Skip to content
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

[cisco_meraki] Replace rsa2elk pipeline and add webhook input #2897

Merged
merged 69 commits into from
Apr 27, 2022

Conversation

r00tu53r
Copy link
Contributor

@r00tu53r r00tu53r commented Mar 28, 2022

What does this PR do?

The PR

  • Replaces the current rsa2elk implementation
  • Adds support for Cisco Meraki syslog data reporting (for MX and MR devices only)
  • Adds experimental support for webhook integration

Checklist

  • I have reviewed tips for building integrations and this pull request is aligned with them.
  • I have verified that all data streams collect metrics or logs.
  • I have added an entry to my package's changelog.yml file.
  • I have verified that Kibana version constraints are current according to guidelines.

Author's Checklist

  • Add dashboards

How to test this PR locally

There are pipeline and system tests available for both the data streams.

Run pipeline tests -
elastic-package test pipeline -v

Run system tests -
elastic-package test system -v

Related issues

Screenshots

cisco-meraki-dashboard-1

cisco-meraki-dashboard-2

cisco-meraki-dashboard-3

@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-external-integrations (Team:Security-External Integrations)

@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Mar 28, 2022

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2022-04-26T08:01:34.312+0000

  • Duration: 16 min 39 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test Results
Failed 0
Passed 19
Skipped 0
Total 19

🤖 GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

@r00tu53r
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @andrewkroh for all the comments. I have made the changes.

pattern: "%{} ip_flow_end %{*src}=%{&src} %{*dst}=%{&dst} %{*prot}=%{&prot} %{*sport}=%{&sport} %{*dport}=%{&dport} %{*tsi_or_tdi}=%{&tsi_or_tdi} %{*tp}=%{&tp}"
if: ctx._temp.event_type == 'ip_flow_end' && ctx._temp.token.startsWith("src=") == true
# source field IP:port handling
- set:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you switch these over to converts.

# fields common to more than one event type
- dissect:
field: src
pattern: "%{source.ip}:%{sport}"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you add a convert to validate the source/destination ip.

Do these logs also contain IPv6 addresses? I doubt this dissect works in that case. Unless you know the exact format or that it does not need to handle ipv6 addresses, then you might need a generic parser that handles most formats like https:/elastic/integrations/blob/main/packages/cisco_duo/data_stream/auth/elasticsearch/ingest_pipeline/default.yml#L50-L60.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@r00tu53r r00tu53r Apr 26, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All the logs I have received and the docs only used IPv4. But I suppose nothing stops someone from using IPv6. I have added IP v4+v6 handling and converts across all pipelines where applicable. Thanks!

Comment on lines 140 to 141
pattern_definitions:
IPV6NOCOMPRESS: '([0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){7}[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If there is no port associated with the IPv6, this pattern is not required (see #3117 (comment)).

@r00tu53r r00tu53r merged commit 018b39e into elastic:main Apr 27, 2022
@dainperkins
Copy link

Apologies if I'm jumping the gun in terms of planned improvements but I pulled all the expected json docs into a cluster and have some comments:

  • theres no event.kind, event.outcome
  • ids-alerts are not classified as event.kind alert, nor as category intrusion_detection, and should have an event.action & event.outcome
  • dhcp no-acks aren't really an ECS accsss event, and definitely not a denial from an access control perspective - more an out of IPs perspective (which should probably also be an alert) could also use yo have event.outcome
  • all user based authentication events (wpa, eap, 802.1x) should be category authentication with event.outcome populated to work with the SIEM app
  • the http-access-error does not match up to the log - its actually indicative of a tls connection that the Meraki cannot see beyond the host portion of the URL
  • rogue ssid & ssid-spoofing detected events should likely be an alert
  • the client-vpn-connect event is mis-classified as site to site (event.action)
  • client_vpn_connections should use "connected from" as source.ip, "local ip" as source.net.ip
  • wifi association and disassociation events need to have the same type/category, etc. - based on current docs I would say event.category: network, session and event.type: access, (start | end), (allowed, denied) ,as appropriate. based on the ecs docs I wouldn't use connection for the actual association type events
  • I am pretty sure a wpa-deauth is a connection end, not a deny
  • vpn-connectivity-change should be event.type change
  • ip flows with translated addresses should populate source.nat/ destination.nat ip and port fields and need start and end populated
  • dhcp events should not be allowed/denied if missing information indicating a denial has occurred
  • all flow type events should use the same sets of ecs categorization - type: (start | end), (allowed | denied) connection. category: network, and should use 2-3 event.action

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Cisco Meraki Integration
7 participants