FMC - Intrusion event passes instead of drop
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-25-2022 11:50 PM
Hi,
this morning I found in my FMC that some intrusion events are shown as "pass" instead of being dropped.
I find this in my FMC under Analysis -> Intrusion Events -> Table view.
example:
2022-02-26 06:45:38 | low |
| Pass | xx.xx.xx.xx | USA | xx.xx.xx.xx | USA | 3200 / tcp | 80 (http) / tcp | HI_CLIENT_IIS_UNICODE (119:7:1) | Unknown Traffic | HTTP Inspection Preprocessor |
This happened for different events and different target machines.
I am running FMC with 7.1.0
VDB is 351
Is that a normal behavior? I have not seen this in the event table before, but I am not that into the fmc at the moment...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-27-2022 12:08 AM
Was there a custom IPS rule created from one of the Cisco default ruleset and configured it as a Pass for valid traffic? I normally do this for different signatures where I want Snort to pass traffic for some of our internal host communications. Just a thought.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-28-2022 12:32 AM
No, we have not created any rule to pass. And it is not always the same Snort rule / vulnerabilty that ia affected.
A few examples:
2022-02-28 02:11:59 | high |
| Pass | x.x.x.x | USA | x.x.x.x | USA | 43300 / tcp | 80 (http) / tcp | SERVER-WEBAPP Zeroshell Linux Router command injection attempt (1:54794:2) |
2022-02-27 22:57:29 | low |
| Pass | x.x.x.x | DEU | x.x.x.x | DEU | 38923 / tcp | 80 (http) / tcp | HI_CLIENT_BARE_BYTE (119:4:1) |
2022-02-27 22:50:27 | low |
| Pass | x.x.x.x | DEU | x.x.x.x | USA | 38923 / tcp | 21 (ftp) / tcp | FTPP_FTP_TELNET_CMD (125:1:2) |
2022-02-27 22:50:27 | medium |
| Pass | x.x.x.x | DEU | x.x.x.x | USA | 38923 / tcp | 21 (ftp) / tcp | FTPP_FTP_INVALID_CMD (125:2:2) |
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-28-2022 04:36 AM
Check the rule allowing the traffic in the first place. Does it have the Intrusion Policy specified in it?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
02-28-2022 01:17 PM
For every services reachable from external sources I have created an own intrusion policy. Then I have created access policies for every server saying any -> dmz server and added that specific IPS policy. So there is no entry without an IPS policy with allow.
