What Quality of service (QoS) will we worsen, if we use a more rigorous
detection system of intruders?
thnaks

RE: QoS??? by levinson_k

levinson_k
Mon Jul 10 13:48:02 CDT 2006


"Ricardo Batista" wrote:

> What Quality of service (QoS) will we worsen, if we use a more rigorous
> detection system of intruders?

We'd need more information on what detection system you are considering.

Most Network IDS systems are passive, so there should normally not be any
performance impact that users would notice. If your IDS system was flooded,
it could impact its ability to successfully monitor everything.

With intrusion prevention (IPS) or inline IDS, if the system becomes
swamped, it could impact your network performance. You would want to monitor
your device for usage of available CPU, network bandwidth, memory and disk
activity to determine whether it is under-utilized or over-utilized.

Host-based IDS can impact performance of the system on which it is installed.

For all of these measures, whether performance is impacted depends ENTIRELY
on how you have configured it.

I believe that the abbreviation "QoS" generally refers to a specific
technology / method that uses clients and routers to control amounts and
usage of network bandwidth, and not overall application performance.

--
kind regards,

Karl Levinson, CISSP, MCSE, CCSA, MS MVP
-------------------------
Microsoft Security FAQ:
http://www.securityadmin.info



RE: QoS??? by RicardoBatista

RicardoBatista
Mon Jul 10 14:53:02 CDT 2006

I think that the answer is â??availabilityâ?? because if we implant a intrusion
detection system and if a authorized user is mistaken as a intruder a QoS is
affectedâ?¦.

Re: QoS??? by Roger

Roger
Tue Jul 11 01:11:14 CDT 2006

Hi Ricardo,

I believe you perhaps intended " . . . mistaken as an intruder a DoS is
affected" ?
DoS = denial of service would result in that circumstance.

QoS = quality of service could have its service quality specifications
degraded
in circumstances such as Karl has outlined, particularly with an inlined IDS
system
that could not pass packets at sufficient rate.

"Ricardo Batista" <RicardoBatista@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:0F25FBFD-DDD8-44C0-8CAA-46B347C49CD4@microsoft.com...
>I think that the answer is "availability" because if we implant a intrusion
> detection system and if a authorized user is mistaken as a intruder a QoS
> is
> affected..



RE: QoS??? by levinson_k

levinson_k
Tue Jul 11 10:09:02 CDT 2006


"Ricardo Batista" wrote:

> I think that the answer is â??availabilityâ?? because if we implant a intrusion
> detection system and if a authorized user is mistaken as a intruder a QoS is
> affectedâ?¦.

Is this an exam question?

That could be a concern if you're using intrusion prevention, or if you're
using IDS with "active response." For that reason, most experts are against
using active response with IDS, because an attacker can use it against you,
and malfunctions can occur.

With intrusion prevention / IPS, most IPS vendors are very aware of this
concern, so they generally only enable blocking by default on a few
signatures that are very certain not to experience false alarms. If you
start enabling blocking on additional signatures, you need to know what
you're doing.

Some application proxying firewalls [like Symantec Raptor and Checkpoint]
and other devices can experience reliability and performance problems with
certain features that do proxying of, for example, TCP SYN handshakes. For
example, if someone does a fast scan through such a firewall, the firewall
can be overwhelmed. TCP SYN proxying is a feature that is usually intended
to prevent denials of service, but it can sometimes increase your chances of
having a denial of service. Similar issues can happen if you have your
firewall doing antivirus scanning with a third party add-on server, for
example. Many security features incur a potential loss of performance or
functionality. More security isn't always better security.

-------------------------
Microsoft Security FAQ:
http://www.securityadmin.info


Re: QoS??? by siljaline

siljaline
Wed Jul 12 00:53:47 CDT 2006

"Karl Levinson" wrote:
<snip>
>More security isn't always better security.
Quite.

Regards,

Silj

--
siljaline

MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Windows Security, AH-VSOP

Security Tools Updates
http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31

Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit.