Snort mailing list archives
Re: msg update for these, please?
From: Alex Kirk <akirk () sourcefire com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:19:45 -0400
well, i wasn't really asking anything... i was pointing out what i see in the rule... one's a download from a server to the client and the other is an upload from the client to a server... actually, "server" may be a misnomer here but that could be semantics, too... Yes, SID 15306 is for data traveling "down" to the client,yes, that's my take on it, too... 16425 looks at a packet coming "up" from the client -yes, so the client is uploading a file... possibly a game or self-extracting binary to a file distribution channel like on the original BBS' where users uploaded and downloaded lottsa files all day long ;) No, it's not. It's sending a GET request to the server that has a URI which
contains .exe. It's asking for a .exe file.
which will then trigger data coming back "down" from the server that youmay not want.hunh? where do you see that in 1:16425? it would be the job of /other/ rules to detect that, wouldn't it? ;)
You don't see that in 16425. It's implied, though, from the fact that the client has requested a .exe file that it's probably going to get such a file returned to it. While 15306 will generally alert on the file being returned, we have SID 16425 because some people want to drop outbound requests that have .exe in the URI.
in any case, i really do think it best that the one to the client denotes that and the one to the server denotes that as well... no matter what else may happen after it gets where it is going :) i do try to adhere to the KISS principle and go with the most simple choice when i can instead of over-engineering things ;) :P > Duplicate messages are generally no fun, though, so how about makingthe second > one "WEB-CLIENT Portable Executable binary file transfer - .exe in URI"? that might work but see above... ;) > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM, waldo kitty < wkitty42 () windstream net <mailto:wkitty42 () windstream net> > <mailto:wkitty42 () windstream net <mailto:wkitty42 () windstream net>>> wrote: > > > can we get a MSG update for these, please?? > > OLD: > 15306 WEB-CLIENT Portable Executable binary file transfer > 16425 WEB-CLIENT Portable Executable binary file transfer > > NEW: > 15306 WEB-CLIENT Portable Executable binary file transfer to client > 16425 WEB-CLIENT Portable Executable binary file transfer to server > > or some such? > > thanks!
-- Alex Kirk AEGIS Program Lead Sourcefire Vulnerability Research Team +1-410-423-1937 alex.kirk () sourcefire com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________ 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:
- msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Alex Kirk (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? Jefferson, Shawn (Sep 28)
- Re: msg update for these, please? waldo kitty (Sep 28)
