[Snort-users] spp_portscan and database schema

Kreimendahl, Chad J Chad.Kreimendahl at ...4716...
Fri Jul 19 10:34:06 EDT 2002


-----Original Message-----
From: Florin Andrei [mailto:florin at ...3506...] 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:05 PM
To: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Snort-users] spp_portscan and database schema

On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:03, Erek Adams wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:
> > I'm looking at portscan.log and i'd like to get that kind of
> > from the database without too many twists.
> > Of course, if i'd run Snort in log mode, i think i'd have enough
data to
> > do that. But i'm running it in the alert mode, and log mode is not
> > really an option (too much traffic).
> > It would be nice if spp_portscan would suddenly switch to "log mode"
> > once it detects a portscan, and revert back to alert. Or something
> > that, i'm not sure how to explain.
> > To put it dumbly, "i want portscan.log in the database". :-)
> Covered in your Handy-Dandy FAQ pages!
> 	http://acidlab.sourceforge.net/acid_faq.html#faq_b7

Yes, that's precisely what i'd like to see done in a different way.
That's why i wrote my first message.
Not having ports (and other TCP info) in the database makes you do all
kind of weird acrobatics to get meaningful info from the data.

I mean, i think it's an architectural issue here. Pre-processors cannot
pass data to the output plugin because they don't have to. I'm cool with
At least, usual preprocs don't have to, because it doesn't make sense
for them to do that (what would be the purpose to begin with?).

But portscan is not like the others, the very nature of the event that
triggers the portscan alerts is different. Passing TCP data, like ports,
etc. suddenly makes sense here.

> Now, _WHY_ do you have to do it that way?
> 	http://www.theadamsfamily.net/~erek/snort/logging_methods.txt

If i understand this correctly, Marty basically says "turn on logging if
you want that info in the database" (correct me if i'm wrong).
I cannot do that, the traffic is way too high. I don't have multiple
multi-terabyte RAID arrays available. :-)

> Seriously, spp_portscan2 is being worked on in the 1.9dev branch.
That will
> make quite a few changes to the way portscans are handled, so don't
> things to remain the same. :)

What are the differences between v2 and v1?
Are we going to get "portscan.log in the database" with v2? :-)

Florin Andrei

Don't break things that don't need to be broken
while you're fixing things that really need fixing.

This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
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 mailing list