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] portscan detection in snort 2.8.0 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:31:27 -0500 |
Hello, I'm currently running snort 2.4.4 with the portscan and portscan2 preprocessors that I have hooked into a script that generates iptables rules. It works very well for what it is. I recently have been playing with snort 2.8, trying to get at least the same level of detection, with at least as few or fewer false positives. I notice that flow-portscan seems to work well at detecting some things portscan and portscan2 did not - like ICMP probes across my entire /22. It also picks up nmap scans and things like that. However, I've also noticed that it often seems to confuse source and destination, or at least it seems to be confusing them. What I mean to say is, if I have a process running on a machine in my src-ignore-net that opens a bunch of connections and thus has a bunch of high ports for its receiving end flow-portscan will alert on the destination host that is connecting to those ephemeral ports on my originating machine, even though the IP address of the originating host is in my src-ignore-net. Does anyone have any recommendations? I figured flow/flow-portscan would determine source and destination based on who had the SYN flag set. Because I'm not even talking about weird protocols like ftp that open their own receiving ports on the initiating host, I'm just talking about busy network programs, like a recursive wget, or something similar. I haven't played much with sfportscan. I had bad experiences attempting to use it when I upgraded from 1.9 to 2.4.4. thanks, -- cachehit@webii.net “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead station.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ 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: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort 2.8 and SID on pass- and alert-rules, Vidar Hoel |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort 2.8 and SID on pass- and alert-rules, Seth |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-users] Snort 2.8 and SID on pass- and alert-rules, Vidar Hoel |
| Next by Thread: | [Snort-users] New revs? of old sigs causing Snort to die, Paul Melson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |