[Zeek-Dev] Re: Discussion: the guidance we want to give to package authors on the tags they assign
../../zeek/bin/zeek -NN | grep -i net output here, showing existing variation, so if there are nuances in points to be discussed, we have actual examples to compare and contrast. [Event] irc_network_info Zeek::Login - Telnet/Rsh/Rlogin analyzers (built-in) [Analyzer] Telnet (ANALYZER_TELNET, enabled) Zeek::NetBIOS - NetBIOS analyzer support (built-in) [Analyzer] Contents_NetbiosSSN (enabled) [Analyzer] NetbiosSSN (ANALYZER_NETBIOSSSN, enabled) [Event] netbios_session_message [Event] netbios_session_request [Event] netbios_session_accepted [Event] netbios_session_rejected [Event] netbios_session_raw_message [Event] netbios_session_ret_arg_resp [Event] netbios_session_keepalive [Function] decode_netbios_name [Function] decode_netbios_name_type [Event] rdp_client_network_data Zeek::BACNET - Bacnet Protocol analyzer (dynamic, no version information) [Analyzer] BACNET (ANALYZER_BACNET, enabled) [Event] bacnet ___ zeek-dev mailing list -- zeek-dev@lists.zeek.org To unsubscribe send an email to zeek-dev-le...@lists.zeek.org
[Zeek-Dev] Re: Discussion: the guidance we want to give to package authors on the tags they assign
Short postscript here, because I just learned there is more than one namespace
involved, and that config.name in plugin.cc is probably where zeek -N picks up
the string that it utilizes:
The code has:
namespace plugin {
namespace Zeek_BACNET {
Plugin plugin;
}
}
using namespace plugin::Zeek_BACNET;
plugin::Configuration Plugin::Configure() {
AddComponent(new ::analyzer::Component("BACNET",
::analyzer::bacnet::BACNET_Analyzer::Instantiate));
plugin::Configuration config;
config.name = "Zeek::BACNET";
config.description = "Bacnet Protocol analyzer";
return config;
}
___
zeek-dev mailing list -- zeek-dev@lists.zeek.org
To unsubscribe send an email to zeek-dev-le...@lists.zeek.org
[Zeek-Dev] Re: Discussion: the guidance we want to give to package authors on the tags they assign
I'm wondering if we simultaneously want to strongly guide the package name capitalization, where for instance I see in the output of /usr/local/zeek/bin/zeek -N | grep -i net Zeek::Login - Telnet/Rsh/Rlogin analyzers (built-in) Zeek::NetBIOS - NetBIOS analyzer support (built-in) Zeek::BACNET - Bacnet Protocol analyzer (dynamic, no version information) With the name as BACNET, and the description as Bacnet, the module name is ALL-CAPS, and the description is Initial-Cap. Conversely it is BACnet with precisely that capitalization that is the only usage which is standard within its own industry. https://github.com/amzn/zeek-plugin-bacnet/issues/9 I don't want to be guiding the zeek-plugin-bacnet to go opposite to what we are about to recommend universally. None of the built-in module names output from zeek -N are lowercase, but almost all the tags are (or use their branded-case, such as PostgreSQL). The behavior documented in section 3.2.2. aliases field (..the way this field operates is that, for each alias, it simply creates a symlink of the same name within the directory associated with the script_dir path) means that the zkg load argument, and zeek script @load argument probably can't be case-insensitive, though any desired variants can be specified via the aliases. >From section 3. "...the shorthand name for your package that may be used by >zkg and Zeek script @load directives will be the last component >of its git URL. E.g. a package at https://github.com/zeek/foo may be referred >to as foo when using zkg and a Zeek script that wants to load all the >scripts..." so shorthand name and package name are good to make synonymous. >But between module argument, and namespace, and filename, and directory name, >there are a lot of moving parts. All the examples in documentation I've found >use a lowercase package name, so don't give specific guidance as to whether >module argument, and namespace, and filename, and directory name should or >must, or need not be capitalization consistent. ___ zeek-dev mailing list -- zeek-dev@lists.zeek.org To unsubscribe send an email to zeek-dev-le...@lists.zeek.org
[Zeek-Dev] Discussion: the guidance we want to give to package authors on the tags they assign
I want to start a discussion here of the guidance we want to give to package authors on the tags they assign in zkg.meta, to ensure people have a chance to chime in, and we start-out with the benefit of multi-perspective group process, so we reach for the best result. My proposal is just to articulate principles for good tag selection, to rein in the existing scattershot we've seen so far, by giving the authors guidance on what we want to see. I think we need to do this, to counteract that nearly everyone takes their guidance from what they see the people before them have done. If bad habits occurred and are allowed to persist, people will dutifully adopt those bad habits. I posit that: the ideal set of tags will provide matches with queries of the form: "Has a plugin for X already been coded?" And also matches with some of the relevant queries for: "What other plugins have been coded for aspect Y?" Find the words by filling in the sentences: "I implemented X." and "I implemented an instance of Y." For Y, use the plural (indicators, scanners, scripts) except when only the singular makes sense. Use the hyphen where punctuation is needed. Never use underscore. Don't add "analyzer" nor "protocol" nor "plugin" as a suffix. Don't mention bro or zeek. These are all Bro/zeek analyzers and plugins. The ideal set of tags can also include one that is perhaps unique to this package (but not four or five that are unique to this package). This is as a moniker, so that saying "go look at fizzamajig" should lead, by following the fizzamajig tag, to what you intended the listener to see. Conversely avoid banal tags. If you write a piece of software, nonetheless "a", "piece", "of", and "software" are all bad tags. Capital letters should be a rarity, i.e. in DoS because dos to many eyes, immediately connotes a pre-Windows Microsoft operating system. att&ck is fine punctuated that way, and PostgreSQL and all the CVE are reasonable to capitalize. SSL, TLS, TCP, PKI, UPnP, and EternalBlue are stalking-horses, to consider, while we reach consensus, whether we are better off just lowercasing where the capitalization is not essential. If in doubt, just use alllowercase. Tags function quite well in alllowercase, and that is what most people have done. If anyone uses the hyphen-form for a word, then everyone shall use the hyphen-form for consistency. It does often increase readability, and is a small price for the increase of understanding in the portion of our community which it benefits. Anyone who disagrees with any of these details, PLEASE do chime in as I only seek that we we reach for the best result, not that we we reach for my idea of what the best result is. Anyone who has additional heuristics of goodness to add, also chime in with them. We'll probably, after consensus, enact change by sending some PRs to a few packages to unify them more. I did a sort of census last evening. Of 273 tags used, I would banish 51 of them, and revise the punctuation or capitalization of 15 others. - Duffy O'Craven ___ zeek-dev mailing list -- zeek-dev@lists.zeek.org To unsubscribe send an email to zeek-dev-le...@lists.zeek.org
