Skip to content

feat(crowdstrike): add identity protection assessment data stream#18237

Open
navnit-elastic wants to merge 16 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
navnit-elastic:17846-crowdstrike-idp-security_assessment
Open

feat(crowdstrike): add identity protection assessment data stream#18237
navnit-elastic wants to merge 16 commits intoelastic:mainfrom
navnit-elastic:17846-crowdstrike-idp-security_assessment

Conversation

@navnit-elastic
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic commented Apr 7, 2026

Proposed commit message

feat(crowdstrike): add identity protection security assessment data stream

- Collect Falcon Identity Protection security assessments over GraphQL (domain
  list and per-domain assessments), with ingest pipeline, field mappings, tests,
  and benchmarks.
- Replace Markdown-based navigation on existing CrowdStrike dashboards with
  Kibana Links panels, and add a link to the new Identity Protection
  Assessments dashboard.

Pipeline and related test samples come from a live CrowdStrike tenant.

Docs (Elastic tenant):

Checklist

  • I have reviewed tips for building integrations and this pull request is aligned with them.
  • I have verified that all data streams collect metrics or logs.
  • I have added an entry to my package's changelog.yml file.
  • I have verified that Kibana version constraints are current according to guidelines.
  • I have verified that any added dashboard complies with Kibana's Dashboard good practices

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

  • Clone integrations repo.
  • Install elastic package locally.
  • Start elastic stack using elastic-package.
  • Move to integrations/packages/crowdstrike directory.
  • Run the following command to run tests.

elastic-package test

Related issues

Screenshots

crowdstrike-identity-protection-assessment-dashboard

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic self-assigned this Apr 7, 2026
@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic added enhancement New feature or request Integration:crowdstrike CrowdStrike Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations] Team:SDE-Crest Crest developers on the Security Integrations team [elastic/sit-crest-contractors] labels Apr 7, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Apr 7, 2026

Vale Linting Results

Summary: 5 warnings found

⚠️ Warnings (5)
File Line Rule Message
packages/crowdstrike/docs/README.md 3726 Elastic.Latinisms Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'for example' instead of 'e.g'.
packages/crowdstrike/docs/README.md 3727 Elastic.Latinisms Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'and so on' instead of 'etc'.
packages/crowdstrike/docs/README.md 3729 Elastic.QuotesPunctuation Place punctuation inside closing quotation marks.
packages/crowdstrike/docs/README.md 3730 Elastic.Latinisms Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'for example' instead of 'e.g'.
packages/crowdstrike/docs/README.md 3731 Elastic.Latinisms Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'for example' instead of 'e.g'.

The Vale linter checks documentation changes against the Elastic Docs style guide.

To use Vale locally or report issues, refer to Elastic style guide for Vale.

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic force-pushed the 17846-crowdstrike-idp-security_assessment branch from 50bedb5 to ebe7297 Compare April 7, 2026 11:26
@andrewkroh andrewkroh added dashboard Relates to a Kibana dashboard bug, enhancement, or modification. documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. Applied to PRs that modify *.md files. labels Apr 7, 2026
add documentation

add option to configure dataSources for domains

add dashboard
@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic force-pushed the 17846-crowdstrike-idp-security_assessment branch from ebe7297 to f6c967c Compare April 7, 2026 12:07
@elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod
Copy link
Copy Markdown

elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod Bot commented Apr 8, 2026

🚀 Benchmarks report

Package crowdstrike 👍(7) 💚(2) 💔(3)

Expand to view
Data stream Previous EPS New EPS Diff (%) Result
falcon 5555.56 3311.26 -2244.3 (-40.4%) 💔
host 4484.3 3135.78 -1348.52 (-30.07%) 💔
alert 1937.98 1607.72 -330.26 (-17.04%) 💔

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2026 08:36
@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic requested a review from a team as a code owner April 8, 2026 08:36
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations)

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic requested a review from kcreddy April 29, 2026 11:51
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kcreddy kcreddy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just getting clarification on couple of script tests. Otherwise LGTM

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't this the same as previous test first_assessment just with DOMAIN_B error instead of DOMAIN_A error? Do we need to test both?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, they are different. The intent is to test errors in sequence of requests (i.e. first request fails and second successes, first successes and second fails).

The first_assessment_http_500 validates that after a failure in a middle of work-list, the collector still continues and ingests event for the next domain.

The second_assessment_http_500 validates that when the first assessment succeeds but the second fails, we still get one assessment and one error.

If you think this is redundant and not required to test at this depth, we can skip the second_assessment_http_500 test case.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, lets remove second_assessment_http_500 its testing the same code block

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@kcreddy, Please take a look at comment replies.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, they are different. The intent is to test errors in sequence of requests (i.e. first request fails and second successes, first successes and second fails).

The first_assessment_http_500 validates that after a failure in a middle of work-list, the collector still continues and ingests event for the next domain.

The second_assessment_http_500 validates that when the first assessment succeeds but the second fails, we still get one assessment and one error.

If you think this is redundant and not required to test at this depth, we can skip the second_assessment_http_500 test case.

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Copy Markdown

💚 Build Succeeded

History

cc @navnit-elastic

@navnit-elastic navnit-elastic requested a review from kcreddy May 4, 2026 12:51
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kcreddy kcreddy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

dashboard Relates to a Kibana dashboard bug, enhancement, or modification. documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. Applied to PRs that modify *.md files. enhancement New feature or request Integration:crowdstrike CrowdStrike Team:SDE-Crest Crest developers on the Security Integrations team [elastic/sit-crest-contractors] Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations]

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants