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] TCP sweeps |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:42:15 -0500 |
That's hard to pinpoint. I'm only involved with the security side so when we do see an event like this, we rarely (if ever) receive intimate details on the perpetrating hardware. We alert the local network warlord to the outbreak and request they squash the insurgence. It also depends on the "infection". Slammer is usually quite aggressive and even a 500/min spike setting will still generate hundreds of alerts by the time someone can deal with patient zero. We still run the single event signature for Blaster in parallel with the spike alert in case a less powerful event steps into the game. Scott H. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Jonkman [mailto:matt@infotex.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:32 AM To: Hazel, Scott A. Cc: snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] TCP sweeps Good to know this idea has some value, thanks. I'm concerned about 500/minute though. Specifically in the case of a worm infected workstation. I've seen them so loaded by the worm that they can barely get one or two connections initiated a second. I'm concerned we'd miss the underpowered workstation infections. Several of the poorly written recent worms opened so many threads this was the case even on well powered machines. In practice are you seeing the average machine go well over 500/minute in an infection? Matt Hazel, Scott A. wrote:
We have dealt with similar issues here using Dragon. I know the platform is different but we applied the same approach. I called them spike alerts and started closer to 500 in 60 seconds. For segments containing MS DC's, setting it as low as 50 still gave us a high FP rate. Seems like non-DC segments would be fine at 50/min. Scott Hazel Security Operations Center Unisys scott.hazel@unisys.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] TCP sweeps, Matt Jonkman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Snort-sigs] TCP sweeps, Frank Knobbe |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [Snort-sigs] TCP sweeps, Frank Knobbe |
| Next by Thread: | [Snort-sigs] we need support, SHAFFIE |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |