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.




Network Security Snort-Users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Snort-users] SYN Proxy

Subject: Re: [Snort-users] SYN Proxy
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:23:15 -0400
Xavier Cabrera wrote:
Hello:

Thanks for all your answers. Wel i think too the best aproach for this is doing on iptables like Will say.. but if we really want a IPS with snort maybe we can start to think on that solution. Maybe people of sourcefire can plant this solution for future releases.

If snort in future can handle the connections with syn proxy or (seudo syn proxy) validating the real one's before they can pass can start to think in the best IPS of the World

Well, i have to continue with my two boxes.... Like Matt say... right now i have a Linux-Snorted behind a BSD.... and that is not elegant.... A firewall behind another one?

Personally, I hardly care about "elegance" in networking. However, one thing I do care about is security.


The stacked-firewall configuration has some downsides in terms of MTBF, but in all cases would be more secure than a single box running both packages.

If both firewalls are on the same box, a remote-access exploit of either firewall will ultimately breach the entire firewall.

In a stacked configuration, exploiting the outer-most firewall offers some benefit to the attacker, but the network is still protected by the second firewall. The stacked configuration also screens the second firewall, making it more difficult to attack, although a successful exploit of the second firewall box would be a complete breach.

However, now you've got 2 boxes, so hardware failure is more likely than with one box (if either box has a hardware failure, you're communication will be cut off).


Really, I don't think of the lack of elegance as a consideration at all. I would however consider if the lower MTBF outweighs the possibly marginal security gains.




-------------------------------------------------------
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-users mailing list
Snort-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>