Re: IDS detection approaches

[Adam Powers <apowers () lancope com>]

> I would completely go with a signature based IDS. Anomaly based IDS will not
> give you the greatest results.

Seems like this conversation just comes up over and over on this list. It's
like a broken record.

Anyway, Defend the above statement. What experience do you have with
anomaly/behavior systems? I suspect not much. At least not with any of the
modern ones such as that from Mazu or Lancope.

Nowadays when you talk about "anomaly IDS" you're talking about
NetFlow-based systems that absolutely smoke sig-based systems on cost vs.
value. If you have 500 sites on an MPLS cloud, you need 500 SPAN/tap/mirror
based probes. Not so with NetFlow-based systems. You need only a flow
collector appliance and a management console. The routers at each of the
sites provide a "virtual probe" of sorts that sends traffic accounting
telemetry back to the centrally located collector. Far cheaper than anything
you'll get out of a sig-based platform.

I recommend sig-based systems at critical areas in the network (datacenter
switch fabrics, Internet ingress/egress points, etc. and NetFlow technology
everywhere else. Together they make a powerful combination. But simply
saying "Anomaly based IDS will not give you the greatest results" is both an
uninformed, dated, and inaccurate view of the way things really are.



On 10/4/07 10:29 PM, "frankfrydrych () gmail com" <frankfrydrych () gmail com>
wrote:

> Hola,
>
>
>
> I would completely go with a signature based IDS. Anomaly based IDS will not
> give you the greatest results.
>
>
>
> For signature base I highly recommend SNORT. It is probably one of the best
> IDS out there. Now I'm not just saying this as a "ooh open source is the
> best".  I truely believe this. I actually use to be a huge Cisco buff and just
> dealt with Cisco IDS. However, at my current job I am a security analyst and
> have to analyze events from Cisco, IIS, Juniper, etc, and SNORT beats them
> all. Mainly for the fact that you are able to see the packet payload and are
> able to make the decision if something is malicious based on the actual
> payload and not just the signature that is triggered (like some IDS). Also,
> when a new threat emerges usually SNORT users will create a signature to
> combat the threat. The other vendors create the signatures for you and it
> usually ends up to be like 3 months after the threat was actually a realistic
> threat. And on top of it the vendor signatures usually give out huge amount of
> false positves. Then again, an IDS is only as good as who tunes it. If you
> take ANY IDS and turn it on in a production network you will have so many
> false positives I garuntee you will miss actual threats. Every IDS (including
> SNORT) has to be tuned for the production network it is on.
>
>
>
> Finally, make sure to place the IDS behind the firewall. If you place it in
> front of the firewall you will receive so much traffic that it is just not
> valuable data. You have a firewall, so let the firewall do its job and block
> the already known bad activity, and catch what gets through the firewall with
> a IDS.
>
>
>
> -FF
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.coresecurity.com/index.php5?module=Form&action=impact&campaign=intr
> o_sfw 
> to learn more.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

Adam  Powers
Chief Technology Officer
Lancope, Inc.
c. 678.725.1028
f. 678.302.8744
e. adam () lancope com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.coresecurity.com/index.php5?module=Form&action=impact&campaign=intro_sfw 
to learn more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------