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

fixes to create working ecs config #64

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

spartan782
Copy link
Contributor

I don't recall all the changes I had to make but I made changes to ssh conflicts where suricata is an object and zeek is a concrete value. Other fixes for other fields were similar.

I don't recall all the changes I had to make but I made changes to ssh conflicts where suricata is an object and zeek is a concrete value. Other fixes for other fields were similar.
@peasead
Copy link
Contributor

peasead commented Aug 2, 2020

@spartan782 these have all been tested with the pre-release?

Copy link
Member

@dcode dcode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the edits. So we don't break the index mappings versus ECS-defined fields, let's avoid redefining tls.client.ja3 as an object with two sub-fields and likewise for the server. See my suggested edits below.

"ignore_above": 8000,
"type": "keyword"
},
"string" : {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we split this ja3.string out to a new field called ja3_string? The reason being that tls.ja3 is an ECS schema field, so converting it to an object is a breaking change with that config.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thats fine, the default for suricata eve.json breaks it into an object so I just followed that so that Zeek would not conflict because we can not have tls.ja3 be both a field and an object.

"type": "keyword"
"properties": {
"hash": {
"ignore_above": 8000,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this is just a hash, we don't need to crank up ignore_above 8000 on it.

"type": "keyword"
"properties": {
"hash": {
"ignore_above": 8000,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same as ja3, leave the ignore_above to default of 1024

"ignore_above": 8000,
"type": "keyword"
},
"string": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please make this a different field similar to the proposed ja3.string. Make this ja3s_string instead.

@@ -5,8 +5,7 @@ input {
# Set this to one per kafka partition to scale up
#consumer_threads => 4
group_id => "fsf_logstash"
bootstrap_servers => "127.0.0.1:9092"
codec => json
bootstrap_servers => "simplerockbuild.simplerock.lan:9092" codec => json
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this was an artifact from committing after a deploy.

Suggested change
bootstrap_servers => "simplerockbuild.simplerock.lan:9092" codec => json
bootstrap_servers => "127.0.0.1:9092"
codec => json

"[tls][ja3]" => "[tls][client][ja3]"
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"
"[tls][ja3]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][hash]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same

Suggested change
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][hash]"
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"

@@ -7,8 +7,10 @@ filter {
"[tls][chain]" => "[tls][server][certificate_chain]"
"[tls][fingerprint]" => "[tls][server][hash][sha1]"
"[tls][issuer]" => "[tls][server][issuer]"
"[tls][ja3]" => "[tls][client][ja3]"
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"
"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3]"

"[tls][ja3]" => "[tls][client][ja3]"
"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"
"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
"[tls][ja3][string]" => "[tls][client][ja3][string]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"[tls][ja3][string]" => "[tls][client][ja3][string]"
"[tls][ja3][string]" => "[tls][client][ja3_string]"

"[tls][ja3s]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"
"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
"[tls][ja3][string]" => "[tls][client][ja3][string]"
"[tls][ja3s][hash]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][hash]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"[tls][ja3s][hash]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][hash]"
"[tls][ja3s][hash]" => "[tls][server][ja3s]"

"[tls][ja3][hash]" => "[tls][client][ja3][hash]"
"[tls][ja3][string]" => "[tls][client][ja3][string]"
"[tls][ja3s][hash]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][hash]"
"[tls][ja3s][string]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][string]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"[tls][ja3s][string]" => "[tls][server][ja3s][string]"
"[tls][ja3s][string]" => "[tls][server][ja3s_string]"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants