<div dir="ltr"><div>Fair enough. Thanks Jon.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:40 AM Jon Siwek <<a href="mailto:jsiwek@corelight.com">jsiwek@corelight.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:43 AM Nabil Memon <<a href="mailto:nabilmemon.ec@gmail.com" target="_blank">nabilmemon.ec@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Instead configuring zeek to say these are likely to be server ports.<br>
> What would happen if we introduce a check for source port as well with the destination port?<br>
> Did you consider this approach?<br>
<br>
Yeah, that's an alternate idea that would work. I added such an<br>
option, called "udp_content_ports", to the Pull Request if you find it<br>
more convenient, although configuring likely server ports may still<br>
generally be useful if you commonly find inspected-traffic where the<br>
originator/responder roles would better to have been flipped to<br>
reflect a known-server.<br>
<br>
- Jon<br>
</blockquote></div>