Bluehost.com Web Hosting $6.95

Re: [Snort-users] More TCP Reset Questions

This is a discussion on Re: [Snort-users] More TCP Reset Questions within the Snort forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; Correct me if I am wrong but won't TCP resets for attacks like worms just produce more traffic? It ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > System Security and Security Related > Snort

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2004
Josh Berry
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: [Snort-users] More TCP Reset Questions

Correct me if I am wrong but won't TCP resets for attacks like worms just
produce more traffic? It will just multiply the amount of network traffic
and will not stop the worm as the reset will not make it until the
malicious payload has already hit your server/desktop. This is why it is
hard for me to find value in resets except for persistent connection
applications like P2P, Chat, Backdoor's, and Trojan's.

Thanks

> At 10:22 AM 3/1/2004, Josh Berry wrote:
>>In what situations do users on this list recommend using TCP-Resets, if
>>they are recommended at all? So far all I have is policy issues like
>> Chat
>>and P2P clients where resets disrupts the operation of the client, is
>>there anything else?

>
> Generally speaking, I'd say they are acceptable to use for almost anything
> that is clearly not permitted in your network.
>
> Attack sigs with no known FPs, Policy issues, etc are all fine.
>
> However, NEVER rely on tcp resets as your only line of defense against
> attacks. Flexresp is a great add-on to your network, but it should not be
> used to try to replace a firewall, or a mail-server virus scanner.
>
> In general keep in mind that a skilled attacker is likely to be able to
> get
> past a tcp reset with a few tries at advancing the sequence number.
> Flexresp2 makes it harder for the attacker, but given sufficient tries
> they
> will eventually get past it if they know what they are doing. Even an
> automated attack which isn't designed to evade flexresp has a small chance
> of evading it.
>
> Keeping that limitation in mind will help you avoid the tragic mistake of
> over-dependance on flexresp to provide network security. As long as you
> realize where it's limits are, feel free to implement it with most any sa
> rule that isn't noisy and FP prone.
>
> There's no reason to avoid using tcp resets. There's just reason to avoid
> treating them as "solid" protection.
>
>
>






-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Snort-users mailing list
Snort-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...fo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.p...st=snort-users
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0