<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: ips signatures in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834591#M85410</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;To which Cisco doc are you referring?  Those classifications seem a bit nonsensical.  It is not uncommon to see discussions around signatures that detect a specific exploit versus the vulnerability. In either case though, with signature based technology you are using patterns.  Some are designed to detect a specific exploit of a vulnerability while others might detect any exploit of a vulnerability.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:23:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mhellman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2007-10-31T13:23:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ips signatures</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834590#M85408</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;According to CISCO doc, the signatures can be classified as exploit, connection and string-based.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Are the exploit signatures based on known vulnerabilities or exploit pattern, or both?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After tuning alerts on the relevant contexts, would manually matching the patterns in payload and signature provide more confidence with positives?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 10:51:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834590#M85408</guid>
      <dc:creator>mai2mai2m</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T10:51:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ips signatures</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834591#M85410</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;To which Cisco doc are you referring?  Those classifications seem a bit nonsensical.  It is not uncommon to see discussions around signatures that detect a specific exploit versus the vulnerability. In either case though, with signature based technology you are using patterns.  Some are designed to detect a specific exploit of a vulnerability while others might detect any exploit of a vulnerability.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:23:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834591#M85410</guid>
      <dc:creator>mhellman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-31T13:23:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ips signatures</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834592#M85414</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;1103&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:51:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-signatures/m-p/834592#M85414</guid>
      <dc:creator>yytdlvlei</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-11-01T02:51:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

