Slashdot Mirror


Is Open Source SNORT Dead?

alphadogg writes "Is Snort, the 12-year-old open-source intrusion detection and prevention system, dead? The Open Information Security Foundation, a nonprofit group funded by the US Dept. of Homeland Security to come up with next-generation open source IDS/IPS, thinks so. But Snort's creator, Martin Roesch, begs to differ, and in fact, calls the OISF's first open source IDS/IPS code, Suricata 1.0 released this week, a cheap knock-off of Snort paid for with taxpayer dollars. The OISF was founded about a year and a half ago with $1 million in funding from a DHS cybersecurity research program, according to Matt Jonkman, president of OISF. He says OISF was founded to form an open source alternative and replacement to Snort, which he says is now considered dead since the research on what is supposed to be the next-generation version of Snort, Snort 3.0, has stalled."

13 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. No way by gparent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Netcraft hasn't confirmed it yet.

  2. It's not dead. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Snort is nowhere near dead - it's still used in tons of production environments, especially in higher ed (where we've always got plenty of Unix nerds on hand, and never have any money).

    I would imagine Marty's objections probably have something to do with his desire to move people from Snort to the commercial IDS offerings from Sourcefire. That easy upsell doesn't exist if people start off on another product.

    --saint

    1. Re:It's not dead. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to Marty, when asked about IPv6 support at this year's EDUCAUSE Security conference, Snort will happily inspect IPv6 traffic if you configure the HOME_NET to be an IPv6 network.

      There's no explicit option to turn it on, because it shifts from v4 to v6 when the rest of the configuration is set up properly. This subtlety seems to elude people. Well, either that or the guy who initially wrote the software doesn't know how it works.

      --saint

  3. So in short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, so a competing product comes out, they declare their competitor is dead, said competitor says "i'm not dead yet" and accuses them of being a cheap knockoff. Both sides continue to point out flaws or perceived flaws and throw FUD at each other.

  4. Why, it's not Open Source . . . it's . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The OISF was founded about a year and a half ago with $1 million in funding from a DHS cybersecurity research program . . .

    Open Pork!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Re:Great summary quote by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having been a Navy contractor in just this exact field, my experience with govt / military jobs indicates to me that this is a lot of stovepipe rooster crowing.

    Self important BS Hype to justify the tax dollars and get the pats on the back. The positive comments here for this 1.5m hack of snort is more than likely astro turfing. Up until now, I haven't even heard of Suricata.

    Can someone provide a link where this has been in some mainstream IT circles being debated as Beta release candidates were released etc?

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  6. ls is dead by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, the ls command is also dead. When was the last major functional change for ls? When was the last time you saw a major support contract signed for the ls command? Note that I am accepting $1M contract offers to implement the next generation directory listing program, which I will be naming dir.exe, although I haven't decided whats more trendy, enterprise Java, ruby on rails, or maybe erlang?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:ls is dead by blincoln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When was the last major functional change for ls? When was the last time you saw a major support contract signed for the ls command?

      When was the last time the landscape of Unix-style directory listings changed significantly? Security-related products need to constantly adapt to new types of threat as well as new variations on older types.

      Think about how much the world of computer security has changed over the last couple of decades. When I had my first dialup shell account with internet access, the idea that there would be a major black-market industry for professionals writing malicious code was literally science fiction.

      Meanwhile, the standard Unix-style directory listing still seems to work fine for most people. I haven't looked into the more specialized (SELinux) variations, but I imagine if there were significant changes to the Unix filesystem security model (e.g. if very complicated NTFS-style permissions were implemented), then ls would probably be significantly extended so that it would accurately represent the additional information.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  7. Snort's just fine by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may not be developed on very actively but that's because it doesn't need to be. It does everything it needs to do and for the rest, the community and any capable sysadmin can make their own rules. At some point the product is finished and all you can do is bugfix it. Adding features makes stuff bloated and is only necessary if you need to sell the stuff in a commercial setting. That's the power of open source, once a product is finished, it's done with. Eventually somebody will rewrite it (if the code is really bad) or make it run better (if architectures change) but a well-written program won't need either in the near future.

    Look at the rsync library. The only thing that was fixed recently is a 64-bit handle to allow for files larger than 4GB to be handled. I don't believe the original programmer is even around anymore to fix stuff on it since the 4GB patch is not included in the official rsync distribution. But it's still widely used without any problems, works as intended and isn't going away soon.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  8. Snort is live. 3.0, OTOH... by savanik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .... is pretty much DOA.

    Speaking as a security professional, we could REALLY use multi-threaded support in our Snort deployments, and the last time I heard 'multi-threaded support is just around the corner' was in 2008.

    Right now, the fact that one Snort instance runs as one process linked to one interface in your ethernet stack means that only one core can run it. And with us hitting the plateau in computing speed on a per-core basis, and traffic still increasing, multi-threaded support had better show up in the next couple of years at the latest or I'll have to find some other network-based IDS product, at least for some extreme instances.

  9. Snort's not dead... by martyroesch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I should know, I wrote it.

    Snort is developed at Sourcefire these days, the company I started and where I still serve as CTO. I am the lead developer on the Snort 3.0 project right now which is undergoing restructuring after the initial few releases showed performance issues that we weren't ready to live with.

    Snort 2.x is developed by Sourcefire's engineering team, we release several updates a year to the code and updates to detection almost weekly via the Sourcefire VRT. I don't work on the 2.x code base day to day anymore but I do contribute from time to time. Snort 2.9.0 is slated for release this fall and continues 12 years of development on the engine technology which includes some significant innovation in the field of intrusion detection.

    My issue with Suricata is that it has implemented the exact same *detection model* as Snort, it does nothing new from a detection standpoint but wraps it in a multithreaded framework that they're trying to call innovation all on its own. True innovation would be to develop a new way of detecting threats on the wire and they haven't done that, they effectively have implemented the same idea as Snort (processes Snort rules, buffers streams into chunks before processing, etc) on a slower software platform. They implemented what is effectively a Snort fork and did so at taxpayer expense, they got the government to pay them to develop something that the government already gets for free (Snort's detection model) with less features and lower performance.

    Someday Suricata might be a really interesting engine but to go out to the press in a concerted push and advance the idea that "Snort is dead" reflects a stunning amount of hubris and wishful thinking. Snort is the most widely deployed IDS/IPS on the planet, there have been millions of downloads and there are hundreds of thousands of registered users and the community is still growing steadily. Snort's engine development is still moving forward and we have plans to continue to innovate in the field of intrusion detection. If the Suricata team wants to displace it they have a tremendous amount of work to do, they're not even close yet.

    1. Re:Snort's not dead... by rotide · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you even look at the downloads page?:
      http://www.snort.org/snort-downloads

      Second link is "source".

      If you want the 3.0 source go to:
      http://www.snort.org/snort-downloads/snort-3-0/

      Maybe these weren't the sources you were looking for?

  10. Re:Confusing Story Considering Snort's Activity by martyroesch · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not true, Snort development continues in the open and contributions are still taken from the community. We don't use the community to market our commercial solutions at all, in fact we have strict prohibitions against marketing commercial solutions on the Snort mailing lists.

    Stiennon takes the next wrong step by saying that we're preventing the ENTIRE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY from developing threat mitigation technology. Completely wrong. You can still add your own patches to Snort either as a contribution to the project or as an external patch, Sourcefire does nothing to prevent that.

    We also don't require that you install anything other than Snort when you grab it from snort.org, getting and installing Snort today is just like it was before Sourcefire started. If you don't have the problems that Sourcefire solves (scalability and manageability for the mid to large enterprise) you'd probably barely notice we're out there.