-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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.
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
Detect rule hook/v10 #12697
Draft
victorjulien
wants to merge
30
commits into
OISF:master
Choose a base branch
from
victorjulien:detect-rule-hook/v10
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Detect rule hook/v10 #12697
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Several rules matched on both directions even if events are set in a single direction.
Example output: "match_policy": { "actions": [ "alert", "drop" ], "scope": "flow" },
Instead of having a per detection engine list of rule that couldn't be prefiltered, put those into special "prefilter" engines. For packet and frame rules this doesn't change much, it just removes some hard coded logic from the detect engine. For the packet non-prefilter rules in the "non-prefilter" special prefilter engine, add additional filtering for the packet variant. It can prefilter on alproto, dsize and dest port. The frame non-prefilter rules are added to a single engine, that per rule checks the alproto and the type. For app-layer, there is an engine per progress value, per app-layer protocol and per direction. This hooks app-layer non-prefilter rules into the app inspect logic at the correct "progress" hook. e.g. a rule like dns.query; bsize:1; Negated MPM rules will also fall into this category: dns.query; content:!"abc"; Are part of a special "generic list" app engine for dns, at the same progress hook as `dns.query`. This all results in a lot fewer checks: previous: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1/29/2025 -- 10:22:25. Sorted by: number of checks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Num Rule Gid Rev Ticks % Checks Matches Max Ticks Avg Ticks Avg Match Avg No Match -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------------ ------ -------- -------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------- 1 20 1 0 181919672 11.85 588808 221 60454 308.96 2691.46 308.07 2 50 1 0 223455914 14.56 453104 418 61634 493.17 3902.59 490.02 3 60 1 0 185990683 12.12 453104 418 60950 410.48 1795.40 409.20 4 51 1 0 192436011 12.54 427028 6084 61223 450.64 2749.12 417.42 5 61 1 0 180401533 11.75 427028 6084 61093 422.46 2177.04 397.10 6 70 1 0 153899099 10.03 369836 0 61282 416.13 0.00 416.13 7 71 1 0 123389405 8.04 369836 12833 44921 333.63 2430.23 258.27 8 41 1 0 63889876 4.16 155824 12568 39138 410.01 1981.97 272.10 9 40 1 0 64149724 4.18 155818 210 39792 411.70 4349.57 406.38 10 10 1 0 70848850 4.62 65558 0 39544 1080.70 0.00 1080.70 11 11 1 0 94743878 6.17 65558 32214 60547 1445.19 2616.14 313.92 this commit: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1/29/2025 -- 10:15:46. Sorted by: number of checks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Num Rule Gid Rev Ticks % Checks Matches Max Ticks Avg Ticks Avg Match Avg No Match -------- ------------ -------- -------- ------------ ------ -------- -------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------- 1 50 1 0 138776766 19.23 95920 418 167584 1446.80 3953.11 1435.83 2 60 1 0 97988084 13.58 95920 418 182817 1021.56 1953.63 1017.48 3 51 1 0 105318318 14.60 69838 6084 65649 1508.04 2873.38 1377.74 4 61 1 0 89571260 12.41 69838 6084 164632 1282.56 2208.41 1194.20 5 11 1 0 91132809 12.63 32779 32214 373569 2780.22 2785.58 2474.45 6 10 1 0 66095303 9.16 32779 0 56704 2016.39 0.00 2016.39 7 70 1 0 48107573 6.67 12928 0 42832 3721.19 0.00 3721.19 8 71 1 0 32308792 4.48 12928 12833 39565 2499.13 2510.05 1025.09 9 41 1 0 25546837 3.54 12886 12470 41479 1982.53 1980.84 2033.05 10 40 1 0 26069992 3.61 12886 210 38495 2023.13 4330.05 1984.91 11 20 1 0 639025 0.09 221 221 14750 2891.52 2891.52 0.00
To support hook based buffer names.
e.g. server hello done has no data
Per direction track progress to be able to have more fine grained control over where the detection engines and logging hooks in.
Generic: <app_proto>:request_done and <app_proto>:response_done Per protocol, it uses the registered progress (state) values. E.g. tls:client_hello_done A rule ruleset could be: pass tls:client_hello_done any any -> any any (tls.sni; content:"www.google.com"; sid:21; alert;) drop tls:client_hello_done any any -> any any (sid:22;) The pass rule is evaluated when the client hello is parsed, and if it doesn't match the drop rule will be evaluated. Registers each generic lists as "<alproto>:<progress state>:generic" (e.g. "tls:client_hello_done:generic"). Ticket: OISF#7485.
For registration of app-layer inspection, no longer use the 'needs' table from the script, but instead use the rule hook setting. Ticket: OISF#4783.
WIP packet: track hooks that this packet triggers hooks: set flow_start hook in packet detect: pack prefilter engine struct For future expansion of the fields. detect/prefilter: put pkt mask in struct In preparation for adding more pkt fields. WIP detect: implement pkt:flow_start hook SQUASH detect flow start hook
Firewall rules are like normal rule, with some key differences. They are loaded separate, and first, from: ```yaml firewall-rule-path: /etc/suricata/firewall/ firewall-rule-files: - fw.rules ``` Differences with regular "threat detection" rules: 1. these rules are evaluated before threat detection rules 2. these rules are evaluated in the order as they appear in the rule file 3. currently only rules specifying an explicit hook at supported a. as a consequence, no rules will be treated as (like) IP-only, PD-only or DE-only
Preparation for explicit action scope parsing.
Mostly for QA purposes.
tls.version isn't hooked to a specific state by default. Allow it to register at the rule hook.
Add default drops for packet and app, add 'appfw' action for elevating fw inspection from packet to app.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #12697 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.75% 80.73% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 934 936 +2
Lines 259594 260036 +442
==========================================
+ Hits 209634 209951 +317
- Misses 49960 50085 +125
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 24943 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2327
This implements part of the idea described here #12167 (comment)
It essentially splits the firewall rules in 2 classes:
Both can be considered to be separate tables or chains of sorts, both with a default drop policy.
So the first step in a ruleset is to allow traffic on a packet level. As an example, lets create a TLS SNI ruleset. We start by allowing the TCP session setup:
This is a per packet rule that allows the packets as long as we're not established. In TCP this means the SYN, SYN/ACK, ACK sequence is allowed here.
Then we get to the established state, and now we want the application level rules to take over. To do so, we just a special variant of a
pass
rule to sort ofjump
to the application rules:The
appfw
(name TBD) action signals that we consider the packets apass
for the packet ruleset, and jump to the app rules.Now that we're thinking about tls, lets first make sure we allow the SNI we want:
This will accept the rest of the flow (
pass:flow
) when the SNI matches. It will do it's evaluation of the rule when the TLS parser hits theclient_hello_done
state.We're still making packet level pass/drop decisions, so there is a corner case to handle: fragmented client hello's mean we get packets that are established, but TLS isn't at the client_hello_done state yet. So we pass this as well:
If the SNI is not a match, or we receive a client hello w/o SNI, these rules won't match and the default drop policy is activated.
So the full ruleset is