Jason, I appreciate you picking up snortcenter. I also
have tried to contact the author, without success.
I ran into the issue on rule 2379 for example where I get
a byte_test error. I had this with the previous version of
snortcenter and had to make some modifications to
bypass this error. I would be willing to supply these
modifications if you are interested. Basically it consists
of adding a sequence number to the content table so
that the content rules are maintained in sequence, then
removing the text "byte_jump" and "byte_test" in the
respective fields. I have reviewed a number of rules with
this modification, and it appears to keep the proper
syntax. This change could also likely be applied to the
uri-content table, or even better, to merge content and
uri-content table as I don't see a lot of difference in
them.
Dave Fennell
dfennell@talisman-energy.com
Logged In: YES
user_id=984574
I'll take a look at that rule tonight. I thought I had the
problems with them fixed as I was able to import all the rules
that were in the 2.1 gzip about a week ago. If you want to
send the patches that would be great. I'll take a look at them
I have to say that Byte Jump and Byte Test are the worst
parts of the rules to deal with
Logged In: YES
user_id=984574
Dave,
Your right. Both the Byte_test and Byte_jump are totally
horked. I thought I had them working but while the are
making parsable rules the messing up rules. IF you have
those patches send them on.
Jason
Logged In: YES
user_id=257968
Does order really matter for uri-content checks? It does for
content/byte_jump/byte_test, but I'm not sure working to
maintain the order of uri-content checks is worth the
effort. Also, I haven't found any rules which use more than
one uri-content check (and presumably they'd only make sense
if logically-ORed anyway, so order won't matter).
Alex B.
Logged In: YES
user_id=984574
Alex,
I didn't think it. I have some time this weekend that I
plan on working on this. I have to see if I can look at the
rules and determine if it matters.