Replies: 1 comment
|
I think replacing the VLAN tag with another unique tag is the cleanest option that avoids complexity. Just need to make sure policy/frameworks/conn_key/vlan_fivetuple.zeek is loaded. The other benefit to this approach is the encrypted session, decrypted session and embedded network protocol logs that have a 5 tuple should also get the same community_id adding another nice pivot for correlation. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hi All,
I am doing inline SSL decryption and also collecting traffic from SPAN ports.
Decrypted traffic copy and SPAN ports are all aggregated on a packet broker which supports dedup, vlan addition/stripping etc..
The challenge I am facing is that the decrypted traffic copy has the same 5 tuples like the encrypted traffic that I am receiving from SPAN ports.
In traditional/standalone ZEEK I can send the traffic to 2 separate physical interfaces with separate workers, so no problem there, however with SO-zeek in SO all interfaces are under the same bond0.
Some options that I could do with the packet broker:
What would be the best way to tell SO-Zeek to treat the decrypted flows separately form the encrypted flows that have the same 5 tuples?
All reactions