-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Extended Correlation Support in V2 #122
Comments
What would be an example rule with such logic? I don't see what links Rule A B C D and E together |
Let's use the official example of Failed Logins Followed by Successful Login: This is the official spec: title: Correlation - Multiple Failed Logins Followed by Successful Login
id: b180ead8-d58f-40b2-ae54-c8940995b9b6
status: experimental
description: Detects multiple failed logins by a single user followed by a successful login of that user
references:
- https://reference.com
author: Florian Roth (Nextron Systems)
date: 2023-06-16
correlation:
type: temporal_ordered
rules:
- multiple_failed_login
- successful_login
group-by:
- User
timespan: 10m
falsepositives:
- Unlikely
level: high
---
title: Multiple failed logons
id: a8418a5a-5fc4-46b5-b23b-6c73beb19d41
description: Detects multiple failed logins within a certain amount of time
name: multiple_failed_login
correlation:
type: event_count
rules:
- failed_login
group-by:
- User
timespan: 10m
condition:
gte: 10
---
title: Single failed login
id: 53ba33fd-3a50-4468-a5ef-c583635cfa92
name: failed_login
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID:
- 529
- 4625
condition: selection
---
title: Successful login
id: 4d0a2c83-c62c-4ed4-b475-c7e23a9269b8
description: Detects a successful login
name: successful_login
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID:
- 528
- 4624
condition: selection What the Graylog Correlation Engine could do is the following (not Sigma spec conform): title: Correlation - Multiple Failed Logins Followed by Successful Login
id: b180ead8-d58f-40b2-ae54-c8940995b9b6
status: experimental
description: Detects multiple failed logins by a single user followed by a successful login of that user
references:
- https://reference.com
author: Florian Roth (Nextron Systems)
date: 2023-06-16
correlation:
type: temporal_ordered
rules:
- failed_login:
condition: # <-- Graylog uses per rule counts
gte: 10
- successful_login:
condition: # <-- Graylog uses per rule counts
gte: 1
group-by:
- User
timespan: 10m
falsepositives:
- Unlikely
level: high
---
title: Single failed login
id: 53ba33fd-3a50-4468-a5ef-c583635cfa92
name: failed_login
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID:
- 529
- 4625
condition: selection
---
title: Successful login
id: 4d0a2c83-c62c-4ed4-b475-c7e23a9269b8
description: Detects a successful login
name: successful_login
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID:
- 528
- 4624
condition: selection What I'm saying is that sub correlations like "Multiple failed logons" are not needed in Graylogs case. Depending on the capablities of other SIEM systems correllation engines (non-EQL and non-Lucene), this would make sense to me to include in the specs. |
An example for Rule A triggers at least X times AND Rule B doesn't trigger AND followed by Rule C could be the an permission escalation scenario ">1 successful login event followed by 0 no log out events followed by >1 successful root login". This could simply be done with this schema: title: Permission Escalation
correlation:
type: temporal_ordered
rules:
- successful_login:
condition:
gte: 1
- successful_logout:
condition:
eq: 0
- successful_root_login:
condition:
gte: 1
group-by:
- User
timespan: 10h
falsepositives:
- Unlikely
level: high
---
# ... the rules 'successful_login', 'successful_logout', 'successful_root_login' |
I'm coming from a Graylog background where the correlation engine supports the following methods:
Using the latest V2 specs the optional scenarios are not possible (at least from my understanding) without creating separate Sigma sub-rules, especially when the counting should differ from rule to rule.
Is it intention that such correlations are not possible in one single rule, probably for compatibility for other SIEM systems?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: