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

Update documentation #340

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update documentation #340

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cugu
Copy link
Contributor

@cugu cugu commented May 11, 2019

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 11, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #340 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #340   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.19%   91.19%           
=======================================
  Files           7        7           
  Lines         420      420           
=======================================
  Hits          383      383           
  Misses         37       37

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 294a297...61b10be. Read the comment docs.

@joachimmetz joachimmetz self-assigned this May 13, 2019
@joachimmetz
Copy link
Member

Thx for the PR, however there are some changes in the documentation that were deliberate TBD

e.g. what to do with DIRECTORY definition type #286

This might take a bit, but I'll have a look what parts of the PR can be merged

@joachimmetz joachimmetz self-requested a review May 13, 2019 07:05
@joachimmetz
Copy link
Member

Related issue #23

@cugu
Copy link
Contributor Author

cugu commented May 13, 2019

I'm aware of this upcoming change. Anyway
the PR represents the current state of this project as I did not see many changes in the last months.

@@ -72,6 +74,12 @@ An object of digital archaeological interest.
Where digital archaeology roughly refers to computer forensics without the
forensic (legal) context.

=== [[knowledge_base]]Knowledge Base
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The Knowledge Base is a GRR implementation detail, not part of the specification. One could use runtime environment variables to expands paths.

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 used it as an easy way to describe provides and parameter expansion. If that should not be part of the spec those parts have to be defined on another way.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If that should not be part of the spec those parts have to be defined on another way.

that needs to be assessed, currently provides is concept introduced by GRR.

@@ -207,6 +216,7 @@ Currently the following different source types are defined:
| Value | Description
| ARTIFACT_GROUP | A source that consists of a group of other artifacts.
| COMMAND | A source that consists of the output of a command.
| DIRECTORY | A source that consists of the contents of directories.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Future of DIRECTORY depends on #286

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But is it currently part of the spec? It is a used in 14 artifact definitions.

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
* [GRR Artifacts](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-14/materials/us-14-Castle-GRR-Find-All-The-Badness-Collect-All-The-Things-WP.pdf), by Greg Castle, Blackhat 2014

## Contact

[forensicartifacts@googlegroups.com](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/forensicartifacts)

[slack](https://open-source-dfir.slack.com/messages/CBSJ9TDR9)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

forensicartifacts@googlegroups.com is still valid, undo remove

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it only Google internal? Because I get an access denied (#418) on that page.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's a private (external) Google group, you'll need to subscribe to it


Parameter can also contain regular glob elements (such as `**`, `*`, `?`, `[a-z]`). For
example, having files `foo`, `bar`, `baz` glob expansion of `ba?` will yield
`bar` and `baz`. Group expansion allows defining lists of possible artifact locations for example,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Group expansion is currently not supported.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But is it part of the spec?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

not at this point

@joachimmetz
Copy link
Member

I've merged some of the changes ff2ea0c

However some of the proposed changes require a closer look what should and what should not be adopted from the initial implementation in GRR.

@cugu
Copy link
Contributor Author

cugu commented Jun 11, 2019

Thanks. I needed a more complete spec and I hope the empty spaces will be filled soon.

@joachimmetz
Copy link
Member

I needed a more complete spec and I hope the empty spaces will be filled soon.

Note that this can take some time, due to numerous factors, and things will change over time. I'll try to capture them as much as possible in issues.

At the moment we're working on a plaso implementation to surface GRR specific implementation details (assumptions), some which might be tricky to resolve.

@joachimmetz joachimmetz changed the base branch from master to main January 4, 2021 15:12
@cugu cugu closed this Apr 26, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants