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

Import SigmaHQ auditd rules #1194

Open
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Import SigmaHQ auditd rules #1194

wants to merge 20 commits into from

Conversation

buixor
Copy link
Contributor

@buixor buixor commented Dec 18, 2024

  • add sigmahq auditd rules
  • update the auditd and laurel parsers, reflect changes on associated scenarios

Copy link

Hello @buixor and thank you for your contribution!

❗ It seems that the following scenarios are not part of the 'crowdsecurity/appsec-virtual-patching' collection:

🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-6567 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-0900 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-23488 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-0600 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2024-1071 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-6623 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-4634 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-2009 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-23489 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2023-6360 🔴
🔴 crowdsecurity/vpatch-CVE-2024-1061 🔴

Copy link

Hello @buixor,

Scenarios/AppSec Rule are compliant with the taxonomy, thank you for your contribution!

Copy link

Hello @buixor,

Scenarios/AppSec Rule are compliant with the taxonomy, thank you for your contribution!

Copy link

Hello @buixor,

Scenarios/AppSec Rule are compliant with the taxonomy, thank you for your contribution!

1 similar comment
Copy link

Hello @buixor,

Scenarios/AppSec Rule are compliant with the taxonomy, thank you for your contribution!

@@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ nodes:
- meta: service
value: laurel
- meta: log_type
expression: evt.Unmarshaled.laurel.SYSCALL.SYSCALL
expression: |
evt.Unmarshaled.laurel.SYSCALL.SYSCALL == "execve" ? "auditd_syscall_execve" : "auditd_syscall"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we should just return

'auditd_syscall_' + evt.Unmarshaled.laurel.SYSCALL.SYSCALL ?

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ type: trigger
#debug: true
name: crowdsecurity/auditd-sus-exec
description: "Detect post-exploitation behaviour : exec from suspicious locations"
filter: evt.Meta.log_type == 'execve' and ( evt.Meta.exe startsWith "/tmp/" or evt.Meta.exe contains "/." )
filter: evt.Meta.log_type == 'syscall_execve' and ( evt.Meta.exe startsWith "/tmp/" or evt.Meta.exe contains "/." )
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should be auditd_syscall_execve?

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