-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 529
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Rule Tuning] Update rules using NPC integration and non-ECS fields #3194
Open
brokensound77
wants to merge
7
commits into
elastic:main
Choose a base branch
from
brokensound77:update-npc-integration-ecs-fields
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+31
−25
Open
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e1abde7
[Rule Tuning] Update rules using NPC integration and non-ECS fields
brokensound77 4abb55a
Merge branch 'main' into update-npc-integration-ecs-fields
brokensound77 446e4d4
Merge branch 'main' into update-npc-integration-ecs-fields
brokensound77 e5f176d
switch from headers.content-type to mime_type
brokensound77 ce26596
Merge branch 'main' into update-npc-integration-ecs-fields
brokensound77 956d77b
update field to network_traffic.http.request.headers.authorization:*
brokensound77 d478741
update network_traffic integration schema
brokensound77 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because our query validation for integrations occurs separately from the base query validation (ECS + beats diff), there is a conflict where a rule cannot satisfy both validations. This is the first rule with an integration-specific field (that I am aware of), which results in it
As a test, even if we added the fields to non-ecs-schema (as a bad hack), the rule still fails because the ECS/beats field is not known to the integration
Integration only fields:
http.response.status_phrase
network_traffic.http.request.headers.authorization
Unknown to integration
http.request.headers.authorization
status
With the existing process, the only way to rectify this is to split the rule, however that is not sustainable. We need to review this for potential refactor.
attempted cross-compatible query, which fails based on the above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reference the description above for further details and coexisting bugs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Justin for bringing this to our attention! I will have to dive a bit deeper, but I recall that we specifically allow it to validate ECS+beats OR integrations.
detection-rules/detection_rules/rule_validators.py
Lines 48 to 70 in a6c5cfc
If you review this code,
validation_checks
holds the state of ECS+Beats OR Integration validation checks. If both fail, then yes the rule should be reviewed because neither the integration's schema nor ECS, Non-ECS or Beats have the fields or the query is incorrect.