-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
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
[bug] Rules run without required fields #1604
Comments
@crayy8 Thanks for all of the issues! I've been meaning to update the hayabusa-rules documentation. I am planning on replacing the way I have been writing rules with the standard Sigma way but haven't had time to get around to it. The reason why we have kept those fields optional is because they are technically optional in the sigma specification: https://github.com/SigmaHQ/sigma-specification/blob/main/specification/sigma-rules-specification.md |
@YamatoSecurity Thank you for the information! I figured this wasn't a big deal but wanted to make sure your team was aware of my findings incase you thought anything was worth tackling. I agree that many of the fields that you mark as required should really be required. Its strange to me that so many are optional in Sigma. 2 additional comments after reviewing the sigma docs:
|
@crayy8 Thanks for pointing this out! I will review the specs and probably make title, level, etc.. required fields. |
Describe the bug
I'm not sure how much of these are bugs so feel free to close if you do not agree. Based off the hayabusa rule documentation there are certain fields that are required and some that are optional. From testing many of the required fields are not really required and will still run without issue.
Required fields (based off documentation) that will still flag items:
The only fields that are marked as required that will actually generate an error are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: