Skip to content
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

[New/Tuning] Docker Socket Enumeration #4510

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 6, 2025

Conversation

Aegrah
Copy link
Contributor

@Aegrah Aegrah commented Mar 4, 2025

Summary

This rule detects potential Docker socket enumeration activity by monitoring processes that attempt to interact with the Docker socket file (/var/run/docker.sock). Docker socket enumeration is a common technique used by attackers to interact with the Docker daemon and perform various operations, such as creating, starting, stopping, and removing containers. Attackers may abuse Docker socket enumeration to gain unauthorized access to the host system, escalate privileges, or move laterally within the environment.

Telemetry

Last 90d in telemetry only 17 hits, all TPs. In my own stack, only TPs:
{262076E0-63F6-4652-AA21-FB41F2579ABA}

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 4, 2025

Rule: New - Guidelines

These guidelines serve as a reminder set of considerations when proposing a new rule.

Documentation and Context

  • Detailed description of the rule.
  • List any new fields required in ECS/data sources.
  • Link related issues or PRs.
  • Include references.

Rule Metadata Checks

  • creation_date matches the date of creation PR initially merged.
  • min_stack_version should support the widest stack versions.
  • name and description should be descriptive and not include typos.
  • query should be inclusive, not overly exclusive, considering performance for diverse environments. Non ecs fields should be added to non-ecs-schema.json if not available in an integration.
  • min_stack_comments and min_stack_version should be included if the rule is only compatible starting from a specific stack version.
  • index pattern should be neither too specific nor too vague, ensuring it accurately matches the relevant data stream (e.g., use logs-endpoint.process-* for process data).
  • integration should align with the index. If the integration is newly introduced, ensure the manifest, schemas, and new_rule.yaml template are updated.
  • setup should include the necessary steps to configure the integration.
  • note should include any additional information (e.g. Triage and analysis investigation guides, timeline templates).
  • tags should be relevant to the threat and align/added to the EXPECTED_RULE_TAGS in the definitions.py file.
  • threat, techniques, and subtechniques should map to ATT&CK always if possible.

New BBR Rules

  • building_block_type should be included if the rule is a building block and the rule should be located in the rules_building_block folder.
  • bypass_bbr_timing should be included if adding custom lookback timing to the rule.

Testing and Validation

  • Provide evidence of testing and detecting the expected threat.
  • Check for existence of coverage to prevent duplication.

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Mar 4, 2025

⛔️ Tests failed:

  • ❌ Unix Socket Connection (eql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta
    • events_validation_missing: Not tested with events
  • ❌ Docker Socket Enumeration (eql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta
    • events_validation_missing: Not tested with events

Copy link
Contributor

@DefSecSentinel DefSecSentinel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Mar 6, 2025

⛔️ Tests failed:

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Mar 6, 2025

⛔️ Tests failed:

@Aegrah Aegrah merged commit fe0a9f4 into main Mar 6, 2025
10 checks passed
@Aegrah Aegrah deleted the docker-socket-interaction-from-common-utility branch March 6, 2025 16:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants