Re: Hi all! (and a snort sig question)

I don't think so. I would definitely use *ssl_state:client_hello; *and then
look to match the SNI portion of the SSL client hello packet and then try
matching the dotted quad pattern.
But as you are doing, the best way is to try out your sig against a pcap



On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:09 AM Rob Vandenbrink <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Ah, I thought that since the Hello packets are unencrypted that snort
> would still inspect at least those
>
>
>
> I do not have decrypt turned on (given historic Cisco Firepower+Snort
> issues), but I think I can convince one of my clients to give it a try now
> that they have new hardware and new code.
>
>
>
> Do either of those two latest signatures that I’m trying look OK though?
>
>
>
> ==============
>
> Rob VandenBrink
>
> 519-589-1881
>
>
>
> *From:* Snort User <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2024 10:16 AM
> *To:* Rob Vandenbrink <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Snort-sigs] Hi all! (and a snort sig question)
>
>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
>
>
> For your signature to detect any HTTP artifact, snort would have to
> inspect SSL decrypted payload. In your case, I believe you have snort
> inspecting HTTPS, right?
>
>
>
> If you have some sort of set up where the HTTPS traffic is intercepted and
> then snort gets to inspect it, then the case is different.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:31 PM Rob Vandenbrink via Snort-sigs <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Got it narrowed down now to:
>
> “look for a dot in the sni field, and fire if it’s not there”
>
>     content:!"."; \
>
>     http_raw_uri:host; \
>
>     ssl_state:client_hello; \
>
>
>
> or, look for the string “SNI” in the client hello (I realize that this
> likely isn’t there, I’ll need to dig for bitmaps for this I think)
>
>     content:!"SNI"; \
>
>     http_raw_uri; \
>
>     ssl_state:client_hello; \
>
>
>
> Anyway, neither fires – I’d figure that the first approach should work?
>
>
>
> ==============
>
> Rob VandenBrink
>
> 519-589-1881
>
>
>
> *From:* Rob Vandenbrink <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 6, 2024 6:58 PM
> *To:* Rob Vandenbrink <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: Hi all! (and a snort sig question)
>
>
>
> Looking closer at the packets, there’s (of course) no SNI field when
> browsing by IP
>
> Trying a different approach now
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Snort-sigs <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Rob
> Vandenbrink via Snort-sigs
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 5:45 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [Snort-sigs] Hi all! (and a snort sig question)
>
>
>
> Hi everyone – long time snort user / new to this list though
>
>
>
> I’m trying to build a signature that triggers on a user browsing by IP
> address (instead of by fqdn or cn).
>
> So it would be fine with “https://www.cisco.com” but trigger on “
> https://23.56.210.155”  (or whatever cisco resolves to that day)
>
>
>
> So far I have this:
>
>
>
> alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET 443 ( \
>
>     msg:"BROWSER OTHER alert on direct ip browsing"; \
>
> *    content:"."; \*
>
> *    http_raw_uri:host; \*
>
> *    pcre:"/(?:[0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}/"; \*
>
> *    ssl_state:client_hello; \*
>
>     sid:1000010; \
>
>     rev:33; \
>
>     gid:1; \
>
>     priority:4; \
>
>     classtype:unknown;  \
>
> )
>
>
>
> No joy on this at all – it reads fine into the config, but never fires.
>
>
>
> I think this is a basic misunderstanding on how to chain the field, the
> content and the pcre statement together.  They only parse if they’re in
> this order, but I have no clue how to get one line to relate to the next
> (the content line seems extraneous to me)
>
> If there was a decent reference website I’d go there, but most either
> document everything discretely (rather than in combination), or have really
> basic examples …
>
>
>
> If anyone has good thoughts on this, beverages are on me if you are ever
> at a SANSFIRE or SECTOR conference (or are in Ontario Canada near me).
>
>
>
> (and yes, when all is done I can play with http_uri and raw_uri to see
> which works best for evasive encoding)
>
> ==============
>
> Rob VandenBrink
>
> 519-589-1881
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Snort-sigs mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.snort.org/mailman/listinfo/snort-sigs
>
> Please visit http://blog.snort.org for the latest news about Snort!
>
> Please follow these rules:
> https://snort.org/faq/what-is-the-mailing-list-etiquette
>
> Visit the Snort.org to subscribe to the official Snort ruleset, make sure
> to stay up to date to catch the most <a href="
> https://snort.org/downloads/#rule-downloads">emerging threats</a>!
>
>

_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.snort.org/mailman/listinfo/snort-sigs

Please visit http://blog.snort.org for the latest news about Snort!

Please follow these rules: https://snort.org/faq/what-is-the-mailing-list-etiquette

Visit the Snort.org to subscribe to the official Snort ruleset, make sure to stay up to date to catch the most <a href=" https://snort.org/downloads/#rule-downloads">emerging threats</a>!