Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #7544

open
JL JF

eve/alert: verdict reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively

Bug #7544: eve/alert: verdict reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively

Added by Jesse Lepich about 1 year ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
Assigned
Priority:
Normal
Target version:
Affected Versions:
Effort:
Difficulty:
Label:

Description

In IPS mode, when there are no rules except for an alert rules, traffic is "passed" (allowed implicitly/passively by default) but the verdict is "alert"

It seems like verdict should report on what the final traffic action was, in this case "pass"

It would also be very helpful is the verdict output showed which sid took the action against the traffic. For example:

"verdict": {
"action": "pass"
"sid": "1234"
},

And maybe the implicit/default/passive pass action might generate a log entry like:

"verdict": {
"action": "pass"
"sid": "default"
},


Subtasks 2 (1 open1 closed)

Bug #7907: eve/alert: verdict reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively (7.0.x backport)ClosedJuliana Fajardini ReichowActions
Bug #8071: eve/alert: verdict reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively (8.0.x backport)AssignedJuliana Fajardini ReichowActions

Related issues 1 (1 open0 closed)

Related to Suricata - Bug #7392: Verdict output reports "drop" when rejectedFeedbackJuliana Fajardini ReichowActions

PA Updated by Philippe Antoine 9 months ago Actions #1

  • Assignee changed from OISF Dev to Juliana Fajardini Reichow

I would think that alert is the right verdict, alert meaning for Suricata that we did not reject nor drop, but we still logged something, when pass would mean nothing to report...

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 8 months ago Actions #2

  • Target version changed from TBD to 9.0.0-beta1
  • Label Needs backport, Needs backport to 7.0 added

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 8 months ago Actions #3

Added the label, but must still investigate and understand further.

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 8 months ago Actions #4

  • Related to Bug #7392: Verdict output reports "drop" when rejected added

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 8 months ago Actions #5

  • Related to Bug #7630: eve/alert: incorrect verdict with pass + alert rule added

OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot 7 months ago Actions #6

  • Subtask #7907 added

OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot 7 months ago Actions #7

  • Label deleted (Needs backport to 7.0)

SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj 6 months ago Actions #8

  • Related to deleted (Bug #7630: eve/alert: incorrect verdict with pass + alert rule)

SB Updated by Shivani Bhardwaj 6 months ago Actions #9

  • Is duplicate of Bug #7630: eve/alert: incorrect verdict with pass + alert rule added

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 6 months ago Actions #10

  • Status changed from New to Assigned

VJ Updated by Victor Julien 5 months ago Actions #11

  • Subject changed from Verdict output reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively to eve/alert: verdict reports "alert" when traffic is allowed implicitly/passively

VJ Updated by Victor Julien 5 months ago Actions #12

  • Label Needs backport to 8.0 added
  • Label deleted (Needs backport)

OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot 5 months ago Actions #13

  • Subtask #8071 added

OT Updated by OISF Ticketbot 5 months ago Actions #14

  • Label deleted (Needs backport to 8.0)

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 5 months ago Actions #15

  • Is duplicate of deleted (Bug #7630: eve/alert: incorrect verdict with pass + alert rule)

JF Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow about 2 months ago Actions #16

We're thinking that...

adding `sid` to the verdict makes sense.

I must still better understand whether there are situations when we should have verdict `pass` but are seeing `alert`.

Actions

Also available in: PDF Atom