|
|||||||||||
|
Re: IDS is dead, etc
From: Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec(at)sdf.lonestar.org>
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 16:49:10 EDT Tom Arseneault wrote: >Also signatures are not perfect, there might be two closely releated
I can think of two examples of signatures that we're patched against here that I'd still want to see:
So, these two real world examples show how signatures that may generate normally "uninteresting" traffic data can produce interesting correlation data or interesting data in the event of other problems. Until someone comes out with an IDS signature format with more than one level and with intercorrelated reporting, uninteresting events will continue to generate interesting side-analysis. :) Oh yes, and someone (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) mentioned that a properly configured firewall removes the need for an NIDS. I have to chime in and say that I couldn't possibly disagree more. If you were joking, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. However, having a firewall - no matter how rock solid and perfect it is - is only a portion of a good network security infrastructure. Just my $0.02 ... -Barry Captus Networks - Integrated Intrusion Prevention and Traffic Shaping
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:01:16 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||