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] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one ale

Subject: Re: [Snort-users] snort mixes multiple (unrelated) payloads into one alert
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:23:25 -0400


Frank Knobbe wrote:
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.

I doubt it would make enough difference to matter. Packet loss is packet
loss and the ultimate game has been lost at that point.
zero_flushed_packets only helps to remove erroneous events, not solve
the real problem.


Thoughts?

Cheers,
Frank



------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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