Snort mailing list archives

Re: XFF/ExtraData not always logged for drop rules


From: Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:16 -0400

Any update/confirmation on this?

I hate to think that the Snort community has become a one way street now
that Cisco is calling the shots....  :(

-Mike Cox

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com> wrote:

Put simply, the network traffic that generates an event has to be flushed
and ACKd for the ExtraData (e.g. XFF data) to be logged.  This means that
for 'drop' rules, if the packet is inspected individually (no flushing or
ACK) or if a stream is flushed before being fully ACKd (i.e. when
'normalize_tcp: ips' is enabled so the sensor is in pre-ACK mode), the
ExtraData is not logged.

I'm convinced that the above is true and I'm suprised no one has brought
it up before now.

-Mike Cox

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com> wrote:

Thanks Carter.  Is my analysis correct on how XFF logging works and the
lack of logging in the described scenarios?

Thanks!

-Mike Cox

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Carter Waxman (cwaxman) <
cwaxman () cisco com> wrote:

 Hi Mike,

 Thanks for the detailed analysis. We will be tracking this internally.

 -Carter

  From: Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 2:00 PM
To: "snort-devel () lists sourceforge net" <
snort-devel () lists sourceforge net>
Subject: Re: [Snort-devel] XFF/ExtraData not always logged for drop
rules

    I did some quick tests with Snort 2.9.7.3/Stream6 and saw the same
behavior described above.

 Any insights, agreements, or disagreements?

 Testing scenario 1 is easy enough.  For scenario 2, I've attached a
pcap with a simple HTTP request (with XFF header) and response that both
require reasembly.

 These rules can be used to test (only enable one at a time):

 drop tcp any any -> any $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"Client request with XFF -
reassembly required"; flow:established,to_server; content:"GET";
http_method; content:"requestmatch"; sid:36332;)

drop tcp any $HTTP_PORTS -> any any (msg:"Server response XFF test -
reassembly required"; flow:established,to_client; content:"Server";
http_header; file_data; content:"ninja"; sid:26221;)

 If 'normalize: tcp' is enabled (flush policy is *-IPS/pre-ACK), the
the rules will trigger but the ExtraData with the XFF info is not logged.
If you change the rules to 'alert' or if you disable normalize so the
sensor is in post-ACK mode, the ExtraData/XFF info is logged.  You'll want
to run in inline mode (the dump DAQ is great for testing!) and of course
you need to be configured to output unified2.

 Thanks!

 -Mike Cox

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com> wrote:

 VRT and Snort Devs,


The X-Forwared-For ("XFF") and/or True-Client-IP data is stored in what is called "ExtraData" and written to the 
unified2 file.  ExtraData is often not written to the unified2 file at the same time as other alert data and can 
depend on stream flushing as well as alert flushing.

Looking at Stream5, there are a number of cases where the XFF ExtraData is not logged on 'drop' rules even though 
it is available in the data stream.  From what I can tell, the ExtraData gets written by purge_alerts() which gets 
called by purge_to_seq() which gets called by purge_flushed_ackd() (sometimes these functions get called when 
dealing with TIME_WAIT timer stuff but let's ignore those cases for now).  However, purge_flushed_ackd() only 
purges flushed and acked bytes (as I understand it, bytes that are flushed *and* ackd).

So in these situations, when 'drop' rules trigger, the ExtraData is not written:

1) A single packet triggers the drop rule and it is inspected as a packet and not part of a (reassembled) stream.
  - The Stream5 preprocessor doesn't get involved enough to do the appropriate flushing/purging required to write 
the ExtraData.

2) A reassembled stream "packet" triggers the drop rule *and* the normalize_tcp preprocessor is enabled (i.e. 
'normalize_tcp: ips' which is going to be the Protocol-IPS or Footprint-IPS flush policy depending on PAF).
  - Snort is in pre-ACK mode and so it doesn't wait on the ACK to flush the data to detection.  Since the flushing 
happens before the ACK is received (and the ACK isn't processed anyway since the stream is blocked by the block 
rule), the ExtraData never gets written.

I can understand and somewhat accept why the ExtraData isn't written for scenario 1 although this happens when the 
HTTP Inspect preprocessor is already engaged so it seems feasible to log the ExtraData/XFF.  Can this be done?

For scenario 2, can I make a feature request that the ExtraData gets logged appropriately in this case?  I'm 
guessing that people who run Snort inline also have normalize and PAF enabled and it makes sense to me that 'drop' 
rules would still write ExtraData, especially since Stream5 is fully involved.
Once drop rules fire, the stream gets blocked (assuming the DAQ supports this) so it makes sense to go ahead and 
compile/write out the ExtraData since nothing else on that stream is going to get fully processed.

I haven't looked much at Stream6 although it looks like most of the code from Stream5 so I'm not sure why the 
version number change.

Thanks!

-Mike Cox

P.S. setting 'flush_on_alert' for Stream5 doesn't seem to have any affect on these scenarios.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
https://www.gigenetcloud.com/
_______________________________________________
Snort-devel mailing list
Snort-devel () lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-devel
Archive:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=snort-devel

Please visit http://blog.snort.org for the latest news about Snort!

Current thread: