[Snort-users] spp_portscan and database schema

Erek Adams erek at ...577...
Fri Jul 19 11:57:04 EDT 2002


On 19 Jul 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:

> 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
> that.
> 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.

Yes.  You've got excellent points, and you're preaching to the converted on
this one.  ;-)

Way back when Snort was just a lil' piglet, spp_portscan was written.  At that
time, there was no DB output.  spp_portscan was never really updated to dump
it's full info into the DB, due to the way packets were logged (alert vs.
log).

> 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. :-)

No, not quite.  ;)  If you want to see portscan alerts in your DB, make the
change listed in the ACID faq.  The reason is that spp_portscan uses the
'alert' facility, instead of the 'log' facility.  By 'log' it doesn't mean
"log every packet", it means "send this packet thru the 'log' facility".
'Alert' will "send this packet thru the alert facility, generate an alert, and
then 'log' the packet for later examination."

Since spp_portscan uses 'alert' to send the data back into snort, you must
tell snort to send 'alerts' to the DB.  It still gets logged, but as an alert
and not just a 'logged packet'.

Does that help?

> Great!
> What are the differences between v2 and v1?

Codewise--A lot.  Written by someone else, coded in a different way, uses more
of the 'newer code' from 1.9, and generally is still _alpha_ code.  :)

> <dumb_mode>
> Are we going to get "portscan.log in the database" with v2? :-)
> </dumb_mode>

I think the possiblity could exist--But, I'm not a coder, nor do I play on on
TV.  :)  My fingers are crossed....

Cheers!

-----
Erek Adams
Nifty-Type-Guy
TheAdamsFamily.Net





More information about the Snort-users mailing list