|
|||||||||||
|
Re: RES: Protocol Anomaly Detection IDS - Honeypots
From: Frank Knobbe <fknobbe(at)knobbeits.com>
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 19:33:17 EST
On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 10:54, Mike Shaw wrote:
Yes, they are. When discussion this, we have to be careful to not overstep the fine line that differentiates the honeytoken idea with a copy-bug or deception-pools. A copy-bug is a marker embedded in a document that lets you identify an illegal copy. Most widely used are grammatical or typographical errors. If someone reproduces a document titled 'The Delcaration of Independence' you can spot because you know that you marked it with that typo. A deception pool is a stash of falsified documents (think research data) amongst which you hide the real document. Imagine a folder called Research with the files Result00001.doc until Result99999.doc. Only Result77453.doc contains the real result. Copy-bugs can be tracked just like you would zoom in on a honeytoken, but they do not attract like a honeypot. A deception-pool provides a lot of false info, just like a honeypot/honeytoken, but again does not attract. Honeypots, while providing false info, attract the hacker so we can learn about their techniques. Don't get me wrong, the idea of honeytokens it great. But we have to be careful that don't give an old horse a new name.
Cheers,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:01:10 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||