[Snort-users] Snort 2.8.6 performance

Jefferson, Shawn Shawn.Jefferson at ...14448...
Fri Oct 8 17:58:36 EDT 2010


Hi,

My suspicion is that this is rule related somehow... I turned off the so_rules and that didn't make any difference, and I also turned off the attribute table just for fun, since the one I load is pretty big.

Nothing... so I reconfigured/recompiled to allow rule performance checks.

timestamp: 1286574608
Rule Profile Statistics (worst 10 rules)
==========================================================
   Num      SID GID Rev     Checks   Matches    Alerts           Microsecs  Avg/Check  Avg/Match Avg/Nonmatch
   ===      === === ===     ======   =======    ======           =========  =========  ========= ============
     1     4677   1   3     100664         0         0           615540707     6114.8        0.0       6114.8
     2    13272   1   3          6         0         0               17891     2981.9        0.0       2981.9
     3    11324   1   4         21         0         0               39429     1877.6        0.0       1877.6
     4    17468   1   1      33163         0         0            44821199     1351.5        0.0       1351.5
     5    10504   1   2         68         0         0                8006      117.7        0.0        117.7
     6    10505   1   2         68         0         0                8002      117.7        0.0        117.7
     7     4676   1   3      33076         0         0             1931555       58.4        0.0         58.4
     8    17666   1   1        594         0         0               13802       23.2        0.0         23.2
     9    17495   1   1          2         0         0                  42       21.2        0.0         21.2
    10    15910   1   5        232         0         0                3869       16.7        0.0         16.7

I commented out rule 4677 and am running snort on my sensor again to see if that will help.

Anybody know anything about this rule and if it may have recently changed? There's a very non-unique content match: "GET" and then a PCRE... 

-----Original Message-----
From: waldo kitty [mailto:wkitty42 at ...14940...] 
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 12:36 PM
To: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Snort 2.8.6 performance

On 10/8/2010 13:19, Jefferson, Shawn wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed performance (dropped packets), really take a dive today?
>   I'm missing about 20-30% of packets now... on a sensor that was running great at
> about 100-200 mb/s until just today/last night. According to my snort stats
> there isn't anything unusual as far as stream or frag events go, but the snort
> process is using 100% CPU today. I'm using the VRT paid subscription rules.

please quote back your "snort -V" output... your config may also be needed... 
possible you found a bug or some way that someone is trying to evade IDS several 
other factors...




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1,  ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and  rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
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