Re: [Netadm-devel] hi il-eok hwang [everyone readme please]
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
linuxpark
From: il-eok h. <ie...@gm...> - 2006-03-09 05:21:24
|
hi jeho-park Did you have a lunch?? yesterday i did work for LAC all the night through. so i am fatigue. anyway.. jeho-park wrote: i can't sure what is the best solution, but i think it may be dependent on network environment (gateway.. or sensor mode) and system performances. i suggest that before starting design, we should talk about this.because it is not easy to remake the frame, sure, i think so. thanks for your concern. maybe you have some misunderstanding for my mail. currenty i use zebra for dynamic routing in my company's project. as i think, gwc's cli is better than zebra's cli. ^.^*~~ once more, thanks for your concern. haver a nice day~~ 2006/3/9, jeho-park <lin...@gm...>: > > hi il-eok > > can you please cc net...@li... address whenever you send > email ^-^ > > il-eok hwang wrote: > > Hi, jeho park and everyone~~ > > Sorry, My work's results are not mine but my company. and I did leave my > company one month ago. > So i will give you any doc currently. > > > yes i understand, and i hope you to share some doc without breaking the > license with your past company. > > As you know, Snort Inline use netfilter target called IP_QUEUE. > and IP_QUEUE used netlink. i think these are not good solution. > How about you?? > > > last year, i heard that snort supports netfilter target. but i didn't > check it or know more than that. > from reading your letter, i realized the target is IP_QUEUE. > > i can't sure what is the best solution, but i think it may be dependent o= n > network environment(gateway.. or sensor mode) and system performances. = i > suggest that before starting design, we should talk about this. > because it is not easy to remake the frame, > > you said to me as below. > i can imagine that there might be so many changes was needed to port > snort to kernel layer. > but i wonder all of snort code was really needed to port to the kerne= l > layer? > if so, what is the main motive of this porting ? > is it for more better performance of checking network packet ? ( i > assume you might throw away > current libpcap(premiscuous) concerned code of snort then you must > have replaced that with > netfilter hook ) > > it's a good solution. but as i think, mbuf is better than libpcap. some > IDS were developed with > zero copy tech in Linux. > > TODO. > - intrusion detection point in kernel : preprocessor & pattern matching > engine > - packet drop by rule > - use conf file and rule file in user land. > - .... > > recently, i works for developing L2TP - LAC, LNS. there are some bugs in > rp-l2tp & zebra, > so i will catch the bugs. after fixing-maybe 4days, i will check the > current our project's source > codes. > > > > i recommand this document. > http://netadm.sourceforge.net/devel_netadm_ko.txt especially chapter 3,4= , > 5 > > i think you dont have to understand all of our code but the interface > which let you make your cli command > > i know zebra interface is not bad.. and used globaly.. but our cli > interface more simple, and easy to build > > and make your cli command exported GUI interface. check > "include/confproc.h" and gwclib/conftab.c > > gwclib/confproc.c > > bye ~ > > see you later~~ > > 2006/3/8, jeho-park <lin...@gm...>: > > > > hi il-eok > > > > > > il-eok hwang wrote: > > > > Hi, jeho park and everyone~~ > > > > first, sorry for my poor english. > > > > as i think, i quite agree with you and i hope to help our project about > > the field of IPS( DPI ). > > if my opinion will be established, i wll make a document about DPI. > > > > there are some problems in porting SNORT to kernel. see below. > > - memory > > - rule > > - log > > - etc > > > > > > that's great ! if you make it with korean, i will help to translate > > this document into english. > > > > through reading your letter, i become excited ^--^ and have so many > > question. > > > > i can imagine that there might be so many changes was needed to port > > snort to kernel layer. > > but i wonder all of snort code was really needed to port to the kernel > > layer? > > if so, what is the main motive of this porting ? > > is it for more better performance of checking network packet ? ( i > > assume you might throw away > > current libpcap(premiscuous) concerned code of snort then you must have > > replaced that with netfilter hook ) > > > > i think as you replaced libpcap with netfilter hook, you could check > > all network packet without packet loss. > > but i wonder as a result of that, how did you lost system performance o= r > > network throughput > > i want to know about this point because you already have done this test= . > > > > > > 6 months ago, i did port to kernel with netfilter. > > recently, i make a new kernel hook, so i will port SNORT with a my > > hook instead of netfilter. > > > > have a nice day ^.^*~~ > > > > > > > > from my knowledge, current netfilter hook is ranged from ethernet layer > > to IP layer.. > > did you mean your hook covers TCP. UDP layer ? > > i will wait your reply. > > > > if it is possible, please let us show the framework as a form of figure > > which you had done 6 month ago, > > and current design. they must be very interesting. and i am sure > > everyone want to know about that ^---^ > > > > > > p.s: > > since i start this project, > > i have thought that current pf.c will receive the last alarm from snort > > or other IDS sensor, > > so pf , as a result of receving alarm, will drop a specifed source host > > or control traffic of suspicious host. > > but during reading your letter, i think you already have done it. isn't > > it ? > > if so, i don't mind throwing away my design. then i can more concentrat= e > > my energy only to "flow control" ^--^ > > > > regards > > jeh park > > > > > > > > 2006/3/8, jeho-park <lin...@gm...>: > > > > > > > > > hi il-eok > > > glad to meet you through this mailling list. > > > > > > i read your mail, so i thought you have good career about security > > > i expect you to help our project about the field of QoS or IPS. > > > > > > most of all, i wonder how did you ported snort to the network stack o= f > > > linux. > > > > > > todays, george and kwan-kyung is also researching about that. so i > > > hope > > > you to share your knowledge with them. > > > > > > regards > > > jeho park > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > > > language > > > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > > > webcast > > > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > > > territory! > > > > > > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&d= at=3D121642 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Netadm-devel mailing list > > > Net...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netadm-devel > > > > > > > > > > > |