IDS mailing list archives

RE: Firewall Activity analysis


From: Anton Chuvakin <anton () chuvakin org>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:21:33 -0500 (EST)

Matt,

analyst aka a REAL ROI - Time (money) X Incident. For example if you see
the multitude of attack signatures that indicate Nimda from an IDS, and
Well, I doubt that one needs a rule to ignore Nimda, surely you can just
filter it out especially if you know you are patched against it. Or you
can deploy one of those fancy "anti-CodeRed/Nimda" devices (aka IPS)...

measured (rate of false positives/actual events) and thusly can have
impact to system that does Risk or Threat Modeling.
Yes, indeed, but knowing the rate will likely not help the response
procedures, since even knowing that e.g. you have 20% FP rate does not
mean that you know which 20% of incidents you can ignore...

correct (for the top 20% of uberhackers) IF you're only using a NIDS
This is one curious number! I am wondering how people come up with those.
The author of the article I forwarded thought it was actaully 90% and not
20%, but I do not understand how *either* is justified...

(and maybe HIDS). My point is that the correlation/anomaly detection
system would catch most of the 20% if the logs that the system was
receiving where adequate. For example, any new attacks that the attacker
This is a very interesting point. The evidences might be there, but
piecing together the picture from some diverse logs to catch the attack
that IDS missed (i.e. new or modified attack) - wow, that sounds like a
challenge.

I'm going to try to address the issue Matt Harris was talking about as
well. What you need to do is create rules for the known not unknown.
Well, this is the tricky part - at what level of detail do you *know* the
known part?  It looks like there is a trade off here (similar to NIDS
case, but potentially worse) - you can either make the system create false
positives (like in the case of firewall connection attempts presented by
the previous poster) or false negatives (like, I suspect, systems that
send "marked" data and then respond if an attacker uses it). It is really
interesting how you would create those rules to be in the middle?

Best,
-- 
  Anton A. Chuvakin, Ph.D., GCIA
     http://www.chuvakin.org
   http://www.info-secure.org


Current thread: