Agreed. Plus, you can't go launching counter-attacks when most of the time the machine you would be attacking was not at fault. It's been spoofed in some way shape or form. Therefore, you would be taking down an innocent network.
-----Original Message----- From: McCammon, Keith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IDS that retaliates. This is generally referred to as Active Response. In most cases (commercial IDS), this involves the IDS sending TCP RST packets to both ends of the connection so that the connection is destroyed and cleared from the buffers. This is also the extent to which most commercially-available IDSs "retaliate." Snort does this, as do ISS and several other popular systems. Now if you're referring to launching counter-attacks or similar offensives in response to alerts, this isn't going to go mainstream in the near future. There are a number of reasons for this, but most notably is the fact that (in the U.S., anyway) intrusive retaliation is, technically, every bit as illegal as the act that provoked it in the first place. I, too, have heard of government and defense projects that are developing (and refining) intrusive response of technology, but realize that the details of such systems would not likely be publicized. ############################################################ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Intelsat, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. ############################################################
