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] Sig 1147 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:27:46 -0600 |
"Jamie Riden" wrote: <snip>
The cat%20 rule was causing me too many false positives (including this message I expect :). Instead of turning it off, what about combining as follows: alert tcp any any -> any any (msg:"WEB-ATTACKS web command attempt"; flow:to_server,established; uricontent:"\.php?"; pcre:"/\b(wget|curl|cc|chgrp|kill|chown\ |echo|rm|lsof|ls|perl|ping|netcat|cat|nc|nmap|gcc|g\+\+|traceroute|ftp|tftp)[ \t]/U"; classtype:web-application-activity; sid:2123156; rev:1;)
uricontent is not a regex so do not escape dots.
Any problems with this? Hopefully it should catch people trying to exploit the vulnerable PHP script du jour. ( Every time a new remote include, or command injection problem comes out (e.g. Horde issue last week), someone sees if they can 'wget' their favourite rootkit.)
Well, the issue is that the rule focuses on a limited number of attack vectors, not on the vulnerability itself. This means that an attacker might resort to a different command. As an example, you have perl but not sed or awk. I am not dismissing the rule but it is important to understand that it is not a silver bullet. If you instead focus on the vulnerability then it does not matter what commands the attacker uses. Of course the counter-argument is that this rule (somewhat) works in zero-day scenarios while vulnerability rules mostly do not work at all. I personally use both approaches but with an emphasis on the vulnerability.
Is it more efficient to create more rules with uricontent:"\.pl" , "\.cgi" , or is it better to match both, and .cgi in the pcre as well?
That very much depends on your particular deployment. As an example, if your only asset is a 100% PHP web site then uricontent:".php?" does not buy you anything. Take a look at past postings; Sourcefire folks here and there provide valuable snippets of wisdom on rule performance tuning.
cheers, Jamie
Cheers, nnposter ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ 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] Sig 1147, nnposter |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Sig 1147, Jason Brvenik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Sig 1147, Jason Brvenik |
| Next by Thread: | [Snort-sigs] Sourcefire VRT Certified Rules Update and Spyware Detection Available, Sourcefire VRT |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |