[Snort-devel] A smaller Snprt?
cmg at ...402...
Wed May 29 04:04:02 EDT 2002
Erek Adams <erek at ...105...> writes:
> Ok, in an effort to build out a compact and 'tiny' package of snort, I've come
> up with some questions:
> 1) If I'm not using a plugin, and I _don't_ want to compile it in,
> what is the 'developer suggested' way that I remove it from the
remove it from plugbase.c and remove it from Makefile.in and rerun automake.
> 2) 'stripping' the binary should produce no ill effects,
> 3) Any other suggestions on shrinking the size of the snort
You could rip out all the decoders in decode.c that don't apply to you
You could also use one of the binary compression
http://upx.sourceforge.net/ or gzexe
Thats probably your best bet for quick and easy.
> and associated files?
> 4) Other than bug hunting/tracking, would shrinking/stripping of the
> binary be a bad thing?
Nope. The reason against stripping is that it means you can't do a
Chris Green <cmg at ...402...>
Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever.
More information about the Snort-devel