[Snort-users] Klez sig detects Frethem-Fam
shanew at ...5387...
Tue Jul 16 06:49:12 EDT 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I've been using the following rule for a couple of months, and I
haven't seen any false positives (I'm also using it as a system-wide
procmail filter and I check for false positives there), but I'm not
familiar with Frethem-Fam, so maybe I just don't realize.
I purposely put in some of the carriage returns so it's less likely to
set off people's filters. Note also that I want to know if it's
leaving my network as well as coming in.
# Catch Klez in SMTP
alert tcp any any -> any 25 (msg:"Virus - Klez";
If you get either false negatives or positives, please let me know.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Detmar Liesen wrote:
> Hi again,
> granted, I haven't read my sigs mail thoroughly during the past few days, so
> maybe this has already been discussed.
> We are currently detecting lots of "Klez" worms with our snort, which are in
> fact Frethem-Fam worms, so the two seem to be related or derived from each
> I can tell this from the AV alerts on our mail gateway.
> Is there any means to distinguish the two from each other?
> I'd rather not look for the "password" W8dqwq8q918213 (see reference
> since this is likely to change.
> Has anybody created a sig for Frethem already?
> Maybe it's no good to create additional signatures for each derived worm,
> because this
> has negative impact on snort performance. Snort is no AV tool anyway.
> What do you recommend regarding worm/virus detection in snort?
> Is this something we should leave to the AV software solely?
> Additional Info:
Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew at ...5387...
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.gslis.utexas.edu/~shanew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Snort-users