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]

[Snort-users] snort-2.8.0 losing port numbers on some alerts?

Subject: [Snort-users] snort-2.8.0 losing port numbers on some alerts?
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:01:52 +1300
Hi there

I have just installed snort-2.8.0 under CentOS5 at home, with nearly
everything enabled, and it's triggering on the rule:

alert udp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $SQL_SERVERS any (msg:"MS-SQL probe
response overflow attempt"; content:"|05|"; depth:1;
byte_test:2,>,512,1; content:"|3B|"; distance:0; isdataat:512,relative;
content:!"|3B|"; within:512; reference:bugtraq,9407;
reference:cve,2003-0903; reference:nessus,11990;
reference:url,www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-003.mspx;
classtype:attempted-user; sid:2329; rev:7;)

The problem is two-fold. For starters, sometimes the syslog and mysql
events generated *do not contain port numbers!* e.g. syslog reports

 Nov 22 21:59:36 srv snort[28832]: [1:2329:7] MS-SQL probe response
overflow attempt [Classification: Attempted User Privilege Gain]
[Priority: 1]: <eth0> {UDP} 1x.y.z.3 -> 1x.y.z.6

where's the ":YYYY"?

sometimes in the same 1 sec period the same rule triggers again - with
the port numbers

Nov 22 21:59:36 srv snort[28832]: [1:2329:7] MS-SQL probe response
overflow attempt [Classification: Attempted User Privilege Gain]
[Priority: 1]: <eth0> {UDP} 1x.y.z.3:2049 -> 1x.y.z.6:1023

And secondly, the two boxes mentioned are Linux boxes running NFS
between them - certainly not MS-SQL.

However, I think my first point is the one that implies a bug in snort.
An "alert udp" rule should NEVER be able to generate an event that
doesn't contain port numbers - I don't think it's possible to generate
UDP packets without port numbers ;-)

This looks like a bug to me rather than a rule FP?

-- 
Cheers

Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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>
  • [Snort-users] snort-2.8.0 losing port numbers on some alerts?, Jason Haar <=