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-users] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one alert |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:37:37 -0500 |
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 23:34 -0400, Jason wrote:
\"This will cause Stream4 to zero out the memory of the rebuilt packet before copying in the new data. So, when packets are missing from the middle of the rebuilt packet, you'll get 0x00 in those bytes, rather than whatever was there from the previous rebuild." The problem is packet loss. A single buffer is used for reassembly. If you are missing packets when reassembly is done then the old data is still in the gaps...
Yeah, I remember that we've discussed that before now :) But a question comes to mind: When Snort reassembles the stream, shouldn't it be able to tell which segments are reassembled and which not? Snort should be able to fill the first segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, and then realize that it never got the second segment, then null just that before sending the packet to the matching engine. Nulling the whole buffer before reassembly seems like a waste of resources, which is probably why a lot of folks don't turn it on. I believe you guys even warned about the performance impact. To me, the solution would seem to write the stream4 such that is recognizes a missing segment and nulls just that. From a performance standpoint, it should require as much as copying an existing segment into the stream. Thoughts? Cheers, Frank -- It is said that the Internet is a public utility. As such, it is best compared to a sewer. A big, fat pipe with a bunch of crap sloshing against your ports.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________ 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
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] Base 1.2.5 to Base 1.2.6 issues, Klein, Jeremie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one alert, Eric J. Bowser |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Snort-users] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one alert, Jason Haar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-users] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one alert, Jason Brvenik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |