[Snort-users] RE: [Snort-sigs] signature doesn't match

This is a discussion on [Snort-users] RE: [Snort-sigs] signature doesn't match within the Snort forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; I wasn't paying attention, sorry. I believe that the content keyword only looks at the data payload, not the ...


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

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2004
Joshua Berry
 
Posts: n/a
Default [Snort-users] RE: [Snort-sigs] signature doesn't match

I wasn't paying attention, sorry. I believe that the content keyword
only looks at the data payload, not the MAC/IP/Port Information and this
would be why the rule is not alerting.

-----Original Message-----
From: snort-sigs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:snort-sigs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Alexandru
Balan
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 8:48 AM
To: snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Snort-sigs] signature doesn't match


Thanks but it still doesn't work
i even tried leaving the rule like..=20
alert tcp any any -> any 445 (msg:"445 worm"; content:"|00 0E 83 63 FD
80 08 00 45 1E|"; classtype:attempted-recon; sid:2000001;)

and it still doesn't match. Curious enough, when i try content with only
"|00 0E|" or "|83 63|" or other such groups it matches.=20
Don't shoot. I'm a newbie at writing rules.=20

--
Jay


On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 08:26 -0500, Joshua Berry wrote:
> Your rule looks for established connections and these alerts are

session
> initiation attempts (SYN only). Instead of using
> flow:to_server,established, try using flags:S
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: snort-sigs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:snort-sigs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Alexandru
> Balan
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 6:43 AM
> To: snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Snort-sigs] signature doesn't match
>=20
>=20
> Hello,
> My problem follows,
> I run snort on a machine bridged between a server pool and their
> gateway. I've been sniffing packets using snort in order to catch

worms,
> botnets, scans, etc..=20
> Well.. let's say i catch this on port 445...
>=20
> [root@kali root]# snort -v -d -e -I -X -i br0 dst net y.y.y.0/19 and

dst
> port 445
> [snip]
> Version 2.1.3 (Build 27)
> By Martin Roesch (roesch@sourcefire.com, www.snort.org)
> 06/18-14:36:19.492129 0:E:83:63:FD:80 -> 0:4:76:95:18:D9 type:0x800
> len:0x3E
> x.x.x.x:1805 -> y.y.y.y:445 TCP TTL:118 TOS:0x1E ID:31183 IpLen:20
> DgmLen:48 DF
> ******S* Seq: 0xFB469360 Ack: 0x0 Win: 0xFFFF TcpLen: 28
> TCP Options (4) =3D> MSS: 1420 NOP NOP SackOK
> 0x0000: 00 04 76 95 18 D9 00 0E 83 63 FD 80 08 00 45
> 1E ..v......c....E.
> 0x0010: 00 30 79 CF 40 00 76 06 1B 78 50 76 6E 48 50
> 56 .0y.@.v..xPvnHPV
> 0x0020: 60 4E 07 0D 01 BD FB 46 93 60 00 00 00 00 70 02
> `N.....F.`....p.
> 0x0030: FF FF 7C 73 00 00 02 04 05 8C 01 01 04 02

...|s..........
>=20
>

=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3 D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D=
+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= 3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+
> =3D+
>=20
> 06/18-14:36:19.987047 0:E:83:63:FD:80 -> 0:D:60:19:D6:C8 type:0x800
> len:0x3E
> x.x.x.x:3710 -> y.y.y.y:445 TCP TTL:118 TOS:0x1E ID:7853 IpLen:20
> DgmLen:48 DF
> ******S* Seq: 0x61612509 Ack: 0x0 Win: 0x4000 TcpLen: 28
> TCP Options (4) =3D> MSS: 1460 NOP NOP SackOK
> 0x0000: 00 0D 60 19 D6 C8 00 0E 83 63 FD 80 08 00 45
> 1E ..`......c....E.
> 0x0010: 00 30 1E AD 40 00 76 06 50 C0 D9 2B 01 96 50
> 56 .0..@.v.P..+..PV
> 0x0020: 6A 25 0E 7E 01 BD 61 61 25 09 00 00 00 00 70 02
> j%.~..aa%.....p.
> 0x0030: 40 00 17 3D 00 00 02 04 05 B4 01 01 04 02

@..=3D..........
>=20
> And write the following rule..=20
> alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET 445 (msg:"445 worm";
> flow:to_server,established; content:"|00 0E 83 63 FD 80 08 00 45 1E|";
> depth:20; classtype:attempted-recon; priority:2; sid:2000001;)
>=20
>=20
> At this point, i should have a few hundred (at least) false
> positives
> but for a reason that eludes me the rule doesn't match anything

although
> if i sniff grepping for "00 0E 83 63 FD 80 08 00 45 1E" my console

gets
> flooded with matches.=20
>=20
> What is wrong with my rule?=20
>=20
> --
> Jay



-------------------------------------------------------
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
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 10:51 AM.


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