Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IDS/IPS
    74 Posts 21 Posters 39.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • D
      dotlike @jasonsansone
      last edited by

      @jasonsansone vmxnet3-driver is working without problems in inline mode. i am running this setup since several weeks without problems

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        dotlike @bmeeks
        last edited by

        @bmeeks Thanks a lot for your work. I was missing that feature for a long time.

        I have one question regarding the payload dump-option (barnyard-settings).
        Is this feature working? I am not getting any dumps for download in the alert-section. Thanks in advance!

        BR

        bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • bmeeksB
          bmeeks @dotlike
          last edited by

          @dotlike said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

          I have one question regarding the payload dump-option (barnyard-settings).
          Is this feature working? I am not getting any dumps for download in the alert-section. Thanks in advance!

          BR

          I honestly do not know. I have not run Barnyard2 on my personal system for several years. The package is no longer really supported on FreeBSD (and I'm not sure it is supported anywhere anymore). By "supported" I mean updated and maintained. The only updates to the package in FreeBSD Ports have been done by the FreeBSD team themselves and involved only minor tweaks to the Makefile for various ports tree dependency issues. Nothing has been touched in the actual Barnyard2 source code in years. I know that it has issues with more recent versions of MySQL client.

          So long lead-in to say Barnyard2 seems to be slowly decaying on the vine. The new direction in the Snort3 branch is JSON logging (much like Suricata has).

          As for the current situation in pfSense, you can examine the Barnyard2 configuration file for the interface to see what is set in there. You can find the file in /usr/local/etc/snort/snort_xxxx (where that xxxxx will be a random UUID combined with the physical interface name).

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            pfcode
            last edited by

            If only 2 or 3 rules in a category need to be ALERTed, the rest need to be DROP, what will be the easiest way to set up?

            Release: pfSense 2.4.3(amd64)
            M/B: Supermicro A1SRi-2558F
            HDD: Intel X25-M 160G
            RAM: 2x8Gb Kingston ECC ValueRAM
            AP: Netgear R7000 (XWRT), Unifi AC Pro

            bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • bmeeksB
              bmeeks @pfcode
              last edited by

              @pfcode said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

              If only 2 or 3 rules in a category need to be ALERTed, the rest need to be DROP, what will be the easiest way to set up?

              Use SID MGMT features to set the category to DROP. Then go to the RULES tab, select that category in the drop-down selector and find the 2 or 3 rules you want to be ALERT and change the action of just those rules using the icon under the ACTION column. Changes you make to individual rules on the RULES tab take precedence over all other modifications. Those are the last changes applied to rules.

              P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P
                pfcode @bmeeks
                last edited by

                @bmeeks Thank you.

                Release: pfSense 2.4.3(amd64)
                M/B: Supermicro A1SRi-2558F
                HDD: Intel X25-M 160G
                RAM: 2x8Gb Kingston ECC ValueRAM
                AP: Netgear R7000 (XWRT), Unifi AC Pro

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  murzik
                  last edited by

                  This post is deleted!
                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tbr45
                    last edited by tbr45

                    @bmeeks Is it also possible to mark packets with the new Inline IPS Mode? This would allow the Traffic Shaper to apply rules based on the hostname, for example.

                    bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • bmeeksB
                      bmeeks @tbr45
                      last edited by

                      @tbr45 said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                      @bmeeks Is it also possible to mark packets with the new Inline IPS Mode? This would allow the Traffic Shaper to apply rules based on the hostname, for example.

                      No, you can't mark packets. The binary can only pass them, reject them or drop them. A reject sends a notice back to the sender so it will not keep trying. A drop sends back nothing to the sender (the packet just appears to have fallen into a blackhole).

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • M
                        murzik
                        last edited by

                        I am experiencing very strange behavior . Manged to track it down to one of emerging-scan.rules.
                        alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> any 445 (msg:"ET SCAN Behavioral Unusual Port 445 traffic Potential Scan or Infection"; flags: S,12; threshold: type both, track by_src, count 70 , seconds 60; metadata: former_category SCAN; reference:url,doc.emergingthreats.net/2001569; classtype:misc-activity; sid:2001569; rev:14; metadata:created_at 2010_07_30, updated_at 2017_05_11;)

                        Rule was set by Automatic SID managed to DROP, however no alert appeared in Alert List. But until I changed action for the rule from DROP to Alert, I could not get access to remote SMB share...

                        bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • bmeeksB
                          bmeeks @murzik
                          last edited by bmeeks

                          @murzik said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                          I am experiencing very strange behavior . Manged to track it down to one of emerging-scan.rules.
                          alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> any 445 (msg:"ET SCAN Behavioral Unusual Port 445 traffic Potential Scan or Infection"; flags: S,12; threshold: type both, track by_src, count 70 , seconds 60; metadata: former_category SCAN; reference:url,doc.emergingthreats.net/2001569; classtype:misc-activity; sid:2001569; rev:14; metadata:created_at 2010_07_30, updated_at 2017_05_11;)

                          Rule was set by Automatic SID managed to DROP, however no alert appeared in Alert List. But until I changed action for the rule from DROP to Alert, I could not get access to remote SMB share...

                          The only possibility I can imagine that would cause a DROP action to not appear on the ALERTS tab (highlighted in RED to indicate a drop) is if the alert line from the log did not parse correctly. The code on the ALERTS tab reads the alert log for the interface line-by-line and parses each line into a set of fields delimited by commas. If a line does not parse out the correct number of fields, it is discarded and not displayed on the ALERTS tab.

                          To see if this is the case, get to the command line in pfSense either directly via the console or remotely via SSH. Then change to the correct Snort log interface directory in /var/log/snort. There will be a separate sub-directory under that path for each configured Snort interface. Once in the correct sub-directory, use grep to search the alert file for the rule SID in question to see if it is in there. Post back here with your findings. If the SID is there but is not showing on the ALERTS tab, then it is a parsing issue I need to look into. If you don't see the SID in the alert file for the interface, then that would be a binary issue you would take up with the upstream Snort team.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            murzik @bmeeks
                            last edited by

                            @bmeeks
                            I think that is a binary issue. Alert is not in alert file.
                            Thanks...

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • N
                              N0_Klu3 @crazybrain
                              last edited by

                              @crazybrain I believe the Atom 3558 with ix NIC's do work with netmap.
                              I'm running Suricata with inline no problem. There is also a command you can run (cant recall) and it shows its netmap enabled.

                              Now just waiting for pfSense 2.5 to drop.

                              @bmeeks can/will you be able to release Snort v4 on pfSense 2.4.5 release? Or is it only when 2.5 comes out?

                              bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • bmeeksB
                                bmeeks @N0_Klu3
                                last edited by

                                @N0_Klu3 said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                                @bmeeks can/will you be able to release Snort v4 on pfSense 2.4.5 release? Or is it only when 2.5 comes out?

                                Only when 2.5 comes out. The inline netmap option requires the netmap library from FreeBSD 12, and pfSense-2.4.5 is still FreeBSD 11 (although it is 11-STABLE).

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • chromefinchC
                                  chromefinch
                                  last edited by

                                  So inline mode won't work with vlans? Even though they are hosted on a supported nic? what about a lacp lagg?

                                  Should inline mode work on Intel 82576 or a Intel I340-T4?

                                  I don't mean to seem lazy but this is the best write up I've found and I wouldn't mind listing some tested hardware here.

                                  Thanks for all the great info!

                                  bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • bmeeksB
                                    bmeeks @chromefinch
                                    last edited by bmeeks

                                    @chromefinch said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                                    So inline mode won't work with vlans? Even though they are hosted on a supported nic? what about a lacp lagg?

                                    Should inline mode work on Intel 82576 or a Intel I340-T4?

                                    I don't mean to seem lazy but this is the best write up I've found and I wouldn't mind listing some tested hardware here.

                                    Thanks for all the great info!

                                    VLANs may work now in FreeBSD-12.3/STABLE. I have not tested them. pfSense-2.5 DEVEL moved to FreeBSD-12.3/STABLE a little while back. NIC drivers (the majority of them, anyway) in FreeBSD 12.3 have been ported to a new API called iflib. The iflib system handles all of the netmap stuff now for NICs that use iflib, and thus the NIC hardware driver is not burdened with that code development. The iflib subsystem is also supposed to support features such as VLANs, but there can still be issues with certain NICs that perform hardware-level VLAN tag manipulations.

                                    So a long answer to basically say "I don't know for sure, but VLANs may work with some NICs now in pfSense-2.5 DEVEL with the Snort-4.x package using Inline IPS Mode".

                                    The answer to your other question about netmap support in a given NIC depends on whether or not that hardware vendor migrated their driver over to iflib. Many have, a few have not per my understanding. And even some of those that have migrated may not have ported all versions of their hardware. So far as I know, most of the Intel NICs are ported over to iflib.

                                    chromefinchC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • chromefinchC
                                      chromefinch @bmeeks
                                      last edited by

                                      @bmeeks Thank you for your hard work and response! You've helped me in the past!

                                      amazing!

                                      So there shouldn't be an issue with running my wan in inline mode and my dmz vlan in legacy correct?

                                      Most of my work with pfsense is remote so it is difficult to make risky changes, but i'd really like inline mode up on at least the wan.

                                      Thanks again,

                                      bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • bmeeksB
                                        bmeeks @chromefinch
                                        last edited by bmeeks

                                        @chromefinch said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                                        @bmeeks Thank you for your hard work and response! You've helped me in the past!

                                        amazing!

                                        So there shouldn't be an issue with running my wan in inline mode and my dmz vlan in legacy correct?

                                        Most of my work with pfsense is remote so it is difficult to make risky changes, but i'd really like inline mode up on at least the wan.

                                        Thanks again,

                                        Yes, you can run your LAN in Legacy Mode and WAN in Inline IPS Mode if desired. However, in my view it is usually more efficient in terms of resource utilization to just put the IDS/IPS on the LAN side (or DMZ and LAN, etc., if you have multiple internal interfaces). My reasoning is thus:

                                        1. The WAN interface on pfSense will, by default, block all unsolicited inbound traffic. So having Snort detecting and blocking something the firewall is likely to block anyway is not beneficial IMHO.

                                        2. The IDS/IPS sits between the firewall engine and the physical interface. So that means on the WAN it only sees traffic from your internal hosts after NAT rules are applied. That means in most cases every internal host will show up in WAN alerts as having the public IP address of the firewall. That is not helpful when trying to track down a problematic internal host.

                                        3. If you have a properly configured firewall and have not installed a lot of extra "stuff" on it, then it has an extremely small attack surface and is pretty well "hardened" against attack. Snort or Suricata out front on the WAN is not going to really offer much additional protection- if any. So couple this fact with the items I mentioned in #1 and #2 above and you can see why I recommend putting the IDS/IPS on the internal interfaces only.

                                        But there is no harm in using the setup you propose, but there are more efficient ways to consider configuring your setup.

                                        chromefinchC P 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                        • chromefinchC
                                          chromefinch @bmeeks
                                          last edited by

                                          @bmeeks That makes sense,
                                          I host a small site and a few apps with pfblocker for geofencing.
                                          Would it still be a good idea to disable the ips on the wan with those services running?

                                          I am trying to sort out another issue with port mirroring for Security Onion as I keep getting zeek/bro notices telling me there is packet loss over the pfsense port mirror.

                                          In your experience, how is the port mirroring performance in pfsense compared to Cisco's port span?

                                          Thanks again, it's good talking to a master!

                                          bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • bmeeksB
                                            bmeeks @chromefinch
                                            last edited by

                                            @chromefinch said in Snort Package 4.0 -- Inline IPS Mode Introduction and Configuration Instructions:

                                            @bmeeks That makes sense,
                                            I host a small site and a few apps with pfblocker for geofencing.
                                            Would it still be a good idea to disable the ips on the wan with those services running?

                                            To answer that question, trace a network packet from the Internet to your internal web server. Doesn't that packet have to traverse your DMZ interface (assuming the web server is on a DMZ subnet)? If configured on your DMZ interface, Snort will be seeing all traffic coming from and going to your web server from any other firewall interface (including the WAN). So it can offer exactly the same protection to the web server on the DMZ as it would offer if Snort were running on the WAN.

                                            Now consider the potential issues/irritations if Snort is running on the WAN. I assume you are using NAT and port forwarding to reach your internal web server in the DMZ. If not, then skip the rest of this paragraph. That means all the alerts you see on your WAN have the firewall's public IP in them. So how do you determine if you have an infected internal host and which one it is? To do that you would likely want to run the same Snort setup on your internal interfaces. Now you have duplicate or triplicate Snort instances just chewing up RAM and CPU cycles for what real benfit?

                                            Why not just put the IDS/IPS close to the hosts it is actually protecting? The IDS/IPS is for your internal network. It is not to protect your firewall. Right? If your firewall needs protection, then you would want to find you another firewall ... ☺. And when on the WAN interface, Snort is just going to see and alert on all the Internet "noise" traffic that the firewall is not going to pass anway. So why bog down your CPU logging crap that your firewall is not going to pass anyway?

                                            So my answer is run Snort on your DMZ and maybe your LAN, but you likely don't want or need the same rules in both places. Select and enable rules to protect from the actual threats you face on that interface based on the services provided behind it. If you don't have a DNS server on the DMZ, then you don't need any DNS rules taking up CPU cycles and chewing up RAM. If you don't have a mail server running, then you don't need any of the SMTP server rules enabled. Being smart about the rules you select and enable and choosing those rules by the actual attack surface behind the interface lets you be efficient with the resource consumption of the IDS/IPS.

                                            I am trying to sort out another issue with port mirroring for Security Onion as I keep getting zeek/bro notices telling me there is packet loss over the pfsense port mirror.

                                            In your experience, how is the port mirroring performance in pfsense compared to Cisco's port span?

                                            Thanks again, it's good talking to a master!

                                            Port-mirroring is a hardware-intensive task. And when you have very high speed network ports it can get overwhelming for any switch very quickly. How exactly do you have port mirroring configured? What brand of switch are you using?

                                            chromefinchC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.