Open Mat0vu opened 6 months ago
Welcome @Mat0vu :wave:
It looks like this is your first issue on the Sigma rules repository!
The following repository accepts issues related to false positives
or 'rule ideas'.
If you're reporting an issue related to the pySigma library please consider submitting it here
If you're reporting an issue related to the deprecated sigmac library please consider submitting it here
Thanks for taking the time to open this issue, and welcome to the Sigma community! :smiley:
Hey @Mat0vu thanks for reaching out. You are correct in your assumptions. While correlations were recently added to PySigma we still haven't announced the V2 spec (which include correlationà.
We are now in the process of adding a folder to allow for the submitting of correlation rules and as you guessed old rules in the supported using the old pipe notation will also be converted to use the new format.
Thanks for your understanding.
Will take your rule suggestion as input when the new folder is added.
HI, I have try as a POC on https://github.com/frack113/MetaRuleBazar No test , No review only the curiosity : is it hard to convert old rules ?
Hi @frack113, that´s a great resource, thanks for the link! Looks like you´ve already converted most the currently unsupported rules 👍
Hi, as my company is trying to move from
sigmac
topysigma
for translating our detection rules, I´m currently checking if I get the same output with the new tool. For quite some time, in our environment the following rule was used to check for rare service installs: (https://github.com/SigmaHQ/sigma/blob/master/unsupported/windows/win_system_rare_service_installs.yml)Because this rule is using the old
|
syntax for aggregations, it is rejected by pysigma. I suppose this is also the reason why this rule is in theunsupported
directory, just like a few other rules using|
aggregations.I did not find any rules in the repository using the new correlation syntax, maybe because correlations are not yet officially and fully supported? However, I´m following the development of
pysigma
and because converting correlation rules is possible now, I was curious and tried to change this rule following the correlation specification so thatpysigma
can convert it.Because this attempt was successful (using Elasticsearch
ESQLBackend
), I wanted to ask if it is planned that the rules in theunsupported
directory will be updated in the future to follow the new specification or if correlations are not yet to be used in the main rule repository.Here is a suggestion for the updated rule using the
event_count
correlation: