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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Windows DNS server vulnerability (CVE-2020-1350) rules #69
Windows DNS server vulnerability (CVE-2020-1350) rules #69
Changes from 8 commits
852dd8b
4c1a5a3
9745a16
33e13bd
c387b51
eaf4c08
beff550
5317444
7dc1065
745203a
91c724f
2b24b29
f2b8f01
06e84a9
f2c2bcb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
T1569 System Services would likely be a better fit here, but we need to update mapping first, which may need some refactoring to account for sub-techniques
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.
yep. adding xref to #52
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.
I believe these tags populate in the UI. Do we want to have this specific CVE tag in the UI as opposed to just the standard “Windows” tag.
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.
👋
Yep, I think so. Since we tend to normally target behavior rather than specific vulnerabilities, rules specific to a CVE will be less frequent. In cases where the CVE is a 10 and has significant impact, if it makes sense to have a rule, I think it makes sense to tag the CVE it may be more commonly known by.
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.
I don't think we should treat tags as one-offs, but more as ways to build medium-large groups of rules.
I think we should instead support more threat frameworks than just ATT&CK
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.
I agree @rw-access. I think it could get a bit messy and dated over an extended period of time to have one off tags, unless we had a better way to sort or visualize tags in the UI.
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.
We had a discussion and have decided to remove any mention of CVE from tags altogether. We still have to come to a decision on when we want to associate a CVE to a rule in general (only rules specific to a CVE, only CVE 10, etc.), but once we figure that it, it would most likely be better fit within the
threat
array, such as+- any other relevant fields we would want to build into that structure. The API would need updating to support this first as well (cc @spong)
Once we agree on structure, we can create an issue