TO UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsubscribe issforum" in the body of your message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help with any problems!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: Adi Sakti
> After installing Norton Anti Virus  on which server sensor 
> v6.5 installed I 
> got
> warning from NAV saying that it detects worm from file "evd000.enc".
> Does anybody knows whether this is worm or NAV misdetect it as worm.
> If this is not worm what is evd000.enc actually ?

The "network IDS" component stores set of sniffer-compatible packet-capture
files containing the packets that triggered the IDS. These are stored in a
"round-robin" of tracefiles, if you don't copy them off somewhere, they will
eventually be overwritten. You can use the following programs to read the
packets within the file:
* Sniffer(tm) Network Analyzer from NAI
* NetMon from Microsoft (comes with Windows Server and SMS)
* Ethereal (freeware open-source from www.ethereal.com)

A common problem with anti-virus programs is that the patterns they choose
for their "signatures" might match the patterns seen in the tracefiles. The
files are not "infected" with the worm. What likely happened is that a worm
attempted to infect your machine. The IDS triggered on this, and stored some
packets related to the event into the evd000.enc tracefile. The tracefile
contained the same pattern NAV was looking for.

Some versions of CodeRed are contained in a single packet. This means the
evd000.enc contains the entire CodeRed worm. From NAV's perspective, this
isn't a misdetect: it is correctly finding a CodeRed worm. On the other
hand, the file isn't "infected" with the worm; there is no vector for the
worm to "leave" the file. From that perspective, it is a misdetect.


Regards,
Robert Graham
Chief Architect, Internet Security Systems

PS: I'm always interested in what people have in their "evidence"
tracefiles. When people send them to me, I often spend my free time (e.g.
when I'm on plains) looking over them, trying to see what I can do to reduce
false-positives or extend signatures for new hacking techniques (the
protocol-analysis technique often finds new styles of hacks).


Reply via email to