Snort mailing list archives
Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures
From: Matt Olney <molney () sourcefire com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:55:54 -0500
No, scanning LAMP network for II6 holes are not FPs, it just means that tuning of rules is in order. Also, SPAM isn't an IDS issue, at least from my point of view. I worry about malicious, not asinine. Matt (Seriously, back to razorback now) On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Michael Scheidell < michael.scheidell () secnap com> wrote:
if someone is scanning my LAMP network for IIS6 holes, are those FP's? btw, when on the icsa labs anti-spam initial steering group, all the vendors argues about was a SPAM and HAM was. that was the largest, longest and noisiest and most contentious issue. what is a spam? a) from email admin perspective: b) from user perspective. from a user, its 'something I didn't want, even if I signed up for it' ham? something I wanted, even if I didn't sign up for it. needed to come to an agreement, since part of the icsa labs certification was > 95% spam capture, and less then 1 in 100,000 FP's. so, if brother in law on aol gets a joke fwd to him, that has been around 100 times, and sends it to user, and the (business tuned) anti-spam engine blocks it, is that a FP?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________ 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 Joel Esler (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures beenph (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Matthew Jonkman (Feb 04)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Jim Hranicky (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures Martin Holste (Feb 04)
- Re: Reliability of signatures waldo kitty (Feb 04)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Stone (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Matt Olney (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Matt Olney (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Matthew Jonkman (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Jacob Kitchel (Feb 11)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Jacob Kitchel (Feb 11)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Martin Roesch (Feb 11)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Michael Scheidell (Feb 10)
- Re: [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures Matt Olney (Feb 10)