[Snort-users] var or ipvar?

waldo kitty wkitty42 at ...14940...
Mon Jan 28 21:01:41 EST 2013


On 1/28/2013 15:43, Nicholas Bogart wrote:
> Here is a snippet from the most current manual.  Which I checked after my last
> email.
> "IPs may be specified individually, in a list, as a CIDR block, or any
> combination of the three. IP variables should be
> specified using ’ipvar’ instead of ’var’. Using ’var’ for an IP variable is
> still allowed for backward compatibility, but it
> will be deprecated in a future release." -  Snort Manual, November 2012
> So if I read that it is currently still allowed and older builds shouldn't break
> if it is still used.  As I said before some of the older builds ipvar hinged on
> if IPv6 was enabled when it was installed or not.  So if it wasn't then that
> might cause an issue.

thanks for that... it kinda helps but the way folks are grabbing anything they 
can to try to force this stuff to work is really causing problems... and it 
doesn't help at all that sourcefire is forcing retirement of "old" rules and 
support of "old" versions based on their update schedules which do not fit into 
anyone else's schedules :? :? :( :( :(

> Nick
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Y M <snort at ...15979...
> <mailto:snort at ...15979...>> wrote:
>
>      From Snort 2.9.4 release notes:
>
>     "Consolidation of IPv6 -- now only a single build supports both IPv4 & IPv6,
>     and removal of the IPv4 "only" code paths."
>
>     Does this mean that ipvar should support both IPv4 and IPv6 and var is
>     deprecated/ no longer needed? Or am I totally off topic here?
>
>     In previous installations of Snort, we had ipvar and var both at the same
>     config file and we did not see any problems, however, we didn't have IPv6
>     enabled at that point of time.
>
>     YM
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: Joel Esler <mailto:jesler at ...1935...>
>     Sent: 1/28/2013 11:07 PM
>     To: Nicholas Bogart <mailto:nickybzoss at ...11827...>
>     Cc: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
>     Subject: Re: [Snort-users] var or ipvar?
>
>     Ipvar, for ips. Portvar for ports.
>
>     --
>     Joel Esler
>     Sent from my iPad
>
>     On Jan 28, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Nicholas Bogart <nickybzoss at ...11827...
>     <mailto:nickybzoss at ...11827...>> wrote:
>
>>     Last I remember on this from the manual you only use ipvar if you are
>>     working in an IPv6 evironment and have enabled snort for IPv6.  If you
>>     have it turned off then you can continue and are encouraged to still use var.
>>     Nick
>>
>>     On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, waldo kitty <wkitty42 at ...14940...
>>     <mailto:wkitty42 at ...14940...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         var used to be used for most all var definitions... then work was
>>         being done for
>>         IPv6 and ipvar was created... since then, it seems that ipvar has been
>>         retained
>>         for all and var is simply no longer used...
>>
>>         is this accurate?
>>
>>         why is var not retained as an alias for ipvar? systems have been
>>         breaking all
>>         around us and it is only just now that we're starting to find this
>>         possibly
>>         being the problem :(
>>
>>         will it hurt to have both var and ipvar pointing to the same definitions??
>>
>>         will older snorts fall over because of ipvar being introduced into their
>>         environment before they are ready for it?





More information about the Snort-users mailing list