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: | [Snort-users] Anomaly detection and Snort |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:15:32 -0400 |
Howdy, My company, CounterStorm, has developed packet content level anomaly detection for the security space. The technology builds statistical models of the contents of network traffic, and looks for anomalies within this. It's distinctly different from most AD technology in that it's actually working on layer 7, not just looking at traffic volumes. We're considering making this available as a Snort module. There are two components that we're considering. The first is what we're calling the confidence module. This module generates a statistical baseline of the network traffic content. It then compares the packets that trigger Snort events to the baseline, and assigns a confidence score to the events. This allows one to triage events, looking at the most anomalous events first. You can almost think of it as signature validation--normal traffic triggering a false positive would get a low priority score, while an actual attack, perhaps with a noop sled, would get a high confidence score. The second component is more straightforward, doing pure detection of anomalous events on the network. This is geared towards detecting crimeware and targeted attacks. Examples of what it can detect include botnet traffic running over port 80, and SQL injection attacks. My biggest question, of course, is if these modules sound useful to you? Almost as big are questions around implementation. We've considered using the priority field as the spot we put the confidence scores; does that make sense? Is there anywhere you'd rather see it? Also, how would you like to see these modules enabled? Per port? Per rule? I've been pretty broad, so I'm also very interested in your questions as well. Thanks, -Mike Mike DeGraw-Bertsch Product Manager CounterStorm, Inc. P: 212-206-1900 x246 mbertsch@counterstorm.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Snort-users] (no subject), Zultan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] (no subject), Matthew Watchinski |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-users] (no subject), Zultan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-users] Anomaly detection and Snort, David J. Bianco |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |