Ssh newkeys 6578 v3 #1507
Closed
Ssh newkeys 6578 v3 #1507
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
catenacyber
added
requires suricata pr
This was referenced Dec 5, 2023
Closed
Closed
Not as far as I can see. The important bit for us is to ensure that there is a drop if the memcap is hit, and since those checks are there, and passing, it looks still good to me. |
Ticket: 6578
as a tls event can come from a flush after setting no_inspection
We do not want to test number of alerts on every pseudo-packets Ticket: 6578
catenacyber
force-pushed
the
ssh-newkeys-6578-v3
branch
from
63c8093 to
680607d
Compare
|
#1508 (ie the first part) should get merged first |
Closed
|
Rebased in #1587 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ticket
Redmine ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6578
Suricata PR required OISF/suricata#9903
#1498 with additional commit to fix test exception-policy-simulated-flow-memcap
@jufajardini do I miss something in the point of this test ?