|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > snort-users archives|
I've been happily using barnyard (with multiple patches) for quite some time and was very surprised to hear that barnyard2 even existed. While I have been happy with barnyard I have been concerned that it's no longer being maintained, especially with the apparent push to disable output methods other than unified.
So now I discover that I can use unified2 and barnyard2. Great! Why isn't barnyard2 linked from snort.org? Why isn't unified2 in the default snort.conf? Is there something that you guys aren't telling us? Does Sourcefire have a problem with barnyard2?
I just wondering what other people think about migrating to unified2 & barnyard2. Is this something that we all should be doing?
From: firnsy [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2009 7:20 PM
To: 'Jason Brvenik'
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: Re: [Snort-users] [Snort-devel] barnyard2 development
Actually Jason Wallace gave me the heads up. I was clearly under the illusion that our efforts were known to the wider Snort community ;)
Our documentation is always improving based on user questions and
If a question comes in and we don't feel it's adequately answered in the documentation then we'll rectify it as appropriate.
As for the packaging I totally agree, though I personally only have
experience in packaging (Debian/RedHat). The codebase is currently only 'nix
compatible and is developed in a Debian environment.
I'd be interested to read what is considered the common platforms that
desire said pre-built binary packages.
>Jason Brvenik wrote:
>G'day to you. Good to see the devs involved, would this mail by any
>chance be prompted by the out of hand thread on direct database
>Since nobody has replied I'll kick off with a statement and a
>question. I've found the two biggest blockers for people taking up the
>tools are pre-build packages and documentation. Do you have any