Snort mailing list archives
Re: bpf filter versus "config ignore_ports"
From: Dirk Geschke <dirk () geschke-online de>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:16:28 +0100
Hi Elof,
Which is better for performance, filter out unwanted traffic using a bpf filter or using the configuration statement "ignore_ports"? I'm guessing that bpf is better. So when should one use "ignore_ports"?
the fastest version would be the bpf. But bpf rules can get very complex with the number of filtered entries. So the ignore_ports are a little bit more user friendly. And since one of the first things snort does is to decode the ports it will not be much slower than bpf at all. If you really finds here a difference than you will have a problem at all... Best regards Dirk ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- bpf filter versus "config ignore_ports" Martin Olsson (Dec 06)
- Re: bpf filter versus "config ignore_ports" Dirk Geschke (Dec 06)