Re: Vulnerability vs. Exploit signatures and IPS??

[Iván Arce <ivan.arce () coresecurity com>]

Its is not a question if which is better in the vacum (signatures based 
on vulnenabilities vs. signatures based on exploits) but rather which do 
you or your vendor does best.

To do it right, developing IDS/IPS signatures based on exploits requires 
the researcher/signature writer to understand those exploits and to be 
able to discern which portions of them are fixed requirements to trigger 
the vulnerability and which portions are just implementation decisions 
of the exploit writer. Some shortcuts can be taken here if the 
researcher has a very good understanding of exploit 'techniques' rather 
than just instances of exploits that are publicly available, otherwise 
the job turns into a reactive arms race against the available exploits.

Good signatures based solely on the vulnerabilities require the 
researcher/signature writer to fully understand the vuln and all the 
possible ways to exploit it. For this to be effective, once again, the 
researcher needs a very good understanding of exploit 'techniques' 
and/or exploit writing since he is basically trying to outwit ALL 
possible exploits and hence every exploit writer out there or risk 
having false negatives.
For the pure anomaly behavior detection approach the researcher needs 
then to figure out ALL possible legitimate uses and operational 
enviroments of the vulnerable component or risk having false positives.

There are numerous examples of bad signatures (and possibly vendor 
patches) that were developed presumably based only on available exploits 
and there are numerous examples of bad signatures (and possibly vendor 
patches) presumably built using vulnerability analysis as the sole basis 
for development.

Common sense leads me to think that combining both methods is a good 
idea. Also there is a clear tradeoff between time and quality of the 
signature/filter: Assuming the the signature writing team has equally 
balanced skills for both methods they will need to make a decision 
between getting signatures out faster and or getting  more accurate 
signatures out. To improve the process one would need to either increae 
the reserach team's capacity  or improve their skills (or both).

Disclaimer:  I work for a company that sells an automated penetration 
testing product that includes professionally developed exploits, it is 
often used by our customers to develop IDS/IPS signatures , test IDS/IPS 
deployments and various other things. On the other hand since we write 
exploits for known vulns and ocasionally find new vulns I know there is 
a serious amount of vulnerability research involved on all cases. So I 
sort of have an insight of both methods.


-ivan

Jacob Winston wrote:
> Can someone explain to me the difference in writing signatures based on Vulnerabilities versus writing signatures based on 
> Exploits? TippingPoint makes a claim that their IPS is better because they write signatures based on Vulnerabilities and not 
> exploits. I don't quite understand this.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Test Your IDS
>
> Is your IDS deployed correctly?
> Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from 
> CORE IMPACT.
> Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 
> to learn more.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Alfred, Lord Tennyson Ulysses,1842

Ivan Arce
CTO
CORE SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES

46 Farnsworth Street
Boston, MA 02210
Ph: 617-399-6980
Fax: 617-399-6987
ivan.arce () coresecurity com
www.coresecurity.com

PGP Fingerprint: C7A8 ED85 8D7B 9ADC 6836  B25D 207B E78E 2AD1 F65A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS

Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from 
CORE IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 
to learn more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------