-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 297
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
Severity field in IDF #2575
Open
kamil-certat
wants to merge
2
commits into
certtools:develop
Choose a base branch
from
kamil-certat:severity
base: develop
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Severity field in IDF #2575
Conversation
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
Severity is expected in IntelMQ for a long time and partially, it's already used by e.g. ShadowServer reports. This implementation is based on their understanding of the field, but with explicit mentioning that operators could adjust it based on their knowledge. This is not intended to be an ultimate severity classification, but a help for first triage of recived events. Close certtools#2365
sebix
requested changes
Mar 3, 2025
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.
- missing documentation in
docs/user/event.md
- missing documentation in
NEWS.md
@@ -93,4 +94,4 @@ CREATE INDEX "idx_events_source.asn" ON events USING btree ("source.asn"); | |||
CREATE INDEX "idx_events_source.ip" ON events USING btree ("source.ip"); | |||
CREATE INDEX "idx_events_source.fqdn" ON events USING btree ("source.fqdn"); | |||
CREATE INDEX "idx_events_time.observation" ON events USING btree ("time.observation"); | |||
CREATE INDEX "idx_events_time.source" ON events USING btree ("time.source"); | |||
CREATE INDEX "idx_events_time.source" ON events USING btree ("time.source"); |
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.
missing newline at end of file
Upgrade function in |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Severity is expected in IntelMQ for a long time and partially, it's already used by e.g. ShadowServer reports. This implementation is based on their understanding of the field, but with explicit mentioning that operators could adjust it based on their knowledge.
This is not intended to be an ultimate severity classification, but a help for first triage of received events.
As the topic has already been discussed in #2365, I do not open a separated IEP for that. The discussion didn't have a clear outcome, but since then the severity information from Shadowserver has already been implemented and is in use by at least some IntelMQ instances. Implementing it in the default IDF helps wider adoption and prioritisation.
Compatibility: as no bot uses the field by default at the moment, there is no incompatibility risk if the local operator uses modified IDF schema or stores all data in e.g. SQL database. To prevent issues, until the next major release the official bots using the field should fall back to
extra.<field name>
if the field does not exist in the local IDF.Close #2365