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] Broken thresholding in 2923.1 and 2924.1? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 20 Oct 2004 9:32:36 -0600 |
Judy Novak wrote:
I think this is a personal or site preference whether you want to track by source or destination. The logic of tracking by source is that if you have an attacker attempting multiple logins to one or more hosts in a short period of time, the alert should fire. If you track by destination, you run the slight risk of having the alert go off if multiple users have failed logins within a short amount of time.
That's exactly my issue with the current version. Please note that the packet signature is for the *reply* so the attacker is the *destination*, not source. Cheers, nnposter ------------------------------------------------------- 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] Broken thresholding in 2923.1 and 2924.1?, Judy Novak |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Broken thresholding in 2923.1 and 2924.1?, Judy Novak |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Broken thresholding in 2923.1 and 2924.1?, Judy Novak |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Broken thresholding in 2923.1 and 2924.1?, Judy Novak |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |