Bug #3041
closedsnmp parsing error message
Description
Wit latest master (b5f3e03209922f1029b76a1a3570a3aca91659f5) on some live traffic, I'm seeing a regular message like this one:
[80425] 10/6/2019 -- 01:37:04 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([4, 7, ..., 4, 2, 1, 4], Tag))) [80409] 10/6/2019 -- 01:37:06 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v1 failed: Err(Error(Code([4, 10, 11..., 5, 0], Tag)))
I did try to capture pcap and replay it on same branch but it was without success.
The error may be benign but we should at least have it only in debug.
Updated by Andreas Herz over 5 years ago
- Assignee set to OISF Dev
- Target version set to TBD
Updated by Peter Manev over 5 years ago
I also got this on a pcap (but cant share the pcap itself/partly due to size too)
[23018] 17/6/2019 -- 02:17:17 - (util-checksum.c:89) <Info> (ChecksumAutoModeCheck) -- No packets with invalid checksum, assuming checksum offloading is NOT used [23024] 17/6/2019 -- 02:33:17 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([4, 7, 112, 1.. Tag))) [23022] 17/6/2019 -- 02:33:18 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([4...8, 5, 6, 1, 43, 5, 0], Tag))) [23025] 17/6/2019 -- 02:33:18 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([4, 5, 99, 105, 115, 99, 111, ...], Tag))) [23020] 17/6/2019 -- 02:33:18 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([4, 6, 48, 51, 57, 50, 97,...0], Tag))) [23024] 17/6/2019 -- 02:33:19 - (snmp.rs:154) <Info> (<rust>) -- parse_snmp_v2 failed: Err(Error(Code([,,,,, 161)
Using
/opt/suricatagit/bin/suricata --build-info This is Suricata version 5.0.0-dev (rev b5f3e0320) Features: PCAP_SET_BUFF AF_PACKET HAVE_PACKET_FANOUT LIBCAP_NG LIBNET1.1 HAVE_HTP_URI_NORMALIZE_HOOK PCRE_JIT HAVE_NSS HAVE_LUA HAVE_LUAJIT HAVE_LIBJANSSON PROFILING TLS MAGIC RUST SIMD support: SSE_4_2 SSE_4_1 SSE_3 Atomic intrisics: 1 2 4 8 16 byte(s) 64-bits, Little-endian architecture GCC version 7.4.0, C version 199901 compiled with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 L1 cache line size (CLS)=64 thread local storage method: __thread compiled with LibHTP v0.5.30, linked against LibHTP v0.5.30 Suricata Configuration: AF_PACKET support: yes eBPF support: no XDP support: no PF_RING support: no NFQueue support: no NFLOG support: no IPFW support: no Netmap support: no DAG enabled: no Napatech enabled: no WinDivert enabled: no Unix socket enabled: yes Detection enabled: yes Libmagic support: yes libnss support: yes libnspr support: yes libjansson support: yes liblzma support: no hiredis support: no hiredis async with libevent: no Prelude support: no PCRE jit: yes LUA support: yes, through luajit libluajit: yes libgeoip: yes Non-bundled htp: no Old barnyard2 support: no Hyperscan support: yes Libnet support: yes liblz4 support: yes Rust support: yes Rust strict mode: no Rust debug mode: no Rust compiler: rustc 1.32.0 Rust cargo: cargo 1.32.0 Python support: yes Python path: /usr/bin/python3 Python version: Python 3.6.7 Python distutils yes Python yaml yes Install suricatactl: yes Install suricatasc: yes Install suricata-update: not bundled Profiling enabled: yes Profiling locks enabled: no Development settings: Coccinelle / spatch: yes Unit tests enabled: no Debug output enabled: no Debug validation enabled: no Generic build parameters: Installation prefix: /opt/suricatagit Configuration directory: /opt/suricatagit/etc/suricata/ Log directory: /opt/suricatagit/var/log/suricata/ --prefix /opt/suricatagit --sysconfdir /opt/suricatagit/etc --localstatedir /opt/suricatagit/var --datarootdir /opt/suricatagit/share Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Compiler: gcc (exec name) / gcc (real) GCC Protect enabled: no GCC march native enabled: yes GCC Profile enabled: no Position Independent Executable enabled: no CFLAGS -g -O2 -march=native -I${srcdir}/../rust/gen/c-headers PCAP_CFLAGS -I/usr/include SECCFLAGS
Updated by Pierre Chifflier over 5 years ago
- Assignee changed from OISF Dev to Pierre Chifflier
Updated by Pierre Chifflier over 5 years ago
This one is hard to guess :/ The provided test pcap did not result in any error/warning here.
My current supposition is that there is a mismatch, and that different SNMP versions are seen in the same UDP connection. That is what the standard requests, and the current parser is a bit (over)strict with that (it checks that SNMP requests/answers are all using the same version).
I propose several changes:
- reduce verbosity (it should be Debug. and there is an additional good reason because it contains the SNMP community string)
- change restriction on version: change the parse to correctly parse any version, and maybe just add an event if versions mismatch
Updated by Victor Julien over 5 years ago
I think it would be good to set events. If you can set the version mismatch separately from other issues that might be in play then we can see which ones trigger in the real world traffic.
Updated by Philippe Antoine 12 months ago
- Status changed from New to Rejected
Closed as stale, feel free to reopen with a pcap if it still happens on latest suricata 7