Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #8179

open

dcerpc.opnum: doesn't support operators >,<,!,=

Added by Alexander Stadnikov 7 days ago. Updated 7 days ago.

Status:
Assigned
Priority:
Normal
Target version:
Effort:
low
Difficulty:
Label:
Beginner, Good First Issue

Description

Recently our networking analysts found out that dcerpc.opnum and it's sibling dce_opnum don't support operators >,<,!,=

Suricata prints the error "Error parsing dce_opnum option in signature" while parsing rule:

alert tcp any any -> any any (msg:"CVE-2024-38073"; sid:200; rev:1; flow:to_server,established; dcerpc.opnum:>1;)

The rule might be easily replaced by:

alert tcp any any -> any any (msg:"CVE-2024-38073"; sid:200; rev:1; flow:to_server,established; dcerpc.opnum:2-65535;)

It seems the keyword is important and if it's a real problem then a Redmine ticket could be found but I didn't find anything related to it.
I think it's the documentation issue.

All operators might be easily replaced by precise numbers and/or ranges.

I checked also the implementation and I see the functionality was never present.


Related issues 1 (1 open0 closed)

Related to Suricata - Task #6644: tracking: detect: integer as first-class supportIn ProgressPhilippe AntoineActions
Actions #1

Updated by Victor Julien 7 days ago

  • Related to Task #6644: tracking: detect: integer as first-class support added
Actions #2

Updated by Victor Julien 7 days ago

  • Status changed from New to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Philippe Antoine
  • Target version changed from TBD to 9.0.0-beta1

@Philippe Antoine a quick look at the current code suggests this could use the generic u32 support?

Actions #3

Updated by Victor Julien 7 days ago

  • Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
  • Subject changed from doc: dcerpc.opnum doesn't support operators >,<,!,= to dcerpc.opnum: doesn't support operators >,<,!,=
  • Affected Versions deleted (7.0.13)

@alexander.stadnikov thanks for reporting this. I think I'd rather see the support added than the docs updated :)

Actions #4

Updated by Philippe Antoine 7 days ago

Victor Julien wrote in #note-2:

a quick look at the current code suggests this could use the generic u32 support?

Not so easy, as the current implementation supports args like 12,26,62,61,6513-6666

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF