1aca2676a6
The bug:
The dcerpc dce_iface keyword just match the packet following the bind. Only the
next request after the rpc is sent will match. However the expected behaviour it
that all the rpc requests/responses sent under the context of the given
interface would match.
In the Open Group c706 the following is indicated:
In 2.2.1 Binding-related Operations, indicates that one category of binding
operations are those that "operations that establish internal call routing
information for the server." (The other are to establish the protocol which is
not relevant here). And the following statement can be found:
Operations in the second category establish a set of mappings that the server
can use to route calls internally to the appropriate manager routine. This
routing is based on the interface and version, operation and any object
requested by the call.
It indicates that server routes (to call methods) are based on the operation,
interface and object.
- Operation: To indicate the method to call, and operation number is
specified as indicated in the second step of 2.3.3.2 (Client
Binding Steps).
- Interface: An interface is a set of remotely callable operations offered by a
server and invokable by clients. (2.1.1.1)
- Object: Is the manager that implements the interface, as stated in section
Interface and Manager Selection of 2.3.3.3. It is not mandatory, can
be nil.
To call a method, a client must send a request message as defined in 2.6.4.9,
that contains these identifiers:
- opnum: The opnum field identifies the operation being invoked within the
interface.
- p_cont_id (Context ID in Wireshark): The p_cont_id field holds a presentation
context identifier that identifies the
data representation and interface, as
defined in 12.6.3.4 (Context Identifiers).
- object: The object field is contained if the PFC_OBJECT_UUID is set. (Could be
interesting to create a keyword dce_object for matching this UUID)
Therefore, to get the correct method to invoke, the server must map the context
to the correct interface. This is negotiated by the bind request
Interfaces are first negotiated using the bind message (12.6.4.3), contained in
the p_context_elem array. Then they are accepted or rejected using the bind_ack
message (12.6.4.4).
Once these contexts are established, both client and server can use the context
id, which is the index of the p_context_elem array, to refer the interface they
are using.
Moreover, in the middle of the connection, the context can be changed with the
alter_context message.
This is way suricata shouldn't delete the bindack attribute, that contains
the contexts, used by match_backuuid. This is the only way to know the interface
a request message is referring to.
ticket: 4769
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4769
|
4 years ago | |
|---|---|---|
| .github | 4 years ago | |
| benches | ||
| contrib | ||
| doc | 4 years ago | |
| ebpf | 5 years ago | |
| etc | 5 years ago | |
| lua | ||
| python | 4 years ago | |
| qa | 4 years ago | |
| rules | 4 years ago | |
| rust | 4 years ago | |
| scripts | 4 years ago | |
| src | 4 years ago | |
| suricata-update | ||
| .clang-format | ||
| .gitignore | 4 years ago | |
| .lgtm.yml | 4 years ago | |
| .readthedocs.yaml | 4 years ago | |
| COPYING | ||
| ChangeLog | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| Makefile.am | 5 years ago | |
| Makefile.cvs | ||
| README.md | 4 years ago | |
| acsite.m4 | ||
| autogen.sh | ||
| config.rpath | ||
| configure.ac | 4 years ago | |
| doxygen.cfg | 4 years ago | |
| libsuricata-config.in | 5 years ago | |
| requirements.txt | 4 years ago | |
| suricata.yaml.in | 4 years ago | |
| threshold.config | ||
README.md
Suricata
Introduction
Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine.
Installation
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Suricata_Installation
User Guide
You can follow the Suricata user guide to get started.
Our deprecated (but still useful) user guide is also available.
Contributing
We're happily taking patches and other contributions. Please see https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Contributing for how to get started.
Suricata is a complex piece of software dealing with mostly untrusted input. Mishandling this input will have serious consequences:
- in IPS mode a crash may knock a network offline;
- in passive mode a compromise of the IDS may lead to loss of critical and confidential data;
- missed detection may lead to undetected compromise of the network.
In other words, we think the stakes are pretty high, especially since in many common cases the IDS/IPS will be directly reachable by an attacker.
For this reason, we have developed a QA process that is quite extensive. A consequence is that contributing to Suricata can be a somewhat lengthy process.
On a high level, the steps are:
-
Travis-CI based build & unit testing. This runs automatically when a pull request is made.
-
Review by devs from the team and community
-
QA runs
Overview of Suricata's QA steps
Trusted devs and core team members are able to submit builds to our (semi) public Buildbot instance. It will run a series of build tests and a regression suite to confirm no existing features break.
The final QA run takes a few hours minimally, and is started by Victor. It currently runs:
- extensive build tests on different OS', compilers, optimization levels, configure features
- static code analysis using cppcheck, scan-build
- runtime code analysis using valgrind, DrMemory, AddressSanitizer, LeakSanitizer
- regression tests for past bugs
- output validation of logging
- unix socket testing
- pcap based fuzz testing using ASAN and LSAN
Next to these tests, based on the type of code change further tests can be run manually:
- traffic replay testing (multi-gigabit)
- large pcap collection processing (multi-terabytes)
- fuzz testing (might take multiple days or even weeks)
- pcap based performance testing
- live performance testing
- various other manual tests based on evaluation of the proposed changes
It's important to realize that almost all of the tests above are used as acceptance tests. If something fails, it's up to you to address this in your code.
One step of the QA is currently run post-merge. We submit builds to the Coverity Scan program. Due to limitations of this (free) service, we can submit once a day max. Of course it can happen that after the merge the community will find issues. For both cases we request you to help address the issues as they may come up.
FAQ
Q: Will you accept my PR?
A: That depends on a number of things, including the code quality. With new features it also depends on whether the team and/or the community think the feature is useful, how much it affects other code and features, the risk of performance regressions, etc.
Q: When will my PR be merged?
A: It depends, if it's a major feature or considered a high risk change, it will probably go into the next major version.
Q: Why was my PR closed?
A: As documented in the Suricata Github workflow here https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Github_work_flow, we expect a new pull request for every change.
Normally, the team (or community) will give feedback on a pull request after which it is expected to be replaced by an improved PR. So look at the comments. If you disagree with the comments we can still discuss them in the closed PR.
If the PR was closed without comments it's likely due to QA failure. If the Travis-CI check failed, the PR should be fixed right away. No need for a discussion about it, unless you believe the QA failure is incorrect.
Q: the compiler/code analyser/tool is wrong, what now?
A: To assist in the automation of the QA, we're not accepting warnings or errors to stay. In some cases this could mean that we add a suppression if the tool supports that (e.g. valgrind, DrMemory). Some warnings can be disabled. In some exceptional cases the only 'solution' is to refactor the code to work around a static code checker limitation false positive. While frustrating, we prefer this over leaving warnings in the output. Warnings tend to get ignored and then increase risk of hiding other warnings.
Q: I think your QA test is wrong
A: If you really think it is, we can discuss how to improve it. But don't come to this conclusion too quickly, more often it's the code that turns out to be wrong.
Q: do you require signing of a contributor license agreement?
A: Yes, we do this to keep the ownership of Suricata in one hand: the Open Information Security Foundation. See http://suricata.io/about/open-source/ and http://suricata.io/about/contribution-agreement/