier to create an automated signature generation tool that it would be to create an automated exploit generation tool. This is based on my experience with machine learning algorithms and penetration testing. This of course with the caveats:
- To create a signature for a single vulnerability, the generation tool would need to have a set of exploits for that vulnerability and a large body of harmless traffic to compare it against.
this is what I have in mind to start with. but there are problems. i have manually created signatures for many vulnerabilities and for various exploits/attacks, I had to use regexp or checks many fields related to vulnerable protocols/applications. so we miss the contaxt/semantics of the attack, if we directly apply machine learning, at least to my understanding. if you know some work in this direction, please refer. I would like to explore.
- The signature generation tool would not be able to generate false-positive and false-negative free signatures (who does?). However, for simpler cases the error rates could be quite low and possibly even measurable.
As far as your comments about detecting flooding attacks, I think this may actually be harder to get right.
under most general scenario, flooding is deected by the rate of packets. so, if we keep checking the health of the victim (destination), we can fine tune the threshold for this rate automatically. you may like to see the work of J. Cannady on "CMAC and flooding attacks"
thanks -Sanjay
HTH, tim
-- Postdoc, DIT, University of Trento, Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Test Your IDS
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: automatic signature generation, Joshua Barnes |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: automatic signature generation, Sanjay R |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: automatic signature generation, Tim |
| Next by Thread: | Re: automatic signature generation, Jose Nazario |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |