Snort mailing list archives

Re: http_header issues, Snort 2.8.5.3


From: Will Metcalf <william.metcalf () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:46:12 -0500

I guess it should be noted for any interested parties,  if you are
writing a sig for suricata using snort rule syntax the cookie will be
included as part of the host_header buffer.  We will document this and
other deviations from snort behavior in our release notes or maybe a
separate README included in doc/ .

I continue to send this stuff as I feel that it in every ones best
interest if intended behavior is well documented. It is important to
OISF as we continue to add support for snort rule language but I feel
it is equally as important for snort users and sig writers as well.  I
have gotten sort of side-tracked with documenting the snort
content/modifier behavior but I have some help now so we should wrap
it up pretty soon.

We will make our results available via spreadsheet. We will also make
available  the rules and pcaps used to test so that people can test on
try it on their own if they wish. Maybe the community can keep the
spreadsheet updated between snort releases or something, to alleviate
some of the confusion about how matches/modifiers interact with each
other.  I've even seen older revisions of VRT rules where there was
incorrect use of http_* modifiers appended to multiple content matches
and used in combo with distance/within which isn't supported BTW.  Not
trying to pick on VRT, just trying to point out that it can be really
confusing.

Regards,

Will

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Steven Sturges
<steve.sturges () sourcefire com> wrote:
That separation is all about a performance optimization for the
fast pattern matcher.  If you also notice in the documentation,
it mentions that the cookie cannot be used in conjunction with
fast_pattern.  The cookie is not searched with fast pattern contents.

If you have a 2000 byte HTTP Cookie, there is little use searching
all of that data for content with the fast pattern matcher, which
is used to select rules for further inspection.

In 2.8.6, there is a configuration option that allows you to disable
cookie extract, thereby keeping HTTP cookies with the rest of the
HTTP headers.

Typically, you won't find something in a cookie header field that
you would also want to find in another header -- Host, Content-Type,
etc.  When the extraction of various pieces of the HTTP requests was
added in 2.8.3 -- a good 2+ years ago -- the development team
discussed with VRT and we came to the conclusion that for best
performance and flexibility, it was easiest to separate the two.

There is nothing preventing a rule writer from using BOTH http_cookie
and http_header as modifiers to the same content, aside from other
limitations on http_cookie.

Cheers.
-steve

Mike Cox wrote:
Agreed, I'm shocked that the http_header buffer doesn't include the
Cookie header.  It doesn't make sense.  According to the manual, "The
http header keyword is a content modifier that restricts the search to
the extracted Header fields of an HTTP client
request." (as an aside, note the incorrect use of 'an' instead of 'a')
 Why is the Cookie header a second class citizen in the HTTP headers
world?  I understand having a separate http_cookie buffer but it
doesn't mean Cookies are not headers anymore....

-Mike Cox

On 4/1/10, evilghost () packetmail net <evilghost () packetmail net> wrote:
Thanks Will for the speedy response, I apologize for not have read your
response to the list earlier.  I agree with you regarding this and it's
counter-intuitive to have the Cookie removed from the http_header buffer.

-evilghost

Will Metcalf wrote:
That because the cookie isn't included in the normalized header
buffer, you can only get to via http_cookie modifer.  I know it
doesn't make any sense to me either.  I sent the following e-mail to
snort-devel on 3/17.

"This is just my 2 cents, but I don't think the following behavior
makes sense.  I think that even though you are providing http_cookie
as a separate buffer to match on it should still be included in the
http_header buffer, well because it is part of the headers.

You can still match using the raw buffer but then you have to add
additional checks to try and differentiate between the headers and the
body which is why I'm guessing these modifiers were created in the
first place.  I realize that in most cases header order doesn't matter
but there may be instances where you can fingerprint a piece of
automated code (read malware) using a rule similar to sid 69 below.

Regards,

Will"

#this matches but I loose the performance/accuracy benefit of only
matching within the buffer containing http_headers.
alert tcp any any -> any any (msg:"http_cookie + ";
content:"Cookie|3A|
e6504ae48c99f09df7f58996aacbb6b0=120e494ce857d6ceeef89f9678d4d703|0d
0a|Content-Type|3A| application"; classtype:bad-unknown; sid:68;
rev:1;)

#this fails to match as the cookie is not part of the http_header
buffer but is part of the real http headers.
alert tcp any any -> any any (msg:"http_cookie + ";
content:"Cookie|3A|
e6504ae48c99f09df7f58996aacbb6b0=120e494ce857d6ceeef89f9678d4d703|0d
0a|Content-Type|3A| application"; http_header; classtype:bad-unknown;
sid:69; rev:1;)



On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, evilghost () packetmail net
<evilghost () packetmail net> wrote:

Hello, I am running Snort 2.8.5.3 and it appears that either
http_header; is not working correctly, does not work with a relative
keyword, or I do not understand http_header; correctly.  I am attempting
to constrain a content match to the http_header for performance reasons.

Note, no need to recommend isdataat, I know there is data within 1024
bytes past the previous content match.

Does NOT work:
   uricontent:"/login.php"; fast_pattern; content:"|0d 0a|Cookie\: ";
nocase; http_header; content:"ieatbugs="; within:1024;

Does work:
   uricontent:"/login.php"; fast_pattern; content:"|0d 0a|Cookie\: ";
nocase; content:"ieatbugs="; within:1024;

Comments/insight appreciated.

-evilghost

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs () lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs () lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs () lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs


Current thread: