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: [Snort-sigs] False Positive |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:47:11 -0500 |
Ok, I took a look at the packet and this is what I found. First, while the offset is 5 and that is where Snort started looking, the depth to look was 15. The |04 00| sequence was found at 5 (offset) + 13/14. The |04 00| combination was actually found in the Request ID field of the packet as apposed to the Community string. With that said and after reading a little of the snmp_api.h code from ucd-snmp, I wonder if you could do set this sig to a depth of 2. It appears that the 5 + 2 byte is the length of the community string, allowing for a community string of 0 - 255 characters. The first digit (5 + 1), I didn't find a reference to. I also am not sure that changing the depth to 2 would make this effective for SNMPv3 packets, however I couldn't find where everything is supposed to be in an SNMPv3 packet. Anyhow, that's my two cents. :) Mark On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:56:07 -0400, Matt Kettler <mkettler@evi-inc.com> wrote:
At 04:01 AM 10/14/2004, Koelewijn, Bert wrote:Dear snort sigs team, SID:1893 SNMP missing community string attempt This rule has a false positive with the attached packet. The rule triggers on the SNMP request id.Hmm, that's quite odd. The rule should avoid hitting that packet with the depth and offset keywords. What snort version are you using? 2.2.0? What rev of 1893 are you using? (although as far as I can tell, even rev 1 has the depth/offset, and rev4 is the latest, it's helpful to know for sure what rule you're using).Please keep the information in the attachment confidential.That will be difficult.. This is a public mailing list. However, for what it's worth, I'll avoid disclosing any of the information in the packet. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Snort-sigs mailing list Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs
-- Mark Buchanan ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Colin Slevin/TRANSWARE/IE is out of the office., Matt Kettler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] False Positive, Matt Kettler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] False Positive, Matt Kettler |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] False Positive, nnposter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |