Get Instant Help From 5000+ Experts For

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing:Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

And Improve Your Grades
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!
Free Quote

Write the Introduction to Intrusion Detection Systems.

Overview of Intrusion Detection System

The paper is intended to outline the need of the usage of Intrusion detection system (IDS) in an organizational context. The purpose of this report is to illuminate the means that should be taken so as to effectively implement an IDS and demonstrate the important elements. The report ought to likewise elucidate what one can expect of when using an IDS, and what one need to anticipate before deployment.

In less complex terms, an Intrusion detection system can be contrasted with a an alarm burglar. For instance, a car lock system that protects it from being stolen. However, if someone breaks the lock system of the car, it is a system that will detect lock has been broken and alert the owner by raising the alarm. The IDS, in the same way, the firewall security. An organization is protected by a firewall from malicious attack from the Internet and the IDS recognizes if that someone attempts to penetrate through the firewall or figures out how to bypass the firewall security and makes efforts to approach on any system in the trusted side and raises alarm on the system administrator if they is a breach of security.

This paper is focused on contrasting two open-source IDS, Suricat, and snort, for malicious activity detection on networks. Snort, the accepted business standard open-source solution, is a well-developed product and have been on the market in a couple of years. Suricata offers another way to deal with signature-based intrusion detection and exploits current innovation, for example, process multi-threading to enhance processing speed. 

Snort is a system that was created by Sourcefire and it is an open-source interruption-detecting framework. Snort was developed by Martin Roesch in the year 1998. It can perform packet logging on IP systems and continuous traffic analysis. Snort known to be well-matched with various OSs (operating systems) like Mac OS X, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, UNIX as well as Windows.  The Community Snort Rules and the Snort detection engine are GNU GPL v.2 certified. Sourcefire also provides exclusive Snort Rules that are approved by NCUL (Non-Commercial Use License).

Snort has two key components, which are:

  1. Flexible rule language that define traffic to be collected.
  2. Detecting engine that uses flexible plug-in architecture;

Snort framework is demonstrated below. The alert output, the detection rules, and the preprocessor modules of Snort are all plug-ins that might be individually switched on or off and be configured. 

Snort utilizes one-thread engine, that appears to be obsolete, considering that these days multi-core  and multi-CPU hardware  is ordinary. Thus, of course Snort can just completely use one processor center. Snort engineers are trying to develop  multi-threaded solutions; nevertheless, stable rendition has not yet been developed. To mitigate this issue Snort might be run as various procedures; each procedure using an alternate processing center. This, nonetheless, builds the level of complexity, since the default system socket packet-capturing library should be replaced.

Comparison of Suricata and Snort

The Suricata Machine is a new open-source interruption prevention and detection engine.  

The main beta release was made accessible for download on January 1, 2010. It was produced by OISF (Open Information Security Foundation), which is a non-benefit organization supported by the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) in US as well as several private owned companies. Suricata works well with most Operating Systems (e.g. UNIX, FreeBSD, Mac, Linux and Windows). The Suricata Engine is accessible for use under the GPL v.2 permit. OISF urgues that the Suricata Engine, is not expected to only substitute or copy the current apparatuses in the field, however will convey new thoughts and innovations to the industry. Nevertheless, the industry looks at Suricata as a resilient competitor to Snort and along these lines both are frequently compared. Both frameworks appear to have their preferences and solid community support.

The working methods of Suricata are the same as Snort's. It can be utilized as either an IDS or IPS framework. There are no distinctions while associating Suricata to the system. Suricata even has essentially a similar control linguistic structure as Snort (despite the fact that not 100%), which implies that the two frameworks can utilize similar standards. The general information movement through Suricata is like that of Snort. Packets are captured, decoded, processed as well as examined. Nevertheless, in case of the internals of the Suricata Engine, differences are revealed. Suricata additionally includes the HTP Library that is a HTTP normalizer as well as parser composed by Ivan Ristic for the OISF. This coordinates and gives improved handling of HTTP streams for Suricata. The HTP library is needed by the engine however, it can likewise be utilized as a free device.

Suricata utilizes multi-threaded method as opposed to the Snort that uses  single threaded approach where threads use single or multiple Thread Modules for this. Threads possess an output queue manager as well as an input queue manager, which are utilized to receive packets from the global packet pool or from other threads.  Considering these few, but important differences, it is likely that Suricata and Snort perform in a different way in terms of effectiveness of network traffic analysis and speed. This will be confirmed later in the practical part of the thesis.

The increased need for such detection systems most organizations are investing a lot to produce effective Intrusion Detection System. IDS can be implented a software base or hardware based. The lastest kind of Intrusion Detection System is easy to update and more configurable while the hardware based is intended to deal with large amount of trafficbut more costly and require more support. Accordingly there is a need to assess the available software based IDS. Generally, IDS are classified into two; Host based frameworks and Network based frameworks.

Performance Analysis of Suricata and Snort

Snort is notable and acknowledged IDS with system security groups and it has been developed, created and maintained since mid-1990. Consequently, Suricata is a part of and financed by the Department of Homeland Security's Directorate for Science and Technology HOST software (Homeland Open Security Technology). A few efforts have been made that to gauge the execution of Intrusion Detection System. Some of these tests have been utilizing spared informational collections as opposed to a real network traffic. Different tests have been utilizing moderate different IDS framework andor network traffic.

In this section of paper will analyse on signature-based IDS by an attenuation to assess the performance in high-speed network. It aims on providing detailed contrast between the two IDS on platforms at high-speed traffic.

The network will comprise of eight computers, contingent on the need of creating a small size packet on high traffic speeds. Every one of these computers is linked by means of ProCurve Series 2900 switch utilizing 1.0 Gigabit Ethernet link, and two ten Gigabit cables. A ProCurve Series 2900 switch has been designed to screen all traffic which is sent to scanning port. High-performance computers make the network running both open source tool as well as commercial tools to create traffic at high speeds and screen the network performance. Utilization of two ten Gigabit cards one is to be linked the intrusion detection system (by means of screening port) while the other one is linked with high computing devices to produce more traffic as required. For the purpose of this paper, the IDS selected for this experiment are Suricata (v1.0.2) and Snort (v2.9.0.4).

The design of test scenarios is tested to test the performance of Snort and Suricata on various operating system. Both intrusion detection system was liable to similar tests and under precisely the environment. Keeping in mind the end goal to get more precise outcomes, all conditions were tried with (1470, 1024, 512) packet sizes for both UDP and TCP. The experiment was carried out for the speed in the range of 250Mbps, 500Mbps, 750Mbps, 1.0Gpbs, 1.5Gbps, and 2.0Gbps. In every one of the situations Suricata what's more, Snort was designed to load and run a comparative number of standards to screen.

Implementation of most data centres utilizes of virtualization as it is meant to save money and time. This is a common practice in a business environment. This is to guarantee the legitimacy of the tests and the exactness of the correlation of Suricata and Snort, precisely the same was utilized for both IDSs. So as to simulate a venture's data centre Suricata and Snort were executed on ESXi server. Because of performance evaluation, all computers ought to be indistinguishable as conceivable as far as hardware is concerned to mirror an exact examination. The ESXi server is furnished with four GB of memory; two GB was allotted to the virtual Linux running inside the ESXi server. All intrusion detection machines have a similar amount of memory. Both the (Suricata and Snort) IDS were subjected to a substantial traffic on the two protocols UDP and TCP, with various packet sizes at varying speed. So as to gather more precise outcomes, an extra system card was utilized as a part of the ESXi server to establish a link from the server computer to deal with the virtual host. Screening of the network utilized for the administration of the ESXi server has been disabled from ProCurve switch.


Linux 2.6 server running Ubuntu 10.10 were used to operate both the Snort and Suricata were in this scenario. The configuration of the monitor machine was done using the 10Gbps card.

The operation of Snort and Suricrate was on FreeBSD sever running on version 8.1. both which was configured to run on the 10Gbps.

This part will cover the outcomes and investigation of the execution tests for both Snort and Suricata on the three unique stages. To show reasonable outcomes, this part has been partitioned into two subsections as UDP traffic and TCP traffic. Every subsection will give an execution correlation amongst Suricata and Snort performing on simulated machine, FreeBSD and Linux 2.6 taking care of various speeds and packet sizes.

In this part, the Suricata and Snort execution on TCP procedure was tended to. The figure underneath shows the execution of the two IDS frameworks utilizing the packet sizes 512. In this test, Suricata was demonstrating certain packet drops at beginning period (250Mbps) on the Virtual Linux were it attained (35.4%) which is viewed as high considering the network activity speed. It additionally recorded that Suricata has some packet drops of 0.6 percent on FreeBSD and no bundle drops on Linux2.6.

The level of packet drops has expanded a little when the traffic got to 500Mbps. Then again, Snort was doing exceptionally well as there were no packet drops documented on a speed of 250Mbps and 500Mbps on every stage. When the speed attained 750Mbps, Snort began to drop a few packets however it did not surpass 1.1 percent on virtual Linux. There were no packet drops recorded on FreeBSD or Linux 2.6 at this speed. At a speed of 1.0Gpbs, Suricata was all the while dropping packets (36.7 percent on FreeBSD, 26.5 on Linux2.6 and 47.2 percent on Virtual Linux). On Linux 2.6 Snort began to drop packets (2.8 percent) and just 0.6 percent on Virtual Linux. No packet drops were noted on FreeBSD. At 1.5 and 2.0Gbps, there was a critical reduction in Snort execution when the packet drop surpassed 30percent on Virtual Linux and Linux2.6 yet no packet drop was noted on FreeBSD at the two speeds (2.0 and 1.5).

At the parcel size of 1024, Suricata began noting high packet drops at prior level on the Virtual Linux machine. it did not record any packet drops on Linux 2.6. then again, Snort was performing admirably because no packet drops were noted on every one of the three speed levels, 750, 500, and 250Mbps. It merits saying that Suricata's execution on Linux2.6 at 750Mbps is enhancing as the quantity of packet loss recorded did not surpass 6.4 percent on FreeBSD and 0.5 percent on Linux.

Suricata noted a high bounce in terms of packet drops at a speed of 1.0Gbps because it reached 23 percent on FreeBSD15, 7percent on Linux, as well as 46percent on Virtual Linux. Then again, Snort was just dropping to 0.7percent on Linux, 0percent on FreeBSD0 and 56percent on Virtual Linux. When the activity speed got to 1.5Gbps there were noteworthy increments in packet drops where on Virtual Linux and Linux it hit 27.0percent. At this stage, Suricata was recording 48 percent on Virtual Linux and over 35 percent on Linux but Snort was only recording 11%.

AT a speed of 2.0Gbps, the perfect difference in activity was Snort on Virtual Linux because it fell more than 55 percent packets while it was dropping only 11 percent at 1.5Gbps.

Figure above illustrate the efficiency of the two IDS structures when handling a bigger pack size. A comparable efficacy to the earlier packet size of 1024. The distinctions in efficiency began at paces of 1.5Gbps or more, were the amount of packet drops has reduced uniquely on Snort

As illustrated in figure 3 below, Suricata was noting certain packet drops at a low speed of 250Mbps. The packet drop was noted when using a 512 packet size. Despite the fact that there is a lot of packet drops on FreeBSD and virtual Linux, there are no packet drops noted on Linux. At this speed Snort is performing great with no packet drops on every one of the stages. At the point when the generated traffic got to 500Mbps, Suricata still has a high level of packet drops on virtual Linux and FreeBSD, and there is a little increment in the amount of packet loss on the Linux stage. Then again, Snort was all the while performing superior than Suricata because no packet drop was noted on FreeBSD and Linux while just 0.48 percent on virtual Linux.

According to the Fig4, Snort made a noteworthy increment in the amount of packet drops on virtual Linux and Linux2.6 when the traffic attained 750Mbps.It is important bringing up that Snort ended up performing perfectly on FreeBSD because no packet drop was noted up to the speed of 750Mbps.

At a speed of 1.0Gbps, Snort begun displaying several packet losses on Suricata 45 percent and FreeBSD 7.9 percent. As the generated traffic got to a speed of 1.5Gbps and above Snort begun to drop more than 73 percent number of packets.

According to fig 4, at the packet size of 1024 Snort was still performing better than Suricata. Snort had not indicated packet losses even at the speed of 250 as well as 500 on FreeBSD and Linux (only 0.1 percent on Virtual Linux). However, Suricata attained highest packet drops when it reached 33.9 percent on virtual Linux and 40.2 percent on FreeBSD. On Linux2.6, It did not show any packet losses at the same speed. Suricata efficacy at the speed levels of 750,500 and 250 was satisfactory, for it did not surpass 0.33 percent. The total efficiency of Snort at a speed 750Mbps was better on FreeBSD and virtual machine because Snort only shown 1.2 percent packet drops.

At a speed of 1.0Gbps, the best efficacy was attained on FreeBSD by snort with only 3.24 percent packet drops and the best efficacy for Suricata was mainly on Linux 8.9 percent. At 1.5Gbps as well as 2.0Gbps, two IDSs were dropping a higher sum of packets.

As it is illustrated in Figure 5, Snort level of packet drops is scarcely observable. One might say that Snort is equipped for handling packet of size 1470 well superior to Suricata. Snort began dropping packets at a speed of 1.0Gbps on virtual Linux yet did not surpass 1.15 percent at 2.0Gbps.


The focus of this report was to determine the performance and efficacy of the intrusion detection system: contrasting it with the well-known IDS, Snort, in a fast network environment. Both Suricata and Snort were assessed on various stages running on a supercomputers with various protocols and packet sizes. A notable number of packet drops when utilizing virtualization and this is was because of to the dynamics of virtualization were the designated physical memory RAM of the host machine is really an allocated disk space and virtual RAM. This will deferentially influence the performance of Suricata and builds the packet drops, as the quantity of packet got by the system card is higher than that recorded by the virtual machine this idea is conceptualized because of the bottleneck caused by low circle information exchange. 


Bhagavan Ambati, S. and VidyarthiI, D. (2013). A Brief Study And Comparison Of, Open Source Intrusion Detection System Tools. [online] Available at: [Accessed 09 Jan. 2018]. (2014). The Bro Network Security Monitor. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Jan. 2018].

Chapman, C. and Furnell, S. (2016). Network performance and security. [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

Dredge, S. (2014). Internet experts see ‘major cyber attacks’ increasing over next decade. [online] the Guardian. Available at: [Accessed 09 Jan. 2018].
Day, D., & Burns, B. (2011). A performance analysis of snort and suricata network intrusion detection and prevention engines. IDCS 2011, the Fifth International Conference on Digital Society, Gosier, Guadeloupe, France. 187–192.

Gerber, J. (2010). Security Advancements at the Monastery » Blog Archive » Three Open Source IDS/IPS Engines: The Setup. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Jan. 2018]. (2005). Natural Disasters in the Computer Room. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018].

Nayyar, A. (2017). The Best Open Source Network Intrusion Detection Tools. [online] Open Source For You. Available at: [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

Ogheneovo, E. (2014). Software Dysfunction: Why Do Software Fail?. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018]. (2017). What is an Intrusion Prevention System? - Palo Alto Networks. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Jan. 2018].

Pihelgas, M. (2012). Analysis of open source intrusion detection system. [online] Available at: A_Comparative_Analysis_of_OpenSource_Intrusion_Detection_Systems.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. (2015). Cite a Website - Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 Jan. 2018].

Sanchez, M. (2010). The 10 most common security threats explained. [online] blogs@Cisco - Cisco Blogs. Available at: [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018]. (2008). Cite a Website - Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018]. (2018). [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018]. (2011). Open Information Security Foundation. (2011). Suricata. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 Jan. 2018].

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2020). The Need And Comparison Of Suricata And Snort IDS For Malicious Activity Detection On Networks: An Essay.. Retrieved from

"The Need And Comparison Of Suricata And Snort IDS For Malicious Activity Detection On Networks: An Essay.." My Assignment Help, 2020,

My Assignment Help (2020) The Need And Comparison Of Suricata And Snort IDS For Malicious Activity Detection On Networks: An Essay. [Online]. Available from:
[Accessed 12 July 2024].

My Assignment Help. 'The Need And Comparison Of Suricata And Snort IDS For Malicious Activity Detection On Networks: An Essay.' (My Assignment Help, 2020) <> accessed 12 July 2024.

My Assignment Help. The Need And Comparison Of Suricata And Snort IDS For Malicious Activity Detection On Networks: An Essay. [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2020 [cited 12 July 2024]. Available from:

Get instant help from 5000+ experts for

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing: Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

250 words
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Plagiarism checker
Verify originality of an essay
Generate unique essays in a jiffy
Plagiarism checker
Cite sources with ease
sales chat
sales chat