Why would Cisco, Juniper, etc. maintain the signature sets? Presumably, each company maintains its own set of allow/deny rules.
--Rohit Patnaik 2009/10/9 srujan <sruja...@gmail.com>: > I agree with your word let "customer network admin selects it". But Tipping > Point, Juniper, Cisco and Snort will have a wide range of customers, and > maintaining different signature set for different Orgs is a big headache. > > All these guys are maintaining 95% to 99% detection coverage at NSS testing. > That's why i asked about the selection criteria. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:36 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:47:24 +0530, srujan said: >> >> > What is the vulnerability selection criteria of Tipping Point, Juniper IPS >> > products. >> > >> > Is it covering each and every CVE ID or is it selecting particular kind of >> > attacks. If so what is selection criteria (cvss score or severity level or >> > most publicly exploited) >> >> If the answer isn't "customer network admin selects it", the products are >> broken and brain damaged. Different sites have different security stances, >> and different opinions regarding the trade-off between the added security >> benefit and the throughput and latency hits you take. >> >> Even within a site, the trade-offs may vary. I have some machines that >> are actually air-gapped, some that are heavily firewalled, and some that >> are lightly firewalled - and there's probably some Snort sensors and >> honeypots >> too.. ;) >> >> If you're asking for "what pre-canned detection rules they come with", it's >> probably "all the known vulns that we can figure out how to write a Snort >> rule that doesn't suck resources". :) >> >> OK, maybe they don't use Snort - but the same problems of filter >> expressiveness, whether/how to do a regexp, and so on, are faced by all >> IDS/IPS >> systems. If you need to do a regexp backref, it's going to either not be >> part >> of the available toolset, or it's going to suck at line rate on high speed >> interfaces. Matching '\((134|934){3,5})\(foo|bar)(more ugly)(\1|\2)' is >> going >> to suck whether it's Snort or silicon. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/