Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

detect-flowbits: adding details for flowbits v5 #9971

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

detect-flowbits: adding details for flowbits v5 #9971

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
41 changes: 41 additions & 0 deletions src/detect-engine-analyzer.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@
#include "util-time.h"
#include "util-validate.h"
#include "util-conf.h"
#include "detect-flowbits.h"
#include "util-var-name.h"

static int rule_warnings_only = 0;

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -861,6 +863,45 @@ static void DumpMatches(RuleAnalyzer *ctx, JsonBuilder *js, const SigMatchData *
jb_close(js);
break;
}
case DETECT_FLOWBITS: {
const DetectFlowbitsData *cd = (const DetectFlowbitsData *)smd->ctx;

jb_open_object(js, "flowbits");
switch (cd->cmd) {
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_NOALERT:
jb_set_string(js, "action", "noalert");
// jb_set_string(js,"name", NULL);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Leftover? :P

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, I must have missed the commented out code. Sorry!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove the commented our line

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yep, don't know how I missed that. I'll remove it right away.

break;
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_ISSET:
jb_set_string(js, "cmd", "isset");
break;
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_ISNOTSET:
jb_set_string(js, "cmd", "isnotset");
break;
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_SET:
jb_set_string(js, "cmd", "set");
break;
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_UNSET:
jb_set_string(js, "cmd", "unset");
break;
case DETECT_FLOWBITS_CMD_TOGGLE:
jb_set_string(js, "cmd", "toggle");
break;
}
jb_open_array(js, "names");
if (cd->or_list_size == 0) {
jb_append_string(js, VarNameStoreSetupLookup(cd->idx, VAR_TYPE_FLOW_BIT));
} else if (cd->or_list_size > 0) {
for (uint8_t i = 0; i < cd->or_list_size; i++) {
const char *varname =
VarNameStoreSetupLookup(cd->or_list[i], VAR_TYPE_FLOW_BIT);
jb_append_string(js, varname);
}
}
jb_close(js); // array
Comment on lines +891 to +901
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Considering that for noalert there won't be an associated variable name, I don't think we want to always open this array, only when it's not noalert, I guess. Not sure what's the best approach in terms of implementation, for this, right now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(btw, my guess is that that's what's causing the last check in the SV test to fail. this double close when nothing was added to the json object is leading to suricata not having the json object with the flowbits info, in the noalert case.)

jb_close(js); // object
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Considering the discussion here - #9691 (comment) -, we are missing the operator to be added to the details.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For this, I was thinking about creating an operator array that stores "or" if it encounters '|' in the the list, but I'm not sure on how to store "and" yet.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd say skip and for now, multiple flowbit objs in the output for a rule for the same cmd and w/o or would indicate and. It'll quickly get too complicated otherwise.

break;
}
}
jb_close(js);

Expand Down
Loading