Re: [Snort-users] How can I recognize Snort rules with high false

>>>In my network, low false positive rate is very more important than low
>>>false negative rate.
>>
>>Ummm, I think you have it backwards. False positives suck, but they can
>>be dealt with. False negatives mean that attacks are bypassing the
>>sensor without detection. If you don't mind false negatives, you're
>>wasting your time running an IDS.
>
>
> I disagree. Hear what you are saying: "False negatives mean that attacks are
> bypassing the sensor without detection". Are you impling that *ALL* IDS (or
> even *ANY* IDS) picks up *ALL* attacks - i.e. zero false negatives?

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I was implying just what I said:
If given the choice between a FP and a FN, the FP is preferable. The
OP stated that he wanted to get rid of FPs but didn't care about FNs,
which is a very strange thing for an operator to say.

The goal of IDS tuning is to reduce FPs to an acceptable level, while
trying to avoid setting up your system for FNs. This doesn't mean that
I believe that there are never FNs--it just means that an operator
should do everything possible to try and prevent them.

Taking the "I don't care about FNs" approach to tuning will usually
result in the operator carelessly disabling features and attack classes
in the name of getting rid of FPs, which will serve the immediate
purpose, but will likely result in a lot of missed legitimate detects as
well.

And when it all comes down to it, it's easy to dismiss FPs at the
analyst's console. That's cheap compared to 50 FNs that were missed
because some entire attack class was slashed in the name or FP reduction.

> If you agree that there is no product that has zero false negatives, then
> it becomes an issue of having a solution where the level of false negatives
> is acceptable. i.e. if you have a Windows network, then having an IDS that
> can pick up trojan outbreaks - but can't see Intellectual Property theft (a
> false negative that is actually impossible to fix without extremely tight
> human-dependent processes in place) might be acceptable.

I agree. Finding acceptable levels of alerts on both sides of the fence
*is* important. But to take measures to reduce FPs, with little or no
regard for the amount of FNs caused, is not the ideal approach.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND
_______________________________________________
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