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] HOME_NET, EXTERNAL_NET, var negatation and unwanted triggered rules |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:03:22 +0200 |
In fact, it is not my final production configuration, it is only a test
configuration. My reporting tools (BASE) is flooded by SNMP rules
triggered from my monitoring server to all my internal servers. What I
try to do, is to limited the perimeter to external hosts to my network
(not in 10.0.0.0/8 network) which try to run SNMP to my internal host
(10.0.0.0/8 network). Moreover, I put bracket because in my original
configuration, I have several address, but it isn't working even with
only one bracket. Finally, in my message, it is not a dump of my
configuration, it is just a description of what I have done ("or"
between the two var declaration), I try both configuration, and both failed.
I'm sorry for the cut/paste from BASE, it was a very bad idea :) I just
wanted to show that despite of the "var EXTERNAL_NET !10.0.0.8" before
my rules inclusion, I still have alert from "10.0.0.0/8" address to
"10.0.0.0/8" address.
Don't know if it is clearer ?
Thanks for your answer, I will try your last proposal to see if it is
possible in my network topology.
Best regards
Denis Sacchet
Jeruvy wrote:
Just some comments more than anything...-----Original Message----- From: snort-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:snort-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Denis Sacchet Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:21 AM To: snort-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Snort-users] HOME_NET, EXTERNAL_NET,var negatation and unwanted triggered rules Hi everybody, I try to setup a Snort installation onto my firewall, but in a standard one, too much rules triggered, so I am trying to reduce unwanted triggered rules to the minimum to only get the serious security problems.This is generally a bad idea. Snort and Firewalls do not co-exist well together. But there are also reasons for having snort 'inside' the firewall's perimeter and 'outside' the firewall...even on workstations and/or management stations.To do that, I enable only one rules set (snmp.rules) because this rules set triggered a lot of time because of my nagios/cacti monitoring servers using snmp v2, and try to set up EXTERNAL_NET and HOME_NET to avoid logging of SNMP message from local workstation to local workstation.??? I don't get this. You enable ONLY SNMP rules, but then you try to avoid getting alerts to the rules. ???To do that, I set up as following : var EXTERNAL_NET [!10.0.0.0/8] var HOME_NET [10.0.0.0/8]Off hand I cannot say I see a problem syntactically with this, I've always preferred the following logic when using or creating var's in snort: 1. Never use brackets unless you have to. Since you only have one address entry, they are not required. If you had address lists ie: 10.1.0.0/16,10.2.0.0/16, etc. then you would need the brackets. 2. Typically let external_net be the IP BLANKET (something that covers ALL IP ADDRESSES) if you will. By setting to ANY I ensure I can report on any NON-HOME_NET alert will be logged correctly. However I can see that yours works. My confusion must be over what your trying to do above and how it relates to this logic.include $RULE_PATH/snmp.rules and also : var EXTERNAL_NET ![10.0.0.0/8] var HOME_NET [10.0.0.0/8]Ok this also is correct and in your case means the same thing, but: 1. Why are you redeclaring these variables again? 2. Why are you 'now' using the NOT outside the brackets (and using brackets again)? Honestly I can't see a difference in the declaration above or here since you are not using IP lists.include $RULE_PATH/snmp.rules and comment all the preprocessor and all the other rules files.Some of the pre-processors serve important duties, and in some cases I could see where traffic is not normalized could be misinterpreted by snort or even missed. Fragmentation is a big problem on most networks from a sniffer's perspective...not from the user or the network since he benefits from fragmentation.But I still got the following type of alert :[snip] Um, that was unreadable. Instead next time pull an ascii dump, save it as a text file, then paste it into an email. Don't try that within the browser unless you clean up all the links. OR, Save the PCAP file, and use snort from the command line to replay it then capture the text output and forward on email. OR, Have BASE display a plain text of the alert, and copy and paste that (may be a tiny bit of link clean up, but nothing like copying from the view alerts page.in my BASE frontend.We noticed ;)Could someone help to figure out how to configure my NET variable to avoid such alert to be logged.I don't think I understand what you want. And without reviewing the alert data it's hard to see what your seeing. So far, I think you want to only 'log' snmp.rules but 'alert' on nothing. Something tells me that's not correct. But...to assist in some manner, why not alert only SNMP rules, set EXTERNAL_NET to your network space ONLY and HOME_NET to your boxes you wish to actually review the alerts from. That should eliminate alerts from any other space. Sorry if that sounds off the wall, but it works. For instance I have a few windows boxes that use NETBIOS, and I don't care to see all the alerts EXCEPT for boxes that do NOT have netbios. Sometimes somebody uses samba and I want to know, otherwise the traffic would be alerting constantly and I'd spend hours deleting bogus alerts from machines that do this and possibly missing the alerts I do want to review. Good luck,
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Snort-users] August Chicago Snort Users Group Meeting Information, Steven McGrath |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] HOME_NET, EXTERNAL_NET, var negatation and unwanted triggered rules, Joel Esler |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-users] August Chicago Snort Users Group Meeting Information, Steven McGrath |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-users] HOME_NET, EXTERNAL_NET, var negatation and unwanted triggered rules, Joel Esler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |