Re: Help to run snort on linux machine

[sri harsha <harsha536 () gmail com>]

Hi Again,

I tried using default snort configuration file with snort version 2.8.5.1
and send attack using snot tool with just one rule as below in my local rule
file,

./snort -r local.rules -d <des ip> -s <src ip>

alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET 21 (msg:"FTP SITE EXEC format
string attempt"; flow:to_server,established; content:"SITE"; nocase;
content:"EXEC"; distance:0; nocase;
pcre:"/^SITE\s+EXEC\s[^\n]*?%[^\n]*?%/smi"; metadata:policy balanced-ips
drop, policy connectivity-ips drop, policy security-ips drop, service ftp;
reference:bugtraq,1387; reference:bugtraq,1505; classtype:bad-unknown;
sid:1971; rev:8;)

When just 1 packet sent using snot no attack detected. With 50 and 500 same
result. But when I sent 5000 same packets I see below logs in
/var/log/snort/alert file.

[**] [1:2417:4] FTP format string attempt [**]
[Classification: A suspicious string was detected] [Priority: 3]
04/07-07:21:05.936540 76.0.0.10:44250 -> 4.4.4.10:21
TCP TTL:99 TOS:0x0 ID:45715 IpLen:20 DgmLen:274
1******F Seq: 0xAF06E880  Ack: 0x254D0D18  Win: 0x5CE3  TcpLen: 20
[Xref => http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2002-2074][Xref =>
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/9800]

What does this mean? I see multiple such logs. Does this mean attack
detected or something else? Also why it start detecting only when I sent
huge number of packets( > 5000)?

Rgds,
Sriharsha


On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:45 AM, sri harsha <harsha536 () gmail com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> Does anybody know any tool which generates attack packets which are
> stateful in nature and I can use that tool to test snort? I mean it
> establishes the TCP connection and then send attack packets?
>
> Sriharsha
>
> 2010/4/6 Edward Bjarte Fjellskål <edward.fjellskal () redpill-linpro com>
>
> sri harsha wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I am using snort version 2.8.5.1 and trying to understand how it works.
> > > I posted the same query earlier but did not get enough response. I am
> > > simulating attack packets using tool called snot. This tool generates
> > > attack packets which are basically stateless in nature. I mean it
> > > generates packets without proper 3 way TCP handshake. But snort is not
> > > detecting those attacks.
> >
> > The attacks are not real... they would not have any affect in real life :)
> > IE, how would a ftp attack that needs the user to log in etc, be
> > effective if there is just one stateless packet?
> >
> > Say your tool sends a "mkdir Evil-buffer-overflow" when your ftp server
> > does not handle that packet, cuz you need first to have a 3whs, a login
> > etc.
> >
> > > I am able to see UDP, ICMP packets getting detected but not TCP. I read
> > > snort README and tried various options like require_3whs, detect
> > > anomalies etc in stream5 preprocessor with tcp_track set to yes but no
> > > luck.
> > >
> > > One response I got was snort latest version doesn't detect stateless
> > > attacks and expect the end host TCP stack will take care. But my concern
> > > what if the stack is not capable to handle such attack? Do we have any
> > > way by which we can tweak snort and detect such stateless attacks?
> >
> > You would to rewrite the rules to not be state aware I guess. Like in
> > the old days...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-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