[Snort-users] Rules with SDF options cannot have other detection options in the same rule

Joel Esler jesler at ...1935...
Tue Feb 1 13:56:45 EST 2011


That's not right.  I'll bug this on our side for our developers to take a
look.
Joel

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Scheidell <
michael.scheidell at ...8144...> wrote:

>
> On 2/1/11 1:48 PM, Joel Esler wrote:
>
> And the only difference is to add in the --enable-flexresp3?
>
>  Joel
>
> yes.  then everything is fine.
> I might mention that I also have to oinkmaster out resp:* rules also, but
> that I expected.  I didn't expect sensitive data rules to fail.
>
> I am regres testing ports build options that a user can select.
> looking for combination that don't work, won't build, or won't work with
> VRT rules, ET rules, etc.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Scheidell, CTO
> o: 561-999-5000
> d: 561-948-2259
> ISN: 1259*1300
> > *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
>
>    - Certified SNORT Integrator
>    - 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
>    - Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
>    - Best in Email Security,2010: Network Products Guide
>    - King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap®.
> For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
> ------------------------------
>
>


-- 
Joel Esler
Skype:eslerjoel
http://blog.snort.org && http://blog.clamav.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20110201/a08e4b4b/attachment.html>


More information about the Snort-users mailing list