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 Snort-Signatures
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Snort-sigs] Connecting signatures?

Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] Connecting signatures?
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:07:28 +0200 (CEST)
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Keith W. McCammon wrote:

I believe that activate/dynamic rules are still an option in the current release. You can read about these in the manual: http://www.snort.org/docs/snort_manual/node16.html. Note, however, that these may not be around in future releases.

The activate/dynamic rules are still there, they work but they don't do what I want. Yes, number1 activates number 2, but as with tagging just to capture more of the traffic. At least according to the manual there is nothing more about that. I tried to convince the second rule to give at least a message but no avail. If there is a way to accomplish my goal with these tags I'd love to hear about that.

  Cheers,

                                                Chris Kronberg.


On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:02:43 +0200 (CEST), Chris Kronberg
<smil@agleia.de> wrote:

Hi,

   I'm trying to find a way to write rules provding the following:
   Rule1 fires and sets another rule active, which fires on the
   following traffic (if the criteria are met). Rule2 should never
   fire without rule1 firing first.
   First I thought, I can do that with tagging but it seems that
   tagging only allows me to save more of the triggered connection
   for a later analysis (which is a fine thing in itself).
   Is there any way to accomplish something like that?

   Cheers,

                                                  Chris Kronberg.

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs

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