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] bleedingmalware sigs and severity

Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] bleedingmalware sigs and severity
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:35:18 -0500
The prioritization of these spyware sigs won't be all that controversial I don't think. What David's looking to do is more along the lines of giving a priority of 1 to the spyware that's known to have bad things like keyloggers or packages that do nothing but install other spyware. While relatively benign things like Weatherbug get a 3. Still spyware, but no malicious component and it's well enough written software that it won't crash machines.

That make more sense?

If you don't use priorities in your analysis anyway this won't do anything for you anyway.

Please speak up though if you see a potential issue.

Matt


David Glosser wrote:
The problem with changing the classification level for trojan-activity is
that ALL
rules which use that category (such as subseven) will then have their
priority
lowered.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Burak DAYIOGLU" <dayioglu@metu.edu.tr>
To: <mjonkman@infotex.com>
Cc: "David Glosser" <david_glosser@yahoo.com>; "snort-sigs mailinglist"
<snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] bleedingmalware sigs and severity




Matt Jonkman wrote:

David is correct, we will be putting priorities into all of the bleeding
sigs, starting with the malware set. David has graciously volunteered to
do the research to get them all prioritized. (Most of the bleeding
admins don't use an analysis tool that pays attention to priorities, so
we hadn't required them)

So going forward, if you post a rule try to prioritize it, or give us
some idea of what the issue is so we can set one.

Please and please do not put priority labels to rules directly. Classify the rules and let the admins choose priority level of each and every class. If trojan-activity is less important for you decrease the priority level of the class from the classification configuration.

Or else we will be having headaches trying to match expectations of each
and every sysadmin.

-bd





------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ 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>