Currently Snort's main use is IPS (Intrusion Detection System) which gives us the ability to give the company real-time traffic analysis along with data packet logging. This is mainly used in the main corporate environment to analysis traffic for any potential malicious activity.
Pros
IPS detection.
DoS detection.
Packet logging.
Cons
Configuration in Linux.
Likelihood to Recommend
We have used it for packet sniffing and debugging the traffic. Most valuable situation is when we have corporate issues when traffic isn't routing properly. It gives us the ability to determine how and where traffic is routing and determine if it's going the proper way.
VU
Verified User
Manager in Information Technology (10,001+ employees)
Currently we are using Snort in the IT department as another layer of security and protection against intrusions and cyber attacks. Many companies as of late are getting hit by hackers and ransomware. Snort solves many security problems with its open source security system that can scan lots of traffic flowing through the network.
Pros
Catches things Admins may miss with regular network scanning
Keeps your network visibility high
Is open source so code can be reviewed easily
Cons
Due to its open source nature, it can be behind in updates
It does have quite the complex setup process and configuration
You don't get a whole lot of backend support included
Likelihood to Recommend
If a colleague was looking to tighten down their network I can easily recommend Snort to them. It gives you some more peace of mind knowing that its always scanning traffic for malicious looking code. Even things your major firewalls and security hardware might miss, Snort has picked up. Its an easy recommendation for me.
At my current position, we have Sourcefire deployed inline in a "layer 2" fashion to allow not only for constant threat monitoring but to also actively block threats and attacks as they occur. We utilize Sourcefire in "Stacks" allowing us to have full redundancy and Five9's up-time and protection. Prior to Sourcefire, we used TippingPoint however, their 10Gbp performance was not as efficient as Sourcefire modules allowing true 10Gbps network performance and scanning.
Pros
Real Time updates for security signatures via Talos
Great signature blocking
Excellent reporting via syslog to our Security Analytics collectors.
Cons
At times can be unstable with Cisco bugs, require frequent upgrading.
FTD images that are being pushed for ASAs are less efficient from an administration standpoint, no CLI.
Likelihood to Recommend
It is well suited for a high energy environment with a lot of traffic, from an administration standpoint it can take a full time person to manage and maintain the devices.
I added SNORT and the guardian IPS to my firewall to help meet pci dss compliance. The setup was easy on my firewall - Ipfire - and I have had no problems related to its use. Before my cc terminal was changed, I had to disable guardian as it wouldn't let the old cc terminal through - I believe it was an SSL related issue. My old credit card processing company didn't seem interested in updating my terminal in a timely fashion. With the new cc terminal, I have had no issues. I sometimes leave my win xp virtual machine connected to the internet and have not seen any evidence of an intrusion. I know there are some false positives with the ruleset I use -emerging threats, but it has not blocked any traffic that has impaired any function on my network.
Pros
I am no IS expert, but I feel SNORT and guardian really helps keep my network safe.
So far it has been easy to administer.
SNORT and guardian are easy to install add-ons for my firewall.
Cons
There are plenty of false positives in the logs, but no problems noticed related to them.
Likelihood to Recommend
It sure seems to work well in a small business network, I don't know how well it would work in a larger network.
We use Sourcefire as an intrusion detection/prevention platform, but also as a form of a web filter, blocking certain types of sites. Its use is centered only in IT, as there's no need for any other part of the organization to use it. The goal of having it is to address the concern of watching web traffic and having a mechanism to aggressively block known bad sites, attacks, requests, etc.
Pros
The threat intelligence from Cisco TALOS is unparalleled. This is grafted into the Sourcefire application which greatly improves security visibility. With this there are a lot of groups that you can use for white listing or blacklisting, knowing its being updated in the background without additional work from you.
Flexible. Instead of putting a traditional firewall inline you can put a source fire appliance (or firewall with sourcefire on-board) to not only block/allow traffic, but if you insights into it, and do some forms of threat scoring.
In depth information. Sometimes a bit overwhelming, but you are able to do more than just see alerts, you can view the full information and packets that lead to the conclusion, though the conclusion is prepared in advance for you.
Cons
Due to the extensive interface, it can be quite overwhelming to try and manage the product. There are many different places to go to set up individual items. It would be nice to simplify the interface down a bit
Upgrades can be somewhat hazardous. I think they are working to get the upgrade process streamlined, but currently moving major version (5.x to 6.x) there was a lot of additional work outside of the UI that if not done correctly can tank the system, requiring a fresh load or restore from backup
Likelihood to Recommend
I think in any situation where you have the IT staff to be able to manage it, Sourcefire SNORT is a good fit. Perhaps if you have a very large budget, and could get something like Palo Alto there might be a different fit, but Sourcefire works very well in our market (SMB) but would scale nicely in a larger organization, as you can use the interface to manage multiple devices. For smaller customers with less dedicated IT teams or none, Cisco Meraki offers the same level of protection with less work via the MX model of firewalls.
