Re: Weird packets solved in 2.0

[Kevin Peuhkurinen <kevin.peuhkurinen () hepcoe com>]

Oh, I agree entirely.   I've only tried out 2.0 to see if it fixed the 
problem, but I have no intention of running 2.0 in production for a good 
while yet.

It would be nice if the problem could be corrected in 1.9 as well, but I 
can live with the erroneous alerts until 2.0 is pronounced stable.


Frank Knobbe wrote:

> Kevin,
>
> while I appreciate the effort to get Snort 2.0 to be a rock solid
> version, I do prefer to stick with stable, or production, versions of
> Snort. Snort 2.0 is still labeled development, and I can't afford to run
> development which may contain bugs in production environments. I would
> rather see 1.9 getting correct, which Chris said has been taken care of
> concerning this particular issue.
>
> I think the distinction between stable and development is pretty blurry
> at the moment due to more effort being put into 2.0 than 1.9. I hope
> that Snort will eventually return to a clear separation between
> development and stable as it has been. Maybe I'm just too chicken, I
> don't know... :)
>
> Cheers,
> Frank
>
>
>  



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
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