They have updated their docs domain, leading to the link we had
returning a 404.
Also checked the other links. Although some seem to only contain old
traffic, they all still work.
This ensures that the correct spelling of the `security_result` EVE
field for RFB (as opposed to `security-result`) is also reflected in the
documentation.
Ticket: #7210
While not incorrect, the previous wording made the sentence almost
paradoxical. While at it, also highlight a side effect that might not be
so clear to users.
Related to
Bug #6976
Ticket: 5734
Adds frames for SSH records, that come after banner, and before
the data is encrypted.
These records may contain cipher lists for instance.
Ticket: 4863
On the way, convert some keywords to use the first-class integer
support.
And helpers for pure rust the support for multi-buffer.
Move the C unit tests about keyword mqtt.protocol_version
to unit tests for generic integer parsing, and test version 5
instead of testing twice version 3.
Also iterate all tx's messages for reason code as is done for other
keywords.
And allow detection on empty topics.
Ticket: 4863
On the way, convert unit test DetectSNMPCommunityTest to a SV test.
And also, make snmp.pdu_type use a generic uint32 for detection,
allowing operators, instead of just equality.
With triggering stream reassembly early, since for certain types of
rules there may be more alerts triggered - even in IPS mode, make this
clear in the upgrading section.
Bug #7026
Ticket: 3958
- transactions are now bidirectional
- there is a logger
- gap support is improved with probing for resync
- frames support
- app-layer events
- enip_command keyword accepts now string enumeration as values.
- add enip.status keyword
- add keywords :
enip.product_name, enip.protocol_version, enip.revision,
enip.identity_status, enip.state, enip.serial, enip.product_code,
enip.device_type, enip.vendor_id, enip.capabilities,
enip.cip_attribute, enip.cip_class, enip.cip_instance,
enip.cip_status, enip.cip_extendedstatus
Although we have the example for a commit message in our Code Submission
Process sub-chapter, seems that people still oversee it a lot. It was
suggested that we put it in a note-box, to make it more visible.