[Snort-users] [Emerging-Sigs] Reliability of signatures
michael.scheidell at ...8144...
Thu Feb 10 10:00:20 EST 2011
On 2/10/11 9:55 AM, Matt Olney wrote:
> Also, SPAM isn't an IDS issue, at
ah, maybe I should have explained. you missed the point.
there needs to be a definition of FP vs MP for signatures for any of
this to mean anything.
one mans SPAM is another mans HAM, one mans FP is another mans legit hit.
would you BLOCK on FP #2? maybe not inline, but I sure would blacklist
maybe in the 'human verified checkbox' you give them the ability to mark:
[ ] FP: signature too broad. matched legit traffic
[ ] FP: no IIS servers here,
(just so we have something for them to check)
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>*| *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(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Snort-users