Snort mailing list archives
Re: DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface vs read-file
From: abed mohammad kamaluddin <abedamu () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 02:51:18 +0530
Generally this should happen if packets are sent at a rate higher than what snort can process, or the packet ordering is messes up resulting in lots of TCP discards. In your case since there are no drops, the ordering should be the issue. One way to get consistent results using tcpreplay is to replay at very low rates ( using pps or M option) - this works for us. Abed M K
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:18:11 -0500
From: Mike Cox <mike.cox52 () gmail com>
Subject: [Snort-devel] DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface
vs read-file
To: "snort-devel () lists sourceforge net"
<snort-devel () lists sourceforge net>
Message-ID:
<CANXgGSLh0WGj0XRAwDqkvQC1r1XgujZ5fLumi21nYrjXDVGhtQ () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
When I run a pcap thru snort using the dump DAQ and
'--load-mode=read-file', everything works great.
snort -Q --daq dump --daq-dir /usr/lib/daq/ --daq-var --load-mode=read-file
--pcap-list="my.pcap" -k none ...
But when I try to have Snort listen on a dummy interface (that is set to
promiscuous mode) and then use tcpreplay to send traffic to that interface,
Stream6 has all kinds of issues:
snort -Q --daq dump --daq-dir /usr/lib/daq/ --daq-var --load-mode=passive
-i dummy0 -k none ...
(The rest of this email discusses the dummy0/tcpreplay scenario and I'm
replaying at a low(ish) rate and confirming no packet drops in Snort nor on
the interface.)
When the pcap replay is done, Snort is left in a state with a lot of
unflushed data. Looking at the stats when Snort exits, there are a lot of
TCP discards. Turning on some debugging messages shows a number of these
errors:
Pkt ack is out of bounds, bailing!
bad sequence number, bailing
bad timestamp, bailing
I also see some of these (example):
packet PAWS timestamp way too far ahead oflast packet 1456349637 0...
Note the '0' at the end which is the value of talker->ts_last_pkt
(timestamp of last packet seen -- not the TCP Options timestamp but epoch
of when Snort saw the packet).
I also see a lot of "one offs" like this:
out of order segment (tdb->seq: 0xC3F899C l->r_nxt_ack: 0xC3F899D!
So my questions is, what is different with having Snort listen on the dummy
interface vs reading the pcap file? Every time I run the same pcap with
tcpreplay, I don't get the same issues from the same segments and different
segments end up being queued and not flushed. I'm also unable to reduce
the issue to a single stream or a small pcap (if I carve out a single
stream or portion that was exhibiting issues in the larger pcap and run it,
it does fine). This looks to be Stream6 thing and turning on/off PAF,
normalize, running in inline-test mode, etc. produces the same results.
For some reason the segments aren't being processed properly resulting in
TCP discards and ultimately unflushed data.
This may not be a Snort thing but something strange about the dummy
interface and/or the dump DAQ but I thought I'd ask here in case anyone had
any insight or dealt with this before.
I'm testing on Snort 2.9.7.5 and DAQ 2.0.5 on CentOS 7 64-bit.
Thanks!
-Mike Cox
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Snort-devel mailing list Snort-devel () lists sourceforge net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-devel Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=snort-devel Please visit http://blog.snort.org for the latest news about Snort!
Current thread:
- DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface vs read-file Mike Cox (Feb 25)
- Re: DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface vs read-file Mike Cox (Feb 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface vs read-file abed mohammad kamaluddin (Feb 29)
- Re: DAQ dump: load-mode passive on dummy interface vs read-file Mike Cox (Mar 01)
