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: | [Snort-sigs] sid:3677 SIP UDP overflow - false positives |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:30:09 -0600 |
7-21-05 FYI... The following rule triggers hundreds of false positives: alert udp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET 5060 (msg:"EXPLOIT SIP UDP CSeq overflow attempt"; content:"CSeq|3A|"; nocase; isdataat:16,relative; content:!"|0A|"; within:16; reference:url,www.ethereal.com/news/item_20050504_01.html; classtype:attempted-dos; sid:3677; rev:2;) The reference tends to suggest the rule was intended to identify a buffer overflow associated with Ethereal v0.10.0 through v0.10.10 (a packet sniffer). However for anyone using Voice over IP, a standard/stock Cisco SIP phone generates a sip packet every ten minutes that triggers the rule. In large organizations using VoIP, the rule will fire by the hundreds. Proposal: 1. either add the keyword "ethereal" in the msg (to avoid confusion with other sip overflow attempts, or, 2. tune the rule to be more specific to the ethereal problem, or, 3. delete the rule entirely since it has very little real value to any organization and only serves to inflat the number of rules in snort. In the real world, the chances of anyone running a vulnerable ethereal instance on a production Internet-accessible box that would be actually impacted by someone attempting to take advantage of the issue is either slim or totally non-existant. References suggest that no such attempts have been seen in the wild (and are not likely to see any). Therefore, I'd suggest removing it from the rules totally. Rich ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&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: | [Snort-users] Movin' on up..., Joel Esler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Snort-sigs] Bleedingsnort.com Daily Update, bleeding |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-users] Movin' on up..., Joel Esler |
| Next by Thread: | [Snort-sigs] Snort rule: 686 Reference URL incomplete, \"JC\" |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |