[Snort-devel] RFC - XML Rules definition question?

Andrew R. Baker andrewb at ...835...
Wed Jan 9 19:55:04 EST 2002


Gareth wrote:
> 
> Ok - I may be in the wrong place, but no-doubt someone will tell me :-)
> 
> How would I go about proposing a change to the rule set definitions? I'll
> make my case now - please shoot me down if this is the wrong place etc.
> 
> Snort currently uses a rule set that is configured as a set of flat files.
> However to externally parse and update these files means that custom code
> needs to be written to read/generate the rule sets. I know its not rocket
> science, but as there are a number of XML parsers out there already could
> that be a better option?

This has been discussed before.  The consensus then was (and I don't
think that it has changed) that an XML based rules language will make
writing and reading rules rely entirely on external applications.  I
will no longer be able to write a new rule by just opening up the rules
file with vi.  

The current rules language is designed to rules to be easily understood
and written.  An XML based language would require the use of a seperate
program for reading and writing new rules.  This will cause a decrease
in the number of new rules being added.  It will also cause maintenance
of the existing rules more cumbersome.  I will no longer be able to
quickly scan the ruleset and disable rules that I don't want running.

With the addition of the signature IDs, it becomes fairly easy to track
meta data about rules (such as an in-depth description, affected
systems, etc.) without cluttering up the rules files themselves with
such information.

-A

Sometimes I wonder if these requests for an XML based rules language
really originate with commercial IDS vendors who want to use snort
rules, but don't want to write a custom parser for them.




More information about the Snort-devel mailing list