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]

Fwd: Re[4]: [Snort-users] unified format

Subject: Fwd: Re[4]: [Snort-users] unified format
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:55:01 -0600
Durn it, used the wrong snort-users addr the first time.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bamm Visscher <bamm.visscher@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Snort-users] unified format
To: snort-users-request@lists.sourceforge.net,
"barnyard-users@lists.sourceforge.net"
<barnyard-users@lists.sourceforge.net>


Actually, that's not true.  Snort will call the log func from inside
the alert func for any alert that has a packet. So, if the alerts you
are seeing  in the alert DB are from a plugin that doesn't pass a
pointer to the packet (like the old portscan preproc) then you won't
get the corresponding alert/packet info in your unified log.  There
are very few instances where this will happen, and any alert that is
triggered from a signature, will have a packet and thus the log func
will be called.

I wonder if this is a waldo file issue. If you originally ran barnyard
watching the unified alert file, then switched it to watching the
unifed log file that may have caused problems with barnyard.  Try
removing $SNORT_LOG/barnyard.waldo and then start barnyard with the
"-f snort.log". When you do this, run barnyard in the foreground send
a copy of the std out back here.

Bammkkkk

On 8/19/05, Roland Turner (SourceForge) <raz.fs.arg@countersnipe.com> wrote:

When I use "-f snort.alert" - I get alert events in DB, but don't get
payload. When I use "-f snort.log" - I don't get alert events in DB.


Ah, this may be the problem. If the rule action is "alert" then the data
presented to the output plugins does not include the payload. There is no
configuration of anything that can get around this, IIRC. You need to be
setting the actions to "log" if you want the payload.

- Raz


--
sguil - The Analyst Console for NSM
http://sguil.sf.net


-- 
sguil - The Analyst Console for NSM
http://sguil.sf.net


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
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

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