Snort mailing list archives
Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan
From: Edin Dizdarevic <edin.dizdarevic () interActive-Systems de>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:20:58 +0100
Hi Erek, Erek Adams wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Edin Dizdarevic wrote: [...snip...]There are no reliable statements on how fast the network is allowed to be.heh... Tell me about it. :)According to my information, libpcap is able to capture about 700Mbit/s, so that should not be a capturing problem. I already suspected that, since it was no problem to capture 40000 packets in 2 seconds with tcpdump.Here's something that would be an interesting test case: Use netstat -i to get your in/out packets and errors for the interface in question. Then start snort in one window, and at the same time start tcpdump in another window--Be sure and log to a pcap file for both. After 5 or 10 seconds, stop both. Again check netstat -i and get your numbers. Check the numbers that netstat reports vs. snort vs. tcpdump.
As I already said, this is probably not a capturing problem. I have no dropped packets at all in the statistics. Capturing with tcpdump is working fine. I also captured with Snort in capture mode - no problem. :(
There have been cases where it's not code, but hardware. Do you have a 'good' nic? How's the driver for it?
Well, I used 3Com 905C, Intel EtherExpress 100 and Realtek (SiS900) with same results. That should be a proof enough.
So, it must be a processing problem. But which preprocessor can handle so much traffic? It should be the possible, to mask an attack with a simple nmap scan. Isn't that quite easy to achieve?Well, some folks that I know of with fat pipes (multi DS3s) don't run _any_ processors. They simply log to disk, and then post process with another .conf for processors. That may not work for you, but it might be something to consider.
Hm, N*A? ;). However, indeed a very interessting idea! Only find the way to buffer the stuff in the traffic peaks. A FIFO perhaps? tcpdump -n -l -i eth0 -w log.bin ; snort -r log.bin ? ;) The latency time should not be very high.
Hope that helps!
Thanks a lot, Edin_
----- Erek Adams "When things get weird, the wierd turn pro." H.S. Thompson
-- Edin Dizdarevic Networking Unit Internet- & e-Security iAS interActive Systems Gesellschaft fuer interaktive Medien mbH Dieffenbachstr. 33c 10967 Berlin Germany fon +49-(0)30 69 004-123 fax +49-(0)30 69 004-101 mail edin.dizdarevic () interActive-Systems de URL http://www.interActive-Systems.de/security ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- RE: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Gonzalez, Albert (Jan 13)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Edin Dizdarevic (Jan 14)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Erek Adams (Jan 14)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Edin Dizdarevic (Jan 14)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Erek Adams (Jan 14)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Edin Dizdarevic (Jan 15)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Erek Adams (Jan 14)
- Re: Portscan preprocessors dropping packets on a si mple nmap-scan Edin Dizdarevic (Jan 14)
