Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Detect origin keyword 6794 v3 #11787

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

scottfgjordan
Copy link
Contributor

Make sure these boxes are checked accordingly before submitting your Pull Request -- thank you.

Contribution style:

Our Contribution agreements:

Changes (if applicable):

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6794

Describe changes:

  • Amended git commits to correct author typo
  • Rebased so that fuzzers can run

Add option of role to live device configuration. Possible
roles are : trusted, untrusted, and unknown. Configurable
via suricata.yaml. AF-Packet and DPDK runmodes supported,
others default to unknown role.
Allows for matching against packets based on the role of the
live device. The origin of a packet refers to the role of the
live device where the flow originated from.
Adds the copy device to the live device structure. Valid only
in IPS mode.
Allows for matching against packets based on the role of the
copy live device. For IPS only. The destination of a packet
refers to the role of the copy live device.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.59829% with 44 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.57%. Comparing base (d3eb656) to head (43bb899).
Report is 87 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11787      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.53%   82.57%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         919      921       +2     
  Lines      248979   249432     +453     
==========================================
+ Hits       205506   205971     +465     
+ Misses      43473    43461      -12     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 60.31% <13.46%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
livemode 18.72% <35.89%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
pcap 44.13% <13.46%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
suricata-verify 61.84% <13.46%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unittests 59.06% <83.76%> (+0.06%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Copy link
Contributor

@jufajardini jufajardini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fuzzers checks are ok! /o/

We should also add documentation for the new rule keywords, including rule examples and also their limitations. Not sure what that section should be titled, though. Role keywords?

nit-ish: could you please add the ticket number at the end of the related commit messages?

After the commit body, a

Task #6794

should do :)

Comment on lines +151 to +153
int LiveRegisterDeviceNameAndRole(const char *dev, const char *copy_dev, const char *role)
{
LiveDeviceName *pd = NULL;
Copy link
Contributor

@jufajardini jufajardini Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can't we try to dedup the code in these two functions? their structures are so similar...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah that's a good idea. I will take a look cleaning this up.

Comment on lines +443 to +450
in IPS mode as device tenancy is not supported. Currently only
supported when running with afpacket or dpdk. For example:

::
dpdk:
interfaces:
- interface: 0000:3b:00.1
role: trusted
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see that in the suricata.yaml file this setting can be configured in several places. Is there a master config setting place that applies to all of them? If so, I think that should be mentioned here. If not, I think that we should point out all places where this option can be defined, since not defining it results in role being unknown and could lead to user confusion.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't believe that there would be a master config as it is device / interface / capture mode specific. I have only been using DPDK & af-packet, but I suppose that wherever an interface is defined and a LiveDevice is created the role could be defined. I think I had covered all the potential spots where the role could be defined in suricata.yaml.in, but I will confirm.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that the configuration file itself is covered, my comment was more to list here all such cases, so that people know this from the documentation, what do you think?

Comment on lines +47 to +48
"(trusted/untrusted) of the interface.";
sigmatch_table[DETECT_DESTINATION].Match = DetectDestinationMatch;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

once we have the keyword docs, then we can add its URL reference here with url attribute

@scottfgjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

scottfgjordan commented Sep 19, 2024

Fuzzers checks are ok! /o/

We should also add documentation for the new rule keywords, including rule examples and also their limitations. Not sure what that section should be titled, though. Role keywords?

nit-ish: could you please add the ticket number at the end of the related commit messages?

After the commit body, a

Task #6794

should do :)

Sounds good! I will add some documentation for the keywords. I didn't know what to call the section either 😄 I'm happy to go with your suggestion.

Copy link
Contributor

@jlucovsky jlucovsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd really like to see

  • suricata-verify tests
  • The use cases for this.

*
* \retval 0 on success.
* \retval -1 on failure.
*/
int LiveRegisterDeviceName(const char *dev)
int LiveRegisterDeviceName(const char *dev, const char *copy_dev)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd suggest adding a new function ... e.g., LiveRegisterDeviceNameWithCopy and remove the changes to the source/runmode for the packet capture code. It's a bit complicated and one was missed (ipfw)

*
* \retval 0 on success.
* \retval -1 on failure.
*/
int LiveRegisterDevice(const char *dev)
int LiveRegisterDevice(const char *dev, const char *role)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Similarly, suggest leaving this interface alone and adding LiveRegisterDeviceWithRole.

@scottfgjordan
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'd really like to see

  • suricata-verify tests
  • The use cases for this.

Thanks for the feedback!

  1. I will include suricata-verify tests in the next PR.
  2. The motivation behind this comes from running in IPS mode. I wanted a way to tie a signature to a specific device/interface. With the idea that traffic could be blocked or allowed depending on the device/interface that a flow originated from. Multi-tenancy seemed like it could be a good fit, but wasn't supported in IPS mode. The origin/destination keywords alongside the role configuration gave a nice way to achieve the same goal. It also simplifies the ruleset a bit in comparison to multi-tenancy as there is no need for splitting up rulesets specific to a tenant, you can just include the origin/destination keywords and configure your device roles instead.

@jufajardini
Copy link
Contributor

I'd really like to see

  • suricata-verify tests
  • The use cases for this.

Thanks for the feedback!

1. I will include suricata-verify tests in the next PR.

2. The motivation behind this comes from running in IPS mode. I wanted a way to tie a signature to a specific device/interface. With the idea that traffic could be blocked or allowed depending on the device/interface that a flow originated from. Multi-tenancy seemed like it could be a good fit, but wasn't supported in IPS mode. The origin/destination keywords alongside the role configuration gave a nice way to achieve the same goal. It also simplifies the ruleset a bit in comparison to multi-tenancy as there is no need for splitting up rulesets specific to a tenant, you can just include the origin/destination keywords and configure your device roles instead.

I think that some of this can be used for the keywords docs, or something that covers this :)

@inashivb inashivb added the needs rebase Needs rebase to master label Oct 14, 2024
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
needs rebase Needs rebase to master
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants