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

fortinet_fortiedr: new package for Fortinet FortiEDR ingestion #4070

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2022

Conversation

efd6
Copy link
Contributor

@efd6 efd6 commented Aug 26, 2022

What does this PR do?

This adds a package for Fortinet FortiEDR ingestion.

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.

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Screenshots

@efd6 efd6 added enhancement New feature or request Team:Security-External Integrations Integration:Fortinet (Deprecated) Use one of the specific fortinet_X labels. labels Aug 26, 2022
@efd6 efd6 self-assigned this Aug 26, 2022
@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Aug 26, 2022

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2022-10-26T21:40:49.919+0000

  • Duration: 17 min 15 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test Results
Failed 0
Passed 7
Skipped 0
Total 7

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Aug 26, 2022

🌐 Coverage report

Name Metrics % (covered/total) Diff
Packages 100.0% (1/1) 💚
Files 100.0% (1/1) 💚 2.488
Classes 100.0% (1/1) 💚 2.488
Methods 100.0% (12/12) 💚 9.445
Lines 95.349% (205/215) 👍 3.779
Conditionals 100.0% (0/0) 💚

@efd6 efd6 marked this pull request as ready for review August 26, 2022 08:03
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-external-integrations (Team:Security-External Integrations)

@efd6 efd6 requested a review from a team September 22, 2022 22:06
@botelastic
Copy link

botelastic bot commented Oct 22, 2022

Hi! We just realized that we haven't looked into this PR in a while. We're sorry! We're labeling this issue as Stale to make it hit our filters and make sure we get back to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, it'd be extremely helpful if you could take a look at it as well and confirm its relevance. A simple comment with a nice emoji will be enough :+1. Thank you for your contribution!

@botelastic botelastic bot added the Stalled label Oct 22, 2022
@efd6 efd6 removed the Stalled label Oct 23, 2022
@narph narph requested a review from P1llus October 26, 2022 08:17
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
dependencies:
ecs:
reference: git@v8.3.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we bump this one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

field: message
target_field: event.original
ignore_missing: true
ignore_failure: true
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Any reason for needing ignore_failure? We usually don't want to have that unless absolutely necessary

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed

Comment on lines 177 to 188
- name: rsa_fields
type: bool
title: Add non-ECS fields
required: false
show_user: true
default: true
- name: keep_raw_fields
type: bool
title: Keep raw parser fields
required: false
show_user: false
default: false
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are these maybe from older package?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, these were residual in fortinet_fortimanager. I'll drop them.

license: basic
categories: ["security"]
conditions:
kibana.version: "^7.14.1 || ^8.0.0"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could bump this to 7.17 maybe? Don't know how far back we want to support this, up to @jamiehynds

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@P1llus sounds good - supporting 7.17 or later is what we've done with most other new integrations so best to bump FortiEDR to 7.17 too.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

@elasticmachine
Copy link

🚀 Benchmarks report

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

@efd6 efd6 requested a review from P1llus October 28, 2022 02:46
@efd6 efd6 merged commit 1516eb6 into elastic:main Oct 28, 2022
@jamiehynds
Copy link

@efd6 I'm a day late and a dollar short, but Fortinet have just provided me with an NFR license for FortiEDR. If it's still of use for integration testing, I can provide the details.

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor Author

efd6 commented Nov 23, 2022

@jamiehynds Thanks. That will be useful for the dashboard.

@andrewkroh andrewkroh added Integration:fortinet_fortiedr Fortinet FortiEDR Logs New Integration and removed Integration:Fortinet (Deprecated) Use one of the specific fortinet_X labels. labels Aug 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Integration:fortinet_fortiedr Fortinet FortiEDR Logs New Integration
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants