zeek July 2015

zeek@lists.zeek.org

53 participants
60 discussions

by Troy Jordan

Hello, There are some hilti-based parsers in the Bro docker image. When I run the pcaps for BACnet (/opt/hilti/bro/tests/Traces/bacnet/*.pcap) through Bro (eg bro -r NPDU.pcap) , no event logs are produced in /usr/local/bro/logs). How do I integrate these parsers into Bro? - Troy -- Troy Jordan t r o y j @ m a i n e . e d u GIAC GCIH,GCIA ------------------------------------------------------------ Network Systems Security Analyst Information Technology Security Office University of Maine System ------------------------------------------------------------ 233 Science Building | voice: 207.561.3590 Portland, ME 04103 | fax: 509.351.3650 "As you all know, Security Is Mortals chiefest Enemy" William Shakespeare, Macbeth

5 years, 8 months

[Bro] restrict_filters not preventing logging of selected IP addresses

by Richard Johnson

I think I'm specifying restrict_filters correctly to stop some hosts from being logged, but it's not working as I intend/expect. My local.bro redefinition of restrict_filters (below) is being recognized and propagated by broctl install, as confirmed by print restrict_filters after restarting. As further confirmation that the redef is being noticed, if I specify a pcap syntax impossibility in restrict_filters, I get workers quitting with "fatal error in /raid/bro/share/bro/base/frameworks/packet-filter/./main.bro, line 282: Bad pcap filter ..." on a restart. Yet when the restrict_filter is OK and is seemingly recognized, the IP addresses in the restrict_filters still appear in log entries. This logging continues after a broctl install and update, after a broctl install and restart, as well as after a complete cluster reboot. I'm seeing this under Bro 2.3-7 on CentOS 6.5 with pfring. Whether the capture_filters are redef'ed as shown in the details below, or not, doesn't change the restrict_filters failure I'm seeing. Any ideas for where to take this debugging odyssey? What am I missing that's obvious? Richard ------- Details: [manager-host ~]$ grep capture_filters /raid/bro/share/bro/site/local.bro redef capture_filters = { ["all"] = "ip or not ip" }; [manager-host ~]$ grep restrict_filters /raid/bro/share/bro/site/local.bro redef restrict_filters += { ["not-these-hosts"] = "not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88" }; [lines condensed for this message by removing extra pretty printing <cr>s] [BroControl] > print capture_filters manager capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } proxy-1 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } proxy-2 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-1-1 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-1-2 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-1-3 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-1-4 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-2-1 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-2-2 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-2-3 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } worker-2-4 capture_filters = { [all] = ip or not ip } [lines condensed for this message by removing extra pretty printing <cr>s] [BroControl] > print restrict_filters manager restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } proxy-1 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } proxy-2 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-1-1 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-1-2 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-1-3 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-1-4 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-2-1 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-2-2 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-2-3 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } worker-2-4 restrict_filters = { [not-these-hosts] = not host 172.16.1.1 and not host 172.16.22.22 and not host 172.16.39.39 and not host 172.16.88.88 } [manager-host current]$ grep 172.16.88.88 conn.log | tail -3 1429461245.805348 CpuepS3Ds2GYzABCtb xx.xx.xx.xx xxxxx 172.16.88.88 443 tcp ssl 4192.655995 14660 16441 S1 F 0ShADda 50 17268 49 19001 (empty) 1429464730.699197 CqVMY53iVvTFSWclAi xx.xx.xx.xx xxxxx 172.16.88.88 443 tcp ssl 1002.988461 5491 4481 SF F 0ShADdaFf 21 6591 17 5377 (empty) 1429464286.982078 CUl3Cl24bUWkgbhAGd xx.xx.xx.xx xxxxx 172.16.88.88 443 tcp ssl 1447.315821 7095 5595 SF F 0ShADdafF 25 8403 21 6699 (empty)

5 years, 10 months

[Bro] BRO 2.3.2 Intel email indicator do not work

by Giedrius Ramas

Hi, I found that BRO 2.3.4 Intel do not work with email's indicators. I have played on my infrastructure to get BRO intel work and found that email indicator won't work. I also tested it on try.bro.org/ the same results . However BRO 2.2 version works well with Intel email's indicators . Please let me know if more details needed to troubleshoot

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] No info record

by Michael Black

Using 2.4 I'm having a problem in a connection_finished event. I've extended the connection record with an extra field. But..processing a 512MB capture file I have I get a number of connection events that don't have a c$conn record in them. I get the same behavior using connection_EOF. This script demonstrates the problem. I've attached a sample of the conn.log records that show a mix of good/bad where you can see the TEST1 and N/A default on the non-conn records. 1426100429.761609 expression error in ./test.bro, line 11: field value missing [c$conn] It seems that if there is no "string" value or if it's an ssl, dns, for example, then there is no $conn field. Is there an extendable record in a connection record that is ALWAYS there? @load base/utils/site @load base/protocols/conn redef record Conn::Info += { testfield: string &default="N/A" &log; }; event connection_finished(c: connection) { if (!c?$conn) { c$conn$testfield = "TEST2"; } else { print("TEST1"); c$conn$testfield = "TEST1"; } }

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Problem identifying originator in Kerberos connections

by Peter Hansen

Hello all, I have been working with Kerberos in bro for a bit, and a problem I am consistently having is that for some reason with Kerberos packets, Bro cannot correctly identify the correct originator IP address in kerberos.log. It appears that the response packets are having their orig_h and resp_h values (and corresponding ports) swapped, so all connections made in the transfer are incorrectly identified as having the same originating IP address. Is this a known issue? Am I doing something wrong? Looking at the packets in wireshark correctly identifies them. Thanks, Peter

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Using bro to track MAC addresses instead of IPs

by Earl Eiland

The connection record includes the IP/port pair. Is there a way to include MAC addresses? Best Regards, Earl Eiland, Sr. Cyber Security Engineer, Emerging Technologies, root9B, San Antonio, Texas

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Reading a table from an external file

by Earl Eiland

I recently saw something online about reading a table from an external file in a bro script. Now that I'm ready to do that, I can't find any references or code examples. Can anyone provide some links? Best Regards, Earl Eiland, Sr. Cyber Security Engineer, Emerging Technologies, root9B, San Antonio, Texas

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Removing intel while Bro is running

by John B. Althouse III

It seems that while it's possible to add to the intel list in memory while Bro is running, it's not possible to remove. That is, if I remove something from the intel file because it's generating too many false positives, I have to restart Bro in order for it to take effect. Is there anything I can do to fix this? I'd rather not restart Bro and lose connection states.

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Bulk editing Intel files

by Michael Bower

Does anyone have something they like to use to help create/edit Intel files in bulk? Im trying to find a way to quickly add a lot of domains to one of my Intel files and I really don't want to have to added them individually. Thanks, Mike -- Sent from my Android device

5 years, 11 months

[Bro] Muliple processes in Bro

by Vito Logrillo

Hi All, i'm testing Bro 2.4 in standalone (no clustered) configuration and i've seen a strange behaviour: below the output obtained from "ps -aux | grep bro" command root 16911 0.0 0.0 5544 1524 ? S 15:08 0:00 /bin/bash /usr/local/bro/share/broctl/scripts/run-bro -1 -i eth1 -U .status -p broctl -p broctl-live -p standalone -p local -p bro local.bro broctl br ctl/standalone broctl/auto root 16917 58.0 4.4 414584 174960 ? Rl 15:08 9:54 /usr/local/bro/bin/bro -i eth1 -U .status -p broctl -p broctl-live -p standalone -p local -p bro local.bro broctl broctl/standalone broctl/auto root 16924 0.0 1.3 124700 53848 ? SN 15:08 0:00 /usr/local/bro/bin/bro -i eth1 -U .status -p broctl -p broctl-live -p standalone -p local -p bro local.bro broctl broctl/standalone broctl/auto I don't understand why two processes (pid 16917 and 16924) are present: only one process should be present .... or not? Regards, Vito Logrillo

5 years, 11 months

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

zeek July 2015