On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 12:19 -0400, Reg Quinton wrote:
> Then I don't think that matters. Port 20, the ftp-data
channel, is never the
> server end of the flow. The FTP server connects to the
FTP client for the
> data channel. If the suggestion is
Heh... yeah, got that backwards, didn't I? No problem,
let's leave it as
it is. But I still think it should replace the older sig.
> What I do is leave it as is. My post-snort processing
involves looking for
> the alert and probing the host:port mentioned. If I get
a 220 banner then
> yes indeed something is there.
Still cumbersome since there can be a lot of
post-processing/analysis
involved
I wonder if that can't be caught with some sort of FTP
state machine
tracking via flowbits....
-Frank
--
It is said that the Internet is a public utility. As such,
it is best
compared to a sewer. A big, fat pipe with a bunch of crap
sloshing
against your ports.
_______________________________________________
Bleeding-sigs mailing list
Bleeding-sigs bleedingsnort.com
http://lists.bleedingsnort.com/mailman/listinfo/ble
eding-sigs
|