[Snort-users] v2.8.4 incorrect logging to MySQL

Jefferson, Shawn Shawn.Jefferson at ...14448...
Tue Apr 14 15:56:43 EDT 2009


Well, if they did remove those output plugins from the Snort code-base, it would just get put into another separate product (maybe barnyard).  Maybe this would simplify development and maintenance, maybe not (I'm not a pro developer myself...)  The same functionality would still undoubtedly exist though.

Every company has a limited amount of development skill and man power.  Anything they can offload to other products/developers frees up development time for "core" snort development.  Maybe snort v3.0 (or v4.0) would be completed and released faster.


-----Original Message-----
From: Loyal A Moses [mailto:loyalmoses at ...3027...] 
Sent: April 14, 2009 12:36 PM
To: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Snort-users] v2.8.4 incorrect logging to MySQL


Is Sourcefire limited on development skill or man power?

It makes no sense at all to remove one of the most common facilities  
in use by snort users because it is "too complex".

In the end, you'll do what you are going to do regardless of the  
community -- we've seen it before. But don't use "complexity" and  
"bugs" as the excuse.

Sourcefire is a publicly traded company -- Is it smart to be taking  
votes on product development from a mailing list? I wouldn't think so.

Loyal.

On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Jason Brvenik wrote:

> I have an ulterior motive and it is simple.
>
> Many of the bugs and issues over time with snort have been in output
> plugins. Make one well supported, tested, unified method designed for
> best performance and while doing so it improves the supportability and
> maintainability of the code base.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Loyal A Moses <loyalmoses at ...3027...>  
> wrote:
>> My vote is to provide as many output options as possible, to help  
>> keep
>> snort used as a tool.
>>
>> The argument of code complexity being a good reason to remove output
>> facilities is only valid if the code is written poorly and not
>> modular. This wheel doesn't need re-invented and this conversation is
>> kind of silly, unless there is ulterior motives for actually wanting
>> to remove this support.
>>
>> Loyal.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
>> High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
>> Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Snort-users mailing list
>> Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
>> Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
>> Snort-users list archive:
>> http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users
>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Snort-users mailing list
Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users




More information about the Snort-users mailing list