Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #967

closed

threshold rule clobbers suppress rules

Added by Darrell Enns about 11 years ago. Updated about 11 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Victor Julien
Target version:
2.0beta2
Affected Versions:
Effort:
Difficulty:
Label:

Description

Adding a threshold rule clobbers any previous suppress rules. If this behavior is intended and not a bug, then it's highly counter-intuitive and should be clearly documented.

This works as expected (suppress alerts for 192.168.0.8 and limits other hosts to one alert per hour):

threshold gen_id 1, sig_id 2014726, type limit, track by_src, count 1, seconds 3600
suppress gen_id 1, sig_id 2014726, track by_src, ip 192.168.0.8

This does not suppress alerts for 192.168.0.8:

suppress gen_id 1, sig_id 2014726, track by_src, ip 192.168.0.8
threshold gen_id 1, sig_id 2014726, type limit, track by_src, count 1, seconds 3600

Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by Victor Julien about 11 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Victor Julien
  • Target version changed from 1.4.5 to 1.4.6

"target version" is for indicating in which release something will be addressed.

Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by Victor Julien about 11 years ago

  • Target version changed from 1.4.6 to 2.0beta2

What is happening is that if a suppress rule encounters an existing threshold/suppress setting on the rule, it silently replaces that.

Our support for mixing rule thresholds with global thresholds is still rather limited, see Global-Thresholds and #425.

Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by Anoop Saldanha about 11 years ago

I presume the aforementioned thing would also happen, if a threshold rule sees an existing threshold/suppress setting on a rule?

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by Victor Julien about 11 years ago

Anoop Saldanha wrote:

I presume the aforementioned thing would also happen, if a threshold rule sees an existing threshold/suppress setting on a rule?

For thresholding and detection_filters, indeed. No suppression can be set in the rule itself.

I have made a partial fix here: https://github.com/inliniac/suricata/pull/558, it splits suppress and threshold support. Suppressions can then be mixed with thresholds w/o limits and there can be many suppressions per rule. The issue with multiple thresholds per rule remains though.

Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by Victor Julien about 11 years ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Closed
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Merged the fix I mentioned. This addresses mixing suppress <-> suppress and suppress <-> threshold. For theshold <-> threshold there is still ticket #425.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF