That would work for my home setup great, but I don't/can't run NAT on the box that this must be done on...it's in a "Security Lab" for RIT, where students in a class will be "hacking" into machines other students set up...and all this machine will be doing is watching everything that goes on.
Thanks! --Brian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of nate Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPFW & Snort Brian McCann said: > Simple question for you all...but it evades me. I'm trying to setup a > box that will monitor a network, but be totally invisible to that > network, but it needs an IP since it will be using some programs like > BigBrother and whatnot. So...my question is...if I use IPFW to block, > for example, all ports and effectively totally blocking TCP/IP, will > Snort still be able to capture TCP/IP packets? Has anyone tried/done > this? I reccomend just using 3 NIC interfaces. run 2 of em in bridged mode, e.g. my home network is protected by a freebsd box running 4 NICs, 1 management(inside internal firewall), NICs 2 and 3 are bridging, NIC 2 is the firewall, NIC 3 is snort, NIC 4 is not being used. this way since all traffic goes accross 2 interfaces I can run snort on the "internal" one so it has no chance of detecting what is dropped on the "external" one. then behind that machine I have another machine doing the NAT. works great. nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
