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] non-standard-protocol : BAD-TRAFFIC IP Proto 103 PIM

Subject: Re: [Snort-users] non-standard-protocol : BAD-TRAFFIC IP Proto 103 PIM
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:11:35 -0700
We modify the rule to make it less noisy:

var MULTICAST_NET 224.0.0.0/4

alert ip any any -> !$MULTICAST_NET any (msg:"BAD-TRAFFIC IP Proto 103 PIM"; 
ip_proto:103; reference:bugtraq,8211; reference:cve,2003-0567; 
reference:nessus,11791; classtype:non-standard-protocol; sid:2189; rev:4;)

Here's the line in oinkmaster.conf that performs the modification:

modifysid 2189 "->\s*any" | "-> !\$MULTICAST_NET"

Cheers,

-- greg

---------- Original Message ----------
Subject: [Snort-users] non-standard-protocol : BAD-TRAFFIC IP Proto 103 PIM
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 04:21:56 -0700
From: "David Ryan" <David.Ryan@Quintiles.com>
To: <snort-users@lists.sourceforge.net>

Hi all, 

I am seeing loads (like 90% of all events) of these events showing up on 
one of my Snort sensors.  I have looked at the description here - 
_http://www.snort.org/pub-bin/sigs.cgi?sid=2189_ - and I looked at the 
rule definition and it appears to match simply on the existence of IP 
protocol 103 as distinct from any payload within it. 

I see the traffic coming from two known Cisco routers on the subnet I'm 
monitoring and the traffic is destined for 224.0.0.13 which is the 
multicast address for PIM - 
_http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/pim.htm_  I have also I have 
seen it on other sites and subnets on the network I am monitoring, so I 
guess whatever function is causing this traffic to originate from the 
router is used across the organisation. 

In order to make the output from snort a little more readable (and 
because it is matching on the protocol and not the payload) I have 
disabled this rule.  I know the protocol in question is a 
routing-related protocol, but does anyone have any views or explanation 
on the normal use of this protocol ? 

Thanks, 
David

===========================================

David Ryan
IT Security Engineer, Global IT Security
Quintiles, Global IT - Infrastructure, QDUB

david.ryan@quintiles.com
v:  +353-1-819-5186, GMT+0
m: +353-87-124-9108

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
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>