Luis Bustamante wrote:
I've been building latest snort on woody without problems. If
someone is interested I usually upload updated versions for woody on:
Thanks Luis for offering this service! Since you are not the official
maintainer of snort I might ask before I add your URL to my
Quoting Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
A third option might be to create a snort-tracker package that makes
it easier to build an up-to-date snort binary, complete with up-to-date
rules. Similar to pine-tracker, but for a different purpose.
I'm not sure if that would be feasible,
Sander == Sander Smeenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sander I think that would be doable, although I have no idea if
Sander 1.9.0 depends on specific libraries only available in
Sander unstable atm. So i'd have to look into this some time..
I've been building latest snort on woody
Quoting Nick Boyce ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sander's preferred option would be to remove the Snort package
altogether in these circumstances. What would be quicker : remove the
package, or add the warning to the web-page ? I guess we ought to do
*something*.
Hmm...
IMHO, nobody reads the
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 10:36, Sander Smeenk wrote:
A prospective user wants an IDS so he/she does 'apt-cache
search intrusion detection' sees 'snort - lightweight intrusion
detection system' and decides to install it. Atleast, that is what I
have seen most people doing.
*raises hand*
I
Quoting Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Atleast, that is what I have seen most people doing.
*raises hand*
:)
I wondering, could it be an idea to have a fast-moving archive for
things like SpamAssassin rules, Nessus plugins, Snort signatures,
perhaps virus signatures in the future,
Quoting Nick Boyce ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sander's preferred option would be to remove the Snort package
altogether in these circumstances. What would be quicker : remove the
package, or add the warning to the web-page ? I guess we ought to do
*something*.
Hmm...
IMHO, nobody reads the
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 10:36, Sander Smeenk wrote:
A prospective user wants an IDS so he/she does 'apt-cache
search intrusion detection' sees 'snort - lightweight intrusion
detection system' and decides to install it. Atleast, that is what I
have seen most people doing.
*raises hand*
I
Quoting Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Atleast, that is what I have seen most people doing.
*raises hand*
:)
I wondering, could it be an idea to have a fast-moving archive for
things like SpamAssassin rules, Nessus plugins, Snort signatures,
perhaps virus signatures in the future,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 10:36:52AM +0100, Sander Smeenk wrote:
Therefore I would more like to either remove the entire package *OR* add
a debconf / other intrusive warning that tells users that the package
gives them a fake sense of security and instead they should considder
installing snort
Further to the discussion I started here on 6th.Dec.2002 about the
problem of the stable Snort packages being out-of-date, with the
subject Updating Snort Signatures In Stable ?
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2002/debian-security-200212/msg00063.html)
FYI, I have now submitted a
11 matches
Mail list logo
