Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Performance Comparison and Detection Analysis in Snort and Suricata Environment

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, crimes are cause in the internet by hacking to target one’s and the companies financial. Due to the massive crimes that are caused by digital convergence and ubiquitous IT system, it is clear that the amount of network packet which need to be processed are rising. The digital convergence and ubiquitous IT system caused the IDS (Intrusion Detection System) to process packets more than the past. Snort (version 2.x) is a leading open source IDS which has a long history but since it was built a long time ago, it has several limitations which are not fit for today’s requirements. Such as, it’s processing unit is in single threading. On the other hand, Suricara was built to cover Snorts these disadvantages. To cover massive amount of packets which are caused by digital convergence and ubiquitous IT system Suricata’s have the availability to process packets in multi-threading environment. In this paper we have analyzed and compared Snort and Suricata’s processing and detection rate to decide which is better in single threading or multi-threading environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roesch, M. (1999). Snort: Lightweight intrusion detection for networks. vol. 229. Santa Clara, CA: Stanford Telecommunications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhou, Z., Zhongwen, C., & Tiecheng, Z. (2010). The study on network intrusion detection system of Snort. In 2010 2nd International Conference, IEEE.

  3. Tjhai, G. C., Papadaki, M., Furnell, S. M., & Clarke, N. L. Investigating the problem of IDS false alarms: An experimental study using Snort. In International Information Security Conference.

  4. DeLong, R. J., & Los Gatos, C. A. (2001). Structured exception-handling methods, apparatus, and computer program products. Sun Microsystems Inc.

  5. Chakrabarti S., Chakraborty, M., & Mukhopadhyay, I. Study of snort-based IDS ICWET 10. In Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop on Emerging Trends in Technology, pp. 43–47.

  6. Norton, M., & Roelker, D. (2002). SNORT 2.0: Hi-performance multi-rule inspection engine. Columbia: Sourcefire Network Security Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Day, D. & Burns, B. (2011). A performance analysis of Snort and Suricata network intrusion detection and prevention engines. In Fifth International Conference on Digital Society, Gosier, Guadeloupe, pp. 187–192.

  8. Garcia-Teodoro, P., et al. (2009). Anomaly-based network intrusion detection: Techniques, systems and challenges. Computers & Security, 28(1), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caswell, B., Beale, J., & Baker, A. (2007). Snort IDS and IPS toolkit. New York: Syngress.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Damaye, S. (2011). Suricata-vs-Snort. Retrieved from www.aldeid.com/wiki/Suricata-vs-snort, October 2 2011.

  11. Watchinski, M. (2011). Unusual snort performance stats. Retrieved October 2 2011 from comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.ids.snort.general/30527.

  12. Burks, D. (2014). Security onion: Peel back the layers of your network in minutes. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deuble, A. (2012). Detecting and preventing web application attacks with security onion. SANS Institute, 4(1), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bejtlich, R. (2013). The practice of network security monitoring: understanding incident detection and response. San Francisco: No Starch Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cyber Security, Far East University, Wangjang-ri, Gamgok-myeon, Eumseong-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea

    Wonhyung Park

  2. Department of Computer Education, Sungkyunkwan University Seoul, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Seongjin Ahn

Authors
  1. Wonhyung Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seongjin Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seongjin Ahn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, W., Ahn, S. Performance Comparison and Detection Analysis in Snort and Suricata Environment. Wireless Pers Commun 94, 241–252 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-016-3209-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-016-3209-9

Keywords