Skip to content

zeek: map conn reverse-DNS hostnames to OCSF src/dst endpoint hostname fields#23885

Draft
cepolation-datadog wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
andy.anske/ocsf-zeek-conn-hostname-v2
Draft

zeek: map conn reverse-DNS hostnames to OCSF src/dst endpoint hostname fields#23885
cepolation-datadog wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
andy.anske/ocsf-zeek-conn-hostname-v2

Conversation

@cepolation-datadog
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Maps Corelight-enhanced conn log fields id.orig_h_name and id.resp_h_name (reverse-DNS PTR lookups) to ocsf.src_endpoint.hostname and ocsf.dst_endpoint.hostname in the Network Activity [4001] OCSF class.

Motivation

Corelight enriches conn logs with reverse-DNS hostname resolution for both the originator and responder. Previously this data was not surfaced in the OCSF output. Mapping it to hostname_t fields on the endpoint objects makes it queryable and consistent with how other log sources (e.g. TLS server_name) populate endpoint hostnames.

The source fields are arrays (vals: ["hostname"]) since a single IP can have multiple PTR records. We map the first entry via dot-index notation (id.orig_h_name.vals.0).

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

  • Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
  • Add qa/required if this PR needs QA validation, or qa/skip-qa if it does not. Exactly one of the two is required.
  • If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

Add schema-remappers for id.orig_h_name.vals.0 and id.resp_h_name.vals.0
to ocsf.src_endpoint.hostname and ocsf.dst_endpoint.hostname respectively.
Include a sanitized conn test log with DNS_PTR hostname resolution data.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@datadog-prod-us1-4
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pipelines

Fix all issues with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 1 Pipeline job failed

Validate repository | Run Validations / Validate   View in Datadog   GitHub Actions

🛟 This job is unlikely to succeed on retry. Please review your pipeline configuration. PR #23885 is missing an Agent-release QA decision label. Must set 'qa/required' or 'qa/skip-qa'.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: c114995 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!

@cepolation-datadog cepolation-datadog added the qa/skip-qa Automatically skip this PR for the next QA label May 29, 2026
@dd-octo-sts
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

dd-octo-sts Bot commented May 29, 2026

Validation Report

All 21 validations passed.

Show details
Validation Description Status
agent-reqs Verify check versions match the Agent requirements file
ci Validate CI configuration and code coverage settings
codeowners Validate every integration has a CODEOWNERS entry
config Validate default configuration files against spec.yaml
dep Verify dependency pins are consistent and Agent-compatible
http Validate integrations use the HTTP wrapper correctly
imports Validate check imports do not use deprecated modules
integration-style Validate check code style conventions
jmx-metrics Validate JMX metrics definition files and config
labeler Validate PR labeler config matches integration directories
legacy-signature Validate no integration uses the legacy Agent check signature
license-headers Validate Python files have proper license headers
licenses Validate third-party license attribution list
metadata Validate metadata.csv metric definitions
models Validate configuration data models match spec.yaml
openmetrics Validate OpenMetrics integrations disable the metric limit
package Validate Python package metadata and naming
qa-label Validate the pull request declares whether it needs QA for the next Agent release
readmes Validate README files have required sections
saved-views Validate saved view JSON file structure and fields
version Validate version consistency between package and changelog

View full run

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.

2 participants