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] A "Flowbits" issue

Subject: Re: [Snort-users] A "Flowbits" issue
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:09:00 -0500
My question is, is there a reason you are trying to set two flowbits  
with that one rule?

Are you use "username:tung" appears just like that in a packet?  (i.e.  
no spaces, username and the login name in one string?)



--
Joel Esler
joel.esler@sourcefire.com




On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:05 PM, tung tran wrote:

Hi,
My question is:should we use "flowbits" to check a packet against
multiple rules or we only use "flowbits" to check next coming packets?
If we consider this rule:
R0: alert tcp 192.168.0.1 any -> any any (content:"logged
in 
";flowbits:set 
,logged_in",content:"username:tung",flowbits:set,tung_loginned)
which marks the flow as: the specific user "tung" has logged in.
Can we split this rule into these 2 rules:
R1: alert tcp 192.168.0.1 any -> any any (content:"logged
in";flowbits:set,logged_in;flowbits:noalert)
R2: alert tcp 192.168.0.1 any -> any any
(content 
:"username:tung";flowbits:isset,logged_in",flowbits:set,tung_loggined)
Do we normally write rules this way when we use "flowbits"? Is there
any situation where we should  split a rule when "flowbits" is used?
The problem I see when using "flowbits" to check a packet against
multiple rules is the rule triggering order might cause problem. In
the example above, if R1 is triggered before R2, these 2 rules do the
same thing as rule R0, however, if R2 is triggered before R1, these 2
rules do'nt function as we expect.
Any idea about this "flowbits" issuse?
Thank you very much,
Tung

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
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



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
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>