[Oisf-users] Suricata 4.0.3 with Napatech problems

[Steve Castellarin]

I made the change to mpm-algo and spm-algo as you asked.  Suricata 4.0.3
ran for just over 2 hours then exhibited the same 100% buffer/packets
dropping with one CPU pegged at 100%.  I'm attaching a .zip with the stats
& suricata.log files.  At the time of the hangup I noticed that our
bandwidth utilization was under 800Mbps.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Steve Castellarin
> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll give those a try now and let you know what happens.  In an earlier
> > email I noted something and wanted to get your take on it...
> >
> > "I've noticed one thing that's strange.  In my YAML file I have the
> > "autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets".  Yet everytime I run
> Suricata I
> > see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active
> packets".
> > When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML file then
> that
> > message disappears.  Any idea on what that is all about?"
> >
>
> This is the default setting -
> https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/repository/
> revisions/master/entry/suricata.yaml.in#L1024
> with regards to autofp - but in your case you are using "--napatech
> --runmode workers" so it should be unrelated.
>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Peter,
> >> >
> >> > I reviewed my compile of Suricata 4.0.3 I noticed that I was using
> >> > Hyperscan
> >> > version 4.7, as opposed to version 4.2 noted in the Suricata
> >> > documentation
> >> > (http://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/latest/performance/hyperscan.html
> ).
> >> > After recompiling with 4.2 I was able to get Suricata 4.0.3 to run for
> >> > 42
> >> > minutes before it started dropping packets uncontrollably.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If that made a change in behavior - can you try mpm-algo; ac-ks and
> >> spm-algo: bm in the suricata.yaml?
> >>
> >> > I then made a change to /proc/sys/vm/max_map_count based on a note in
> >> > Napatech's documentation: "Especially for large host buffer
> >> > configurations
> >> > it is necessary to adjust the kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"
> >> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count).  The kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"
> >> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count) should be adjusted to (at least) the
> total
> >> > configured host buffer memory in MB multiplied by four.
> >> > Example for total host buffer size 128GB (131072MB): 131072*4 =
> 524288.
> >> > Hence the minimum value for "vm.max_map_count" is 524288."
> >> >
> >> > In my case I'm using 17 host buffers at 2048MB per ((17 * 2048) * 4),
> >> > which
> >> > would be 139264.  My vm.max_map_count previously was 65530 (I guess
> >> > default
> >> > for Ubuntu 14.04).  After changing that and re-running Suricata 4.0.3
> it
> >> > ran
> >> > for 45 minutes before the buffer/CPU issue came back.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >> > <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Peter,
> >> >>
> >> >> I just realized I responded directly to you instead of the mailing
> list
> >> >> -
> >> >> so here's my response, updated.
> >> >>
> >> >> I made a change to my YAML file for 4.0.3, dropping the
> >> >> detect-thread-ratio from 1.5 to 1 and on Friday was able to run
> >> >> Suricata
> >> >> 4.0.3 for five hours before the issue occurred.  This run did handle
> >> >> sustained network traffic of 1.2 through 1.7gbps.  So that is a step
> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> positive direction.  I'm going to have a hard time running 4.0.3
> >> >> without
> >> >> rules, as this unfortunately is our only Suricata instance running
> our
> >> >> rule
> >> >> set.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've noticed one thing that's strange.  In my YAML file I have the
> >> >> "autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets".  Yet everytime I run
> >> >> Suricata I
> >> >> see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active
> >> >> packets".
> >> >> When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML file
> then
> >> >> that
> >> >> message disappears.  Any idea on what that is all about?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 18 Jan 2018, at 19:21, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And also, the bandwidth utilization was just over 800Mbps.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Can you try the same run but this time - load no rules. I would like
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> see if it would make difference or not in the same amount of time.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hey Peter,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Those changes didn't help.  Around 23+ minutes into the run one
> >> >>>> worker
> >> >>>> CPU (#30) stayed at 100% while buffer NT11 dropped packets and
> would
> >> >>>> not
> >> >>>> recover.  I'm attaching a zip file that has the stats.log for that
> >> >>>> run, the
> >> >>>> suricata.log file as well as the information seen at the command
> line
> >> >>>> after
> >> >>>> issuing "/usr/bin/suricata -vvv -c /etc/suricata/suricata.yaml
> >> >>>> --napatech
> >> >>>> --runmode workers -D".
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Steve
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> We never see above 2Gbps.  When the issue occurred a little bit
> ago
> >> >>>>> I
> >> >>>>> was running the Napatech "monitoring" tool and it was saying we
> were
> >> >>>>> between
> >> >>>>> 650-900Mbps.  I'll note the bandwidth utilization when the next
> >> >>>>> issue
> >> >>>>> occurs.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Peter Manev <
> petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> > When you mean the "size of the traffic", are you asking what
> the
> >> >>>>>> > bandwidth
> >> >>>>>> > utilization is at the time the issue begins?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Sorry - i mean the traffic you sniff - 1/5/10...Gbps ?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> > I will set things up and send you any/all output after the
> issue
> >> >>>>>> > starts.
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> > Hey Peter,
> >> >>>>>> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> > I tried as you asked.  Less than 15 minutes after I
> restarted
> >> >>>>>> >> > Suricata I
> >> >>>>>> >> > saw
> >> >>>>>> >> > my first CPU hitting 100% and one host buffer dropping all
> >> >>>>>> >> > packets.
> >> >>>>>> >> > Shortly
> >> >>>>>> >> > after that the second CPU hit 100% and a second host buffer
> >> >>>>>> >> > began
> >> >>>>>> >> > dropping
> >> >>>>>> >> > all packets.  I'm attaching the stats.log where you'll see
> at
> >> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:11
> >> >>>>>> >> > the
> >> >>>>>> >> > first host buffer (nt1.drop) starts to register dropped
> >> >>>>>> >> > packets,
> >> >>>>>> >> > then at
> >> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:51 you'll see host buffer nt6.drop begin to register
> >> >>>>>> >> > dropped
> >> >>>>>> >> > packets.
> >> >>>>>> >> > At that point I issued the kill.
> >> >>>>>> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> What is the size of the traffic?
> >> >>>>>> >> Can you also try
> >> >>>>>> >> detect:
> >> >>>>>> >>   - profile: high
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> (as opposed to "custom")
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> Also if can run it in verbose mode (-vvv)   and send me that
> >> >>>>>> >> compete
> >> >>>>>> >> output after you start having the issues.
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> > Steve
> >> >>>>>> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > Hey Pete,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > Here's the YAML file from the last time I attempted to
> run
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > 4.0.3 -
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > with
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > network information removed.  Let me know if you need
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > anything
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > else
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > from
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > our
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > configuration.  I'll also go to the redmine site to open
> a
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > bug
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > report.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > Steve
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> Hi Steve,
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> Can you try without -
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >>   midstream: true
> >> >>>>>> >> >>   asyn-oneside:true
> >> >>>>>> >> >> so
> >> >>>>>> >> >>   #midstream: true
> >> >>>>>> >> >>   #asyn-oneside:true
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> and lower the "prealloc-session: 1000000" to 100 000 for
> >> >>>>>> >> >> example
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> Thank you.
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Hey Peter, I didn't know if you had a chance to look
> at
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > stats
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > log
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > and
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > configuration file I sent.  So far, running 3.1.1 with
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > updated
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Napatech
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > drivers my system is running without any issues.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> The toughest part of the troubleshooting is that i dont
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> have
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> the set
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> up to reproduce this.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> I didn't see anything that could lead me to definitive
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> conclusion
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> from
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> the stats log.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> Can you please open a bug report on our redmine with the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> details
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> form
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> this mialthread?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> Would it be possible to share the suricata.yaml
> (privately
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> if
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> you
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> would like works too; remove all networks)?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> Thank you
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> Here is the zipped stats.log.  I restarted the
> Napatech
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> drivers
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> before
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> running Suricata 4.0.3 to clear out any previous drop
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> counters,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> etc.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> The first time I saw a packet drop was at the
> 12:20:51
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark, and
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> you'll
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see "nt12.drop" increment.  During this time one of
> the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPUs
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> acting
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> as
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "worker" was at 100%.  But these drops recovered at
> the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:20:58
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> where
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt12.drop" stays constant at 13803.  The big issue
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> triggered at
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:05 mark in the file - where one worker CPU was
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> stuck
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> followed
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> by packet drops in host buffer "nt3.drop".  Then
> came a
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> second
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPU
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> (another "worker" CPU) and packet drops in buffer
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt2.drop" at
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:33.  I
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> finally killed Suricata just before 12:27:54, where
> you
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see all
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> host
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> buffers
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> beginning to drop packets.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> I'm also including the output from the "suricata
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> --dump-config"
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> command.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Peter, yes that is correct.  I worked for almost a
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > couple
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > weeks
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > with
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Napatech support and they believed the Napatech
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > setup
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > (ntservice.ini
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > and
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > custom NTPL script) are working as they should.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Ok.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> One major difference between Suricata 3.x and 4.0.x
> in
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> terms of
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Napatech is that they did update the code, some
> fixes
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> and
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> updated
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> counters.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> There were a bunch of upgrades in Suricata too.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Is it possible to send over a stats.log - when the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> issue
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> starts
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> occuring?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On 11 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Steve Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> After my last email yesterday I decided to go
> back
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> to
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> our
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> install of
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Suricata, with
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the upgraded Napatech version.  Since then I've
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> seen
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> no
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> packets
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> dropped
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> with sustained bandwidth of between 1 and
> 1.7Gbps.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> So
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I'm
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> not
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> sure
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> what is
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> going on with my configuration/setup of Suricata
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> So the only thing that you changed is the upgrade
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> of
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Napatech
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> drivers
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> ?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> The Suricata config stayed the same -  you just
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> upgraded to
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (from
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1) and the observed effect was - after a
> while
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> all
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (or
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> most)
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> cpus
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> get
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> pegged at 100% - is that correct ?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Steve
> Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Hey Peter, no there is no error messages.
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2018 4:37 PM, "Peter Manev"
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Steve
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Castellarin
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > Hey Peter,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Are there any errors msgs in suricata.log when
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> that
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> happens
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> ?
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Thank you
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> --
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> --
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> --
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> >> --
> >> >>>>>> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> >> >> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >> >
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >>
> >> >>>>>> >> --
> >> >>>>>> >> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> >> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>> Peter Manev
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter Manev
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peter Manev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20180124/2cb317a9/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: suricata-logs.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 569325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20180124/2cb317a9/attachment-0002.zip>