Snort mailing list archives
Re: Reliability of signatures
From: "Fraser, Hugh" <hugh.fraser () arcelormittal com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:08:13 -0500
I count about 30,000 signatures in the feed I pull down. That's a big effort to categorize. So perhaps an initial pass using the classifications might give a reasonable starting point. I was thinking that further refinement effort could be driven by the signatures that are most active at any time, like the way SANS directs their efforts using dshield to identify what's most important. Over time, the most active signatures receive the most attention. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Holste [mailto:mcholste () gmail com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:52 AM To: Joel Esler Cc: Martin Roesch; snort-users () lists sourceforge net; Fraser, Hugh Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Reliability of signatures
I like that idea too. It'd make a lot of sense to integrate it into snort.org - in fact there's probably a lot of data about Snort detection performance, config options and rule quality we could put up there. Communication favors the defender...
Thanks, Marty. I'm all for free resources, but that would make this project vendor-sponsored, which makes my spider senses tingle... I'd feel better if a non-profit hosted, or at least a company that doesn't sell signatures. Otherwise, it'd be like Starbucks sponsoring a coffee rating site. Up-vote for Trenta!
I would think it would need to have some kind of automatic reporting method, perhaps with manual commenting? J
What do you mean by automatic? I'd think we'd want this to remain manual, but as integrated into the analysis process as possible via whatever GUI you're using. For SF products, a button built into the GUI, and maybe something to click on in Snorby, et al.? And, of course, there would need to be the manual vote page on the site. A basic JSON API to receive submissions would do fine on the web side. Actually, I could probably code this up this weekend if someone volunteers a neutral hosting space. Will Jeff Atwood sue if we use snortoverflow.com? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The modern datacenter depends on network connectivity to access resources and provide services. The best practices for maximizing a physical server's connectivity to a physical network are well understood - see how these rules translate into the virtual world? http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnlfb _______________________________________________ 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:
- Re: Reliability of signatures, (continued)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Fraser, Hugh (Feb 07)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Jason Wallace (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures beenph (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures waldo kitty (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures waldo kitty (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Matthew Jonkman (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Crusty Saint (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Matthew Jonkman (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Fraser, Hugh (Feb 07)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Fraser, Hugh (Feb 07)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Crusty Saint (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Crusty Saint (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures waldo kitty (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Fraser, Hugh (Feb 07)