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 - sid 1365 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:42 +0200 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Mike Pomraning wrote:
However, you do still shoot the bullet. :) I'd temper your last remark -- after all, http_inspect *is* application layer smarts, however limited, inside Snort. Comprehensive and perfect? No. Useful? Certainly.
Yes, I agree that I was over criticizing. Better have a working solution that does part of the work than have nothing. Jeremiah Grossman's article "The 80/20 Rule for Web Application Security" http://www.webappsec.org/articles/013105-plain.html), which I like very much, follows your line of thought that there is no perfect solution and we should look for a sufficient solution, especially to deter the masses of casual hackers. Regarding http_inspect, it does not help the signatures themselves, but rather fights different IDS evasion techniques such as encoding, and is exactly the reason I did not include IDS evasion as part of the 1365 and alternative signature limitations. Saying that, signatures for rm or cc are still very weak in Snort, prone to false positives and if used with regular expressions resource consuming. When trying to handle other application layer attacks such as SQL injection, signatures are even less effective. While rm by itself is not an English word (how lucky we are that UNIX is designed for geeks :-)) SQL (and Windows for that matter) do use English words so keywords such as "select", "union" and "copy" cannot be used as signatures at all. What we need are much more complex signatures that detect multiple patterns and than make decisions based on the number of patterns matched, their order, their distance and probably other attributes as well. I call these application layer signatures. ~ Ofer Ofer Shezaf CTO, Breach Security Tel: +972.9.956.0036 ext.212 Cell: +972.54.443.1119 ofers@breach.com http://www.breach.com ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [Snort-sigs] False positive - sid 1365, Ofer Shezaf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Snort-sigs] False positive - sid 1365, Paul Schmehl |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [Snort-sigs] False positive - sid 1365, Mike Pomraning |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [Snort-sigs] False positive - sid 1365, Paul Schmehl |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |