Implemented msodde scanning in DOC_INFO. Fixes #875

[devmrfitz]

Description

Implemented msodde scanning in DOC_INFO
Screenshot of test result:

Related issues

closes #875

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected).

Checklist

• I have read and understood the rules about how to Contribute to this project
• The pull request is for the branch develop
• A new analyzer or connector was added, in which case:
  • Usage file was updated.
  • Advanced-Usage was updated (in case the analyzer/connector provides additional optional configuration).
  • Secrets were added in env_file_app_template, env_file_app_ci and in the Installation docs, if necessary.
  • If the analyzer/connector requires mocked testing, _monkeypatch() was used in it's class to apply the necessary decorators.
  • If a File analyzer was added, it's name was explicitly defined in test_file_scripts.py (not required for Observable Analyzers).
• If external libraries/packages with restrictive licenses were used, they were added in the Legal Notice section.
• The tests gave 0 errors.
• Linters (Black, Flake, Isort) gave 0 errors. If you have correctly installed pre-commit, it does these checks and adjustments on your behalf.
• The commits were squashed into a single one (optional, they will be squashed anyway by the maintainer)

Important Rules

• If your changes decrease the overall tests coverage (you will know after the Codecov CI job is done), you should add the required tests to fix the problem
• Everytime you make changes to the PR and you think the work is done, you should explicitly ask for a review

Real World Example

Please delete if the PR is for bug fixing.
Otherwise, please provide the resulting raw JSON of a finished analysis (and, if you like, a screenshot of the results). This is to allow the maintainers to understand how the analyzer works.

[devmrfitz]

@mlodic Is this the correct way to do the task?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #890 (059071c) into develop (aa8820f) will increase coverage by 10.89%.
The diff coverage is 82.68%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop     #890       +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage    66.75%   77.65%   +10.89%     
============================================
  Files           95      162       +67     
  Lines         3706     6185     +2479     
  Branches       519      889      +370     
============================================
+ Hits          2474     4803     +2329     
- Misses         941     1018       +77     
- Partials       291      364       +73     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...pp/analyzers_manager/file_analyzers/vt/vt3_scan.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
..._manager/observable_analyzers/dns/dns_responses.py	71.42% <ø> (ø)
api_app/permissions.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
api_app/urls.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...i_app/analyzers_manager/file_analyzers/pdf_info.py	73.91% <20.00%> (ø)
api_app/admin.py	80.00% <37.50%> (ø)
...pi_app/analyzers_manager/file_analyzers/pe_info.py	76.05% <40.00%> (ø)
api_app/analyzers_manager/file_analyzers/clamav.py	44.44% <44.44%> (ø)
...lyzers_manager/observable_analyzers/vt/vt3_base.py	46.75% <46.75%> (ø)
...pp/analyzers_manager/observable_analyzers/cymru.py	70.83% <50.00%> (ø)
... and 183 more

---

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 c4179ea...059071c. Read the comment docs.

[mlodic]

thanks for the PR! the code makes sense. A question: can you share the md5 of the sample you tried?

[devmrfitz]

thanks for the PR! the code makes sense. A question: can you share the md5 of the sample you tried?

Here is a link to the file I generated. It's md5sum is 12e274121124558a2d2356d9dbdec1a5

[mlodic]

that's great!