Home page logo

basics logo Security Basics mailing list archives

RE: New scanner?
From: "newsletters" <listserv () citadelconsulting net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:51:49 -0500

Regarding the Snort rules conflict,

I looked for CodeRed v2 rules on the snort mailing list and found some
varying documentation in the list archive. The official documentation
does list the following and would appear that this doesn't show proof of
a compromise. If this is the case I officially "eat crow" and apologize
for the mistake. However, I would never endorse rebuilding a server
based on the singular post on a mailing list. 

I am also somewhat confused about the rule. The syntax shows
"established". I assume that this means that connectivity was
established, but not what the server response included (i.e. 400, 500,
or 200).

If Jeremy is available it would be nice to hear what his findings were.

I appreciate the debate from HC. Without the debate I wouldn't have
considered another point of view.


Link to snort rule# 1256 documentation:

CodeRed v2 root.exe access"; flow:to_server,established;
uricontent:"/root.exe"; nocase; classtype:web-application-attack;
reference:url,www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-19.html; sid:1256; rev:7;)

-----Original Message-----
From: H C [mailto:keydet89 () yahoo com] 
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:19 AM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: New scanner?

A couple of things...

First off, it's good that snort is running to catch
these things.

To CB...
"My opinion would be to rebuild the box with all
current patches and service packs."

Why?  Just b/c snort picked up the signatures, doesn't
mean that the box was actually compromised...does it? 
After all, the snort signatures are specific enough to
pick up the inbound signatures, but nothing from
Jeremy shows what the response codes from IIS are...do
they?  Jeremy didn't mention anything about the
server's responses, nor did he post the web logs.  In
fact, Jeremy never actually said which web server (if
any) he's running!

The assumption is that Jeremy is running IIS...and
this may actually be the case.  However, Jeremy's post
has only the snort signature titles, and nothing else.

What this shows is that there is still a propensity to
make assumptions, not only regarding posts such as
Jeremy's, but in incident response investigations, as well.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]