Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-08 Thread Yves Goergen
On 06.01.2011 15:13 CE(S)T, Mark Martinec wrote: Nertheless, out of necessity, here is a quick hack to prevent Botnet FPs on IPv6 connections (that came with a bunch of emitted warnings that accompanied each such mail message). Thank you very much for your IPv6 patch. I've seen the problem

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-08 Thread Yves Goergen
On 06.01.2011 15:13 CE(S)T, Mark Martinec wrote: --- Botnet.pm.ori 2007-08-06 03:53:55.0 +0200 +++ Botnet.pm 2011-01-06 14:56:12.009017547 +0100 @@ -703,4 +703,6 @@ my ($resolver, $query, $rr, $i, @a); + return 1 if defined $ip $ip =~ /:/; # does not handle IPv6 +

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Benny Pedersen
On ons 05 jan 2011 22:52:41 CET, Michael Monnerie wrote I received this info from a customer, whose order confirmation from the londontheatredirect.com got marked as spam because of BOTNET* rules. Are those rules too old, or is that server in a botnet? How to find out? Or which rules scores

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Benny Pedersen
On ons 05 jan 2011 23:10:41 CET, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote I would remove the p0f and botnet rules if I were you. That would solve your problem. it will not solve it for others unless reverse dns is solved aswell -- xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Jari Fredriksson
On 6.1.2011 0:10, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: I would remove the p0f and botnet rules if I were you. That would solve your problem. I find BOTNET an excellent addition to my SA. TOP SPAM RULES FIRED -- RANKRULE NAME

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Henrik K
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote: On 6.1.2011 0:10, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: I would remove the p0f and botnet rules if I were you. That would solve your problem. I find BOTNET an excellent addition to my SA. Of course it is, most spam is from

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Jari Fredriksson
On 6.1.2011 15:42, Henrik K wrote: On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Jari Fredriksson wrote: On 6.1.2011 0:10, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: I would remove the p0f and botnet rules if I were you. That would solve your problem. I find BOTNET an excellent addition to my SA. Of course

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-06 Thread Mark Martinec
On 1/5/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: Btw, the BOTNET plugin also produces a FP hit for any IPv6 connection, regardless of its rDNS. If someone is interested in a quick hack patch, I can post it. Mark, please do post the patch. It's good to see that someone is supporting this

BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Michael Monnerie
Dear list, I received this info from a customer, whose order confirmation from the londontheatredirect.com got marked as spam because of BOTNET* rules. Are those rules too old, or is that server in a botnet? How to find out? Or which rules scores should I tune to optimize? --

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Michael Scheidell
On 1/5/11 4:52 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote: server88-208-245-26.live- servers.net botnet is NOT an stock SA rule plus, look at the silly DYNAMIC RULE LOOKING rdns. fix rdns. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO o: 561-999-5000 d: 561-948-2259 ISN: 1259*1300 *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation *

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Lawrence @ Rogers
On 05/01/2011 6:22 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote: Dear list, I received this info from a customer, whose order confirmation from the londontheatredirect.com got marked as spam because of BOTNET* rules. Are those rules too old, or is that server in a botnet? How to find out? Or which rules scores

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread RW
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:40:41 -0330 Lawrence @ Rogers lawrencewilli...@nl.rogers.com wrote: I would suspect that you are using non-standard rules. What's most concerning is the old p0f rules that are looking for Windows XP. That is dangerous and a bad thing to use as a rule (the OS of the

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Lawrence @ Rogers
On 05/01/2011 8:38 PM, RW wrote: Aside from BOTNET_WIN the p0f rules are low-scoring and add-up to zero. Since BOTNETS are 100% Windows it doesn't seem unreasonable to use p0f in a metarule. However, you might want to look into this inconsistency: You are right about the overlapping and one

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Mark Martinec
Combining p0f with BOTNET is indended to *reduce* the high number of false positives that BOTNET alone produces, *at least* for the non-windows machines. The windows hosts are left alone and are not protected by p0f from BOTNET FP. If someone is scoring p0f in combination with BOTNET differently,

Re: BOTNET rules question

2011-01-05 Thread Bill Landry
On 1/5/2011 5:11 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: Combining p0f with BOTNET is indended to *reduce* the high number of false positives that BOTNET alone produces, *at least* for the non-windows machines. The windows hosts are left alone and are not protected by p0f from BOTNET FP. If someone is scoring