-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
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
Adding various OCSF 1.1 fields to log type static mappings #1403
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Dennis Toepker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Toepker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Toepker <[email protected]>
// Verify unmapped index fields | ||
List<String> unmappedIndexFields = (List<String>) respMap.get("unmapped_index_fields"); | ||
assertEquals(28, unmappedIndexFields.size()); |
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.
why do we need to change the count of these tests?
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.
The tests check for the number of mapped and unmapped fields. Since we've added new static mappings, fields that didn't have mappings before now do, so the counts in the tests are adjusted to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Dennis Toepker <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Toepker <[email protected]>
@@ -114,12 +115,23 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"raw_field":"firewall_rule_action", | |||
"ecs":"aws.route53.srcids.firewall_rule_action", | |||
"ocsf": "disposition_id" | |||
"ocsf": "disposition_id", | |||
"ocsf11": "disposition" |
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.
Shouldn't this match with the ocsf mapping?
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.
If you're referring to replacing the "ocsf" field to have value "disposition" instead of "disposition_id" (and not introducing the "ocsf11" field at all), this runs the risk of creating mapping conflicts with existing customer detectors who already used the old static mappings to create that detector's mappings alias indices. Adding instead of replacing fields (despite the fact that both disposition and disposition_id exist in both OCSF1.0 and OCSF1.1) works around this.
Description
Adds various OCSF 1.1 field mappings to the static mappings repository in Security Analytics, allowing for more automatic field mappings during detector creation on indices ingesting OCSF 1.1 logs from Security Lake.
Check List
--signoff
.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.