[Bro] [EXTERNAL] Re: Downside to using -b?

Thomas, Eric D edthoma at sandia.gov
Mon Sep 16 06:53:40 PDT 2013

Terrific, thanks!
Eric Thomas

edthoma at sandia.gov

On 9/15/13 6:56 PM, "Seth Hall" <seth at icir.org> wrote:

>On Sep 13, 2013, at 6:46 PM, "Thomas, Eric D" <edthoma at sandia.gov> wrote:
>> From what I can tell, not loading base/loading init-default.bro (using
>>the -b option) significantly improves performance, particularly if you
>>are not enabling a bunch of different kinds of analysis. Assuming my
>>local.bro loads the base scripts it needs for processing, is there any
>>reason why I wouldn't use -b?
>Hi Eric :)
>There's no reason not to use -b if you actually don't want that stuff
>enabled.  Generally speaking, the only thing that should be consuming
>processing time in the normal mode is the protocol analysis.  Everything
>else feeds off of that so the rest of the code that gets loaded shouldn't
>actually be getting executed (for the most part).
>We made the decision to enable so many things by default for the 2.0
>release because we wanted Bro to be extremely easy to run (to shed the
>past reputation of Bro being difficult to run).  My goal to make it
>easier to run than tcpdump and I think we achieved that (bro -r
>packets.pcap).  The -b option was our way to leave the door open for more
>enterprising users to truly customize things as they wanted while still
>making Bro do a lot by default.
>  .Seth
>Seth Hall
>International Computer Science Institute
>(Bro) because everyone has a network

More information about the Bro mailing list