Re: SNMP Rule to detect current threat?

["Andrew R. Baker" <andrewb () snort org>]

Rich Adamson wrote:
> Also, the destination port will be 161 (not 162) with a souce port of any
> (cannot assume > 1024).
 
Both snmptrapd and the snmp agents appear to be vulnerable, hence the
reason to watch for attacks to both port 161 (snmp) and 162 (snmptrap)

_______________________________________________
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