Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suricata shows a warning on boot #1233

Closed
fabianfrz opened this issue Oct 21, 2016 · 13 comments
Closed

Suricata shows a warning on boot #1233

fabianfrz opened this issue Oct 21, 2016 · 13 comments
Labels
upstream Third party issue

Comments

@fabianfrz
Copy link
Member

virtualbox_opnsense_21_10_2016_19_03_36

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

What should we do here? Mute the output and potentially remove useful hints as to why Suricata may not work as expected?

@fabianfrz
Copy link
Member Author

I would prefer if It would be changed like described in the warning as it says it is faster and always the fastest option should be used if it does not break anything else ;)

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

It complains about not having selected IPS mode, which is a valid configuration option...

@fabianfrz
Copy link
Member Author

fabianfrz commented Oct 30, 2016

Maybe suricata wants to use netmap regardless of running IPS or not. Maybe there is something in the configuration where IPS can be disabled while using netmap.

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

PCAP mode is sane and safe. Netmap requires newer hardware. I don't see how we should switch because there is a warning in Suricata. If anything it would help to report this to Suricata as a bug. We set suricata.yaml correctly and still have this warning ;)

@speed47
Copy link
Contributor

speed47 commented Nov 2, 2016

I think the warning is not referencing the yaml file but directly the command line. I also noticed I have this warning, and the current command line of my suricata (running in IDS, not IPS) is:

/usr/local/bin/suricata -D -i re0 --pidfile /var/run/suricata.pid -c /usr/local/etc/suricata/suricata.yaml

It seems to be complaining that we didn't explicitely told it to use netmap or pcap, and warns us.
I suppose the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/suricata file should be modified to add the --pcap option when $suricata_netmap = "NO" ?

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

fichtner commented Nov 2, 2016

@speed47 the launcher script is from FreeBSD ports so ideally this needs to be fixed in coordination with them

@fichtner fichtner added upstream Third party issue cleanup Low impact changes labels Nov 2, 2016
@fichtner fichtner added this to the Future milestone Nov 2, 2016
@fichtner
Copy link
Member

fichtner commented Nov 2, 2016

Actually, I think this patch might do the trick coupled with using "$suricata_pcap"

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212192

@speed47
Copy link
Contributor

speed47 commented Nov 3, 2016

Indeed, it should do the trick. I'll test by patching my rc with their diff and report if it works.

@speed47
Copy link
Contributor

speed47 commented Nov 3, 2016

I can confirm it works by applying their patch (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=174112&action=diff).
My new command-line, even without defining $suricata_pcap, is:
/usr/local/bin/suricata -D --pcap=re0 --pidfile /var/run/suricata.pid -c /usr/local/etc/suricata/suricata.yaml.

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

fichtner commented Nov 4, 2016

Thanks for testing 👍 I've prodded the bug report, maybe it can be included in FreeBSD soon. 😊

@fichtner fichtner removed the cleanup Low impact changes label Dec 10, 2016
@fichtner
Copy link
Member

still delayed in FreeBSD...

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

fichtner commented Jun 9, 2017

The suricata rc script is so royally inflexible that it's simply not possible to fix this warning from our end.

@fichtner fichtner closed this as completed Jun 9, 2017
fichtner added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 10, 2017
(cherry picked from commit c9b7cdf)
(cherry picked from commit a298341)
(cherry picked from commit f826593)
(cherry picked from commit 6223e0b)
(cherry picked from commit a57d0e8)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
upstream Third party issue
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants