Skip to content

[New Rule] Web Server Potential Command Injection Request #5341

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Nov 24, 2025
Merged

[New Rule] Web Server Potential Command Injection Request #5341

merged 12 commits into from
Nov 24, 2025

Conversation

@Aegrah
Copy link
Contributor

@Aegrah Aegrah commented Nov 19, 2025

Summary

This rule detects potential command injection attempts via web server requests by identifying URLs that contain suspicious patterns commonly associated with command execution payloads. Attackers may exploit vulnerabilities in web applications to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the server, often using interpreters like Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, or shell commands. By monitoring for these indicators in web traffic, security teams can identify and respond to potential threats early.

Telemetry

{11B8D728-D313-476A-9B70-8C9531F95908}

@Aegrah Aegrah self-assigned this Nov 19, 2025
@Aegrah Aegrah added Rule: New Proposal for new rule Team: TRADE labels Nov 19, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 19, 2025

Rule: New - Guidelines

These guidelines serve as a reminder set of considerations when proposing a new rule.

Documentation and Context

  • Detailed description of the rule.
  • List any new fields required in ECS/data sources.
  • Link related issues or PRs.
  • Include references.

Rule Metadata Checks

  • creation_date matches the date of creation PR initially merged.
  • min_stack_version should support the widest stack versions.
  • name and description should be descriptive and not include typos.
  • query should be inclusive, not overly exclusive, considering performance for diverse environments. Non ecs fields should be added to non-ecs-schema.json if not available in an integration.
  • min_stack_comments and min_stack_version should be included if the rule is only compatible starting from a specific stack version.
  • index pattern should be neither too specific nor too vague, ensuring it accurately matches the relevant data stream (e.g., use logs-endpoint.process-* for process data).
  • integration should align with the index. If the integration is newly introduced, ensure the manifest, schemas, and new_rule.yaml template are updated.
  • setup should include the necessary steps to configure the integration.
  • note should include any additional information (e.g. Triage and analysis investigation guides, timeline templates).
  • tags should be relevant to the threat and align/added to the EXPECTED_RULE_TAGS in the definitions.py file.
  • threat, techniques, and subtechniques should map to ATT&CK always if possible.

New BBR Rules

  • building_block_type should be included if the rule is a building block and the rule should be located in the rules_building_block folder.
  • bypass_bbr_timing should be included if adding custom lookback timing to the rule.

Testing and Validation

  • Provide evidence of testing and detecting the expected threat.
  • Check for existence of coverage to prevent duplication.

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

Samirbous
Samirbous reviewed Nov 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
rules/cross-platform/persistence_web_server_potential_command_injection.toml
"""
from = "now-61m"
interval = "1h"
language = "esql"
Copy link
Contributor

@Samirbous Samirbous Nov 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can't we use an EQL query for this logic ? u can try to create both EQL and ES|QL in your stack and compare the execution runtime.

Copy link
Contributor

@w0rk3r w0rk3r Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

++

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Aegrah Aegrah Nov 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For this one I would prefer staying in ES|QL to ensure I can add thresholds for document volume. That doc volume allows to differentiate between an actual RCE and fuzzing.

terrancedejesus
terrancedejesus approved these changes Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Couple of needed changes. Great idea to use case for capturing different variants!

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@Aegrah Aegrah marked this pull request as draft November 24, 2025 15:48
@Aegrah Aegrah marked this pull request as ready for review November 24, 2025 15:50
@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@terrancedejesus @shashank-elastic
Update rules/cross-platform/persistence_web_server_potential_command_…
b84217e 
…injection.toml

Co-authored-by: shashank-elastic <91139415+shashank-elastic@users.noreply.github.com>
@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@terrancedejesus @shashank-elastic
Update rules/cross-platform/persistence_web_server_potential_command_…
8f9f8c6 
…injection.toml

Co-authored-by: shashank-elastic <91139415+shashank-elastic@users.noreply.github.com>
@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@tradebot-elastic
Copy link

tradebot-elastic commented Nov 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

⛔️ Test failed

Results
  • ❌ Web Server Potential Command Injection Request (esql)
    • coverage_issue: no_rta
    • stack_validation_failed: no_rta

@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic merged commit 94ff4b0 into main Nov 24, 2025
13 checks passed
@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic deleted the new-rule-potential-command-injection branch November 24, 2025 18:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@Samirbous Samirbous Samirbous left review comments

@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic shashank-elastic approved these changes

@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus terrancedejesus approved these changes

@w0rk3r w0rk3r Awaiting requested review from w0rk3r

Assignees

@Aegrah Aegrah

Labels

backport: auto Rule: New Proposal for new rule Team: TRADE

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@Aegrah @tradebot-elastic @w0rk3r @Samirbous @shashank-elastic @terrancedejesus