True and my proposal will have nothing to do with how rules drop into place in 
an installation.  For now I see that as a manually process, painful though it 
may be.  What I propose to do is just have a place where people can push and 
pull rules so they can be easily shared with the community along with a simple 
list that people fill out - on a honor system - when they add new rules.  The 
list will help people keep track of their rule IDs and those of others to avoid 
conflicts.

On Mar 20, 2014, at 1:05 PM, dan (ddp) <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On Mar 20, 2014 3:46 PM, "Vic Hargrave" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > @ddp I'd like to do something before 2.8.   Like I said in my previous 
> > post, I'll put something together then post it here.  I really think it 
> > makes sense to have a general ossec-rules repo from which people can cheery 
> > pick rules on an ad-hoc basis.  You know just a place where we can pile on 
> > rules ans share in a light weight fashion without affecting the ossec-hids 
> > code base.  The format of the ossec-rules cataloging I propose could evolve 
> > over time.
> >
> 
> As always, free time is plentiful. The proposed layout is bad though. It 
> doesn't drop into /var/ossec/rules well.
> 
> > I'd also like to work with Scott Shinn on maybe morphing this into a yum 
> > hosted repo.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Vic Hargrave <[email protected]> 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> With the Hadoop rules I've written, I arbitrarily started at 70000 then 
> >> went up from there.  I'm going to stick with that because it is clear of 
> >> the core rules.  But the answer to how to track the IDs and avoid 
> >> conflicts may be as simple as having a textual "spreadsheet" where people 
> >> sign in their rules as the add them to the community repo.  The format 
> >> could just be a flattened form of the rules XML, like this:
> >>
> >> rule id         decoded_as        if_sid             description
> >> =====         ==========       ====             =========
> >> 70000         hadoop                                       Hadoop alert 
> >> rules
> >> 70001                                       70000           HBase user 
> >> authorized
> >> ...
> >>
> >> So this file would be named something like "rules-catalog.txt".  There 
> >> should also be a "decoders-catalog.txt" and "ossecconf-catalog.txt" that 
> >> contain the corresponding decoders and ossec.conf stanzas that correspond 
> >> to the rules.  I'll organize my Hadoop rules along these lines then post 
> >> samples.  If they look good then I'll go ahead and make an ossec-rules 
> >> repo.
> >>
> >> Stay tuned...
> >>        
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jason Frisvold <[email protected]> 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Vic Hargrave wrote:
> >>> > I have been working on decoders and rules to process Hadoop logs which I
> >>> > wrote a blog about:<shameless-plug>
> >>> > http://vichargrave.com/securing-hadoop-with-ossec/ </shameless-plug>.
> >>> >  I'd like to share these rules with the community as I comne up with
> >>> > more and expand into other big data platforms - cassandra, mongodb,
> >>> > etc..  However these rules are not for everybody and are still a work in
> >>> > progress, so I'm loath to put them into the rules set in the ossec-hids.
> >>>
> >>> The default ossec ruleset should be minimalistic and only include
> >>> rulesets that apply widely across many installations.
> >>>
> >>> > I'm thinking about creating an ossec-rules repo on OSSEC Github site
> >>> > that would serve as a place to collect rules like this that have a
> >>> > limited audience.  From here people could grab them and use them if
> >>> > interested or even fork the repo and add new rules or revisions.
> >>>
> >>> This has come up in the last week or so.  I *think* the official
> >>> maintainers are looking at setting something up like this as well.  It
> >>> might speed things up a bit if someone else were to start the process?
> >>> Or maybe it might muddy the waters a bit.  Devs?
> >>>
> >>> > One problem with this that I can see is keeping the rule ids for new
> >>> > rules unique.  We'd have to figure out how to set aside rule id ranges
> >>> > that would serve as namespaces or at least log the ids used by people as
> >>> > they add rules.  If we do this we should have a well maintained READ me
> >>> > that identifies the rule ID ranges and what they do.
> >>>
> >>> AND there should be a clear rule for custom rules as well.  For
> >>> instance, on my own installation, I take the existing rule numbers and
> >>> add 100,000 to them.  This gives me my local rule namespace.  I'm not
> >>> fond of putting all of my custom rules into the same file with the same
> >>> numbering.  And since I want upgrades to go smoothly, I also avoid
> >>> editing the default rules files directly.
> >>>
> >>> > If this seems to weird an idea I may just set an ossec-rule repo on my
> >>> > own Github account.
> >>>
> >>> Not weird.. It's an idea that has been kicked around a number of times
> >>> in the past.  I thought there was a rules repo in existence that ddpbsd
> >>> was running, but I could be misremembering..
> >>>
> >>> > Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ---------------------------
> >>> Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> ---------------------------
> >>>
> >>> "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.\"
> >>> - Niven's Inverse of Clarke's Third Law
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >>> "ossec-list" group.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> >>> email to [email protected].
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > --- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "ossec-list" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> > email to [email protected].
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "ossec-list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ossec-list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to