Search Results

Next generation is just marketing lingo and "IDS" itself too, as do IPS, NGFW, UTM and whatever they come up with next week. …

Apart from that, the meaning of words like IDS, IPS or firewall is not clearly defined and they are mostly replaced today by even more blurry marketing speech like "next generation firewall" or "unified … The classical IDS products like snort, bro and suricata still exist and are in active development, but they are mostly integrated in UTM or NGFW solutions or things with different marketing names. …

In IDS in the classical sense is passive (D for detection) and can not drop a packet. In IPS instead (P for prevention) can drop the packet and better should do it. … But the usage of the words IDS, IPS, firewall etc is too vague today that it is not clear which kind of technique you are talking about. …

If the hash is only used by itself to distinguish between malicious and non-malicious applications then it is probably not very effective since as you've said already hashes from various applications …

The technology is called OpenAppID. It is present in Snort since 2.9.7 - see this presentation from 2015 or this announcement from 2014.

It is unknown what version you are using, but I will assume that you are not using a beta version. bitmask was only recently implemented in 6.0.0-beta1 and is at the time of this writing not available …

Just an example: If you fear an attacker coming from the outside you could deploy a passive central IDS to detect intrusions. … Host-based IDS itself might also work unless the attacker is able to disable them once they owned the system. …

Based on the description of fwsnort it is a packet level IDS using the iptables string matching feature. This means that it can not apply any rules which span multiple packets. …

So in overall,which one should I prefer ? You should prefer the one where you are able to deal with the logs and how much security you need and how much time you can invest to deal with false pos …

The same is true for IDS - which only says that it somehow detects some kind of intrusions. … But you can say that each IDS will probably employ some DPI techniques. …

The aim of a snort rule is not to match arbitrary content but potentially malicious content. A palindrom by itself is not malicious. And if you are able to construct a specific malicious palindrom the …

First, IDS technology is not necessarily reduced to simple pattern matching but IDS can often also parse HTTP traffic including decompression of compressed payloads, extract attachments from mails etc … Apart from that IDS might be used together with an interception proxy or similar which feeds the decrypted traffic to the IDS for deeper analysis. …

My guess is that the specific IDS rule only does only a very shallow inspection at the TCP level and has no deep enough understanding of the FTP/FTPS protocol. …

Theoretically, could a Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) appliance ... placed in between an ISP/gateway and a vulnerable router/firewall have blocked the attack, assuming a matching signature was a …

Snort is more a traditional IDS/IPS which does some deep packet inspection and then applies signatures on the traffic in order to detect (and maybe block) attacks. … Classical signature based IDS like Snort or Suricata are instead more used as actual IDS, i.e the focus is on matching specific attack signatures. …