You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current detection data model (DDM) does not take into consideration mandatory data fields, for example: I want to develop a detection analytic on "win registry key modification", and I require "registry_key_path", "registry_key_value_name" and "registry_key_value_data" to be present. If my EDR solution lacks to provide one of this fields (i.e. "registry_key_value_data"), both the data dictionary (of the EDR in question) and common information model will provide a "win registry" object that lacks a data field needed by the analytic (i.e. "registry_key_value_data").
Is this by design, something you want to keep out of the DDM?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey @hxnoyd , the DDM is still a work in progress so I agree with you that it needs to be added to it to cover analytics like the ones you are working on. Thank you for the suggestion and feedback. I will add that soon. Thank you.
The current detection data model (DDM) does not take into consideration mandatory data fields, for example: I want to develop a detection analytic on "win registry key modification", and I require "registry_key_path", "registry_key_value_name" and "registry_key_value_data" to be present. If my EDR solution lacks to provide one of this fields (i.e. "registry_key_value_data"), both the data dictionary (of the EDR in question) and common information model will provide a "win registry" object that lacks a data field needed by the analytic (i.e. "registry_key_value_data").
Is this by design, something you want to keep out of the DDM?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: