[Snort-users] catch all rule
vosipov at ...2096...
Tue Jun 19 05:05:19 EDT 2001
Why not use "log" instead of "alert"?
alert blahblahblah (standart snort rules)
pass tcp !MY_NET any -> webserver 80
log any any any -> any any (msg: \"tcp dmz traffic";)
this is the standart order without -o option
> In the following example , I want to protect my dmz and will make a
> rule for all traffic from and to my dmz.
> alert any any any -> any any (msg: \"tcp dmz traffic";)
> But in this case, alerts will be generated when people access my
> webserver. So I make this nice pass rule to grant access to my webserver.
> pass tcp !MY_NET any -> webserver 80
> Because this pass rule is applied below the alert rule, I have to use the
> -o option, to make sure that this previous rule makes an exception to the
> other rules.
> But in this scenario, I don't check the content of the pass rule for
> malicious traffic using the other alert rules. But if I delete the pass
> rule, it triggers the "catch all other traffic" rule.
> Therefor: is there an other way to implement a "catch all traffic"
> rule? Using this rule, you can write rules for all
> allowed traffic , and alert for all non-defined traffic. All other
> signatures (http malicious traffic for example) will still be applied to
> all traffic, even if they are in the pass or catch all rules.
> Someone has an idea?
> Thanks a lot.
> Snort-users mailing list
> Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
> Snort-users list archive:
More information about the Snort-users