Closed akniffe1 closed 8 years ago
first swing at protecting yara signatures that trigger modules in branch:development_issue17
Issue_17 tested and functional. Will continue to run this branch, and when we begin evaluation for the next major release we can determine if we want to include it then.
resolving. FSF will function perfectly fine as long as rules.yara is properly managed.
'The root of this problem is outside the bounds of FSF, and more inline with proper oversight/restrictions on who can commit rules.'
Recently observed an interesting problem with SCAN_YARA and the rules.yara file.
An analyst wrote a new yara signature, added its reference to rules.yara, and then successfully tested the updated rules.yara by running yara from its CLI wrapper. Having not observed a compile error then then check the updated rules.yara in and deployed the updated FSF configuration.
As it turned out, the newly deployed rules.yara also contained a reference to a yara signature that had been removed. When tested with the YARA CLI tools, this did not prevent yara from execution, however when the inaccurate rules.yara file was compiled using python-yara this became a fatal exception that resulted in no yara signatures (including the vital filetype signatures that drive module execution) running on the samples submitted. The error was identified via dgb.log, which shows that there was a YaraSyntaxError on all files submitted.
I think there's two lessons here:
Possible fixes
Protecting yara signatures that trigger modules
Treating SCAN_YARA differently from other modules