[Snort-users] Malware Sigs Plus Vuln Sigs or Vuln Sigs Only
jesler at ...1935...
Thu Feb 3 10:51:10 EST 2011
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Nolan, Tim <NolanTim at ...15141...> wrote:
> I typically do not post much online. It is amusing to watch the ranting and
> frothing and poking that go on in some of these forums, and picking out the
> good bits of useful info (eating the watermelon and spitting out the seeds).
> In my opinion Matt Jonkman is right in his general premise, and many of
> those who resist adding malware sigs/rules and the like perhaps don’t even
> really know what they are missing.
> In my opinion, the way forward is more signatures, more reputation feeds,
> and more threat intelligence aimed at both the detective and protective side
> of the equation. As long as it is timely and accurate, we will be enabled to
> do our jobs better, more proactively, and with a shorter interval between
> infection and effective response, and less systems will be infected as a
> Thanks Joel and Matt for your entertaining exchange of helpful information,
> etc.. You guys rock and are both moving the ball down the field in the right
> direction and doing awesome things to help the security community. Keep up
> the good work.
I'd like to see more people using the blacklist.rules, phishing-spam.rules,
and botnet-cnc.rules that the VRT ruleset provides.
Those rules are generated using real malware in our ClamAV sandbox, and now
with our Immunet intelligence being integrated in our feeds, our detection
will get more and more intelligent all the time.
However, I would like to see people using those three files above and let us
know your results.
Joel Esler | 706-231-1451 | http://blog.snort.org | http://blog.clamav.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Snort-users