Bill, you can also use Suricata 2.1beta4. Been using it on linux boxes for months, w/0 trouble. More stable and feature rich than 2.0.8, including CIDR IP Rep, etc..

Considering inline operation in IPS mode. Its now a real must. Malware as small as 20kb get pass the snort hybrid mode of pfsense…

F.

@bmeeks:

@Music:

Will you also be upgrading it to snort 3.0?

No, not in the near-term.  No upgrade on pfSense until Snort 3.0 goes full production and is not ALPHA or BETA software.  Also will not happen until the FreeBSD ports maintainer for Snort updates the package here.  Finally, there is a distinct possibility that Snort 3.0 will lose the ability to block offenders on pfSense.  I have not investigated this in detail, but I do know that the Snort team is deprecating the output plugins API that the custom blocking module for pfSense depends on.  If the API hooks the current blocking module depends on are not in Snort 3.0, then blocking won't work.

Bill

oh when that happens it will become kinda useless.

Multithreathed option in snort would be nice that it might run smoother/faster etc when you have more then 1 core in the box you use.

Yeah, we are telling you to pick one and use it… Other than that, you still provided ZERO information to debug any issues.

@MilesDeep:

Snort.  So to disable the rule means to force allow the traffic?

That's one way of looking at it.  The actual effect is that rule is removed from the list that traffic is evaluated against.  Since the rule is not evaluated against traffic, it can't "fire" and trigger an alert.  This is a per-interface setting, so if you run Snort (or Suricata) on multiple interfaces you can have a rule enabled on one and disabled on another.

Bill

Did you by chance disable all the logging options on the INTERFACE SETTINGS tab for that Suricata interface?  Can you post a screenshot of the Logging Settings from that screen?

Bill

I update it on 2.1.5 and works great

Hi,

NOT a single problem on pfsense x64 v2.15 & Suricata and now updated to pfsense x64 v2.2.4 and Suricata 2.1.6.

Never mind.  It looks like the versioning is correct.

Thanks for explaining the downloads.

"Services: Suricata 2.0.8 RELEASE pkg v2.1.6 - Intrusion Detection System"

@doktornotor:

Upgrade your pfSense.

:) Yes just did fixed the issue
Thanks

Thanks!  :D

@simby:

Bmeeks, will be this in this release?

It's not in the currently open Pull Request.

Bill

So limited API functionality in a way then.

Ok thanks for letting me know, I'll add some exception rules for the monitoring system.  :)

https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-19/dc-19-presentations/Duckwall/DEFCON-19-Duckwall-Bridge-Too-Far.pdf
P115
How can we defend this?
•
Basically it’s a physical attack
–
If somebody can plant a malicious device on your
network you’re already screwed

What has probably not crossed the authors mind is that an insecure network can be used to make a benign device a malicious device, by adding/altering some software. As I've already established there is nothing for vmware workstation to protect against arp poisoning as mentioned in a previous post, that is one area I am looking at amongst a few others, and virtualisation techniques have certainly come along a long way.

So far logs for one of the device's are filling up nicely, caught some traffic which needs investigating, only 6 packets throughout the day out of several GB's but still got to get another device setup to do the packet capture with ssl bridging wanside.

Learning iptables has been fun, I've never seen so many webpages making it seem complicated. I quite like iptables its quite easy once you figure it out at the command line.

Very strange!

Yes, I setup passlist on interface. And restarted it.
Yes, the IPs are on "Blocked" tab.

But on 08/17 I edit the alias to ad some other IPs, restarted snort again, and voilá. Now it's working perfectly!!!

Hi

I setup one passlist (only networks), set on interface, restart the interface.
If I click on "view list" the IPs are there, but still blocking.
I'm on 2.2.4 and Snort at 3.2.6
Any Idea?
Thanks.

@bmeeks:

As for the GUI not showing Snort running, be aware that Snort can take a very, very long time to start.  Until it pretty much finishes the startup, it won't write the PID file that the GUI is looking for.  Until a matching PID file shows up, the GUI will display the Snort process on an interface as "not running".  Also, that screen is currently not "dynamic".  This means you need to refresh the screen periodically to see if Snort has started yet.  I have it on my to-do list to make that a dynamic screen in the future.

Bill

I wanted to confirm this is likely what is happening some of the time.  The start-up time after running filter updates appears to be about 10 minutes and I'm catching it during that time.  I know it was down for several days while I was away (at the start of this post).

An "Updating" status in the GUI would be awesome (cause that's what GUIs are for)

As often as we get poked and prodded, I'm not a fan of passing internet traffic without Snort taking a peek.

Brian

Mine are Intel EXPI9400PTBLK NIC cards

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/network-adapters/gigabit-network-adapters/pro-1000-pt-server-adapter-brief.html

Bought three of them for $9.99 each off ebay. All working awesome.

i did some little research on snort but i might have missed it on custom rules.

but i agree bmeeks :)

@ fsansfil.
Yes that is true the one that provided the list should have adjust it and he will do that. But the people that asked it in the first place provided wrong information about the way it works i guess so he didn't added it.

@bmeeks:

@ckuecker:

I dont have blocking enabled at the moment.  I plan on enabling it after some time once I get my rules massaged the way I want them.  Instead of using the auto-blocking feature of snort it would be nice to be able to manually add to the blocked list.

I suppose that could be added, but the way blocking currently works anything added would be lost upon a reboot or complete restart of the packet filter.  This is because the pf table used for blocking (<snort2c>) is automatically cleared out by the packet filter upon a restart.  So blocks would not be persistent across reboots.

Bill</snort2c>

Interesting.. I didn't know that.  However, I rarely reboot so I think that would be acceptable.