metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Generating and Interacting with serialized summary objects
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:02:31 GMT
I agree with the general sentiment that we can tailor specific use cases
via UI, and I'm worried that the use case specific solution (particularly
in light of the note that it's not even general to the class of bloom
filter problems, let alone an actually general problem) becomes more work
than this as soon as about 2 more uses cases actually get realized.
Pushing that to the UI lets people solve a variety of problems if they
really want to dig in, while still giving flexibility to provide a more
tailored experience for what we discover the 80% cases are in practice.

Keeping in mind I am mostly unfamiliar with the extractor config itself, I
am wondering if it makes sense to split up the config a bit.  While a lot
of implementation details are shared, maybe the extractor config itself
should be refactored into a couple parts analogous to ETL (as a follow on
task, I think if this is true, it predates Casey's proposed change).  It
doesn't necessarily make it less complex, but it might make it more easily
digestible if it's split up by idea (parsing, transformation, etc.).

Re: Mike's point, I don't think we want the actual processing broken up as
ETL, but the representation to the user in terms of configuration could be
similar (Since we're already doing parsing and transformation). We don't
have to implement it as an ETL pipeline, but it does potentially offer the
user a way to quickly grasp what the JSON blob is actually specifying.
Making it easy to understand, even if it's not the ideal way to interact is
potentially still a win.

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:

> I mentioned this earlier, but I'll reiterate that I think this approach
> gives us the ability to make specific use cases via a UI, or other
> interface should we choose to add one, while keeping the core adaptable and
> flexible. This is ideal for middle tier as I think this effectively gives
> us the ability to pivot to other use cases very easily while not being so
> generic as to be useless. The fact that you were able to create this as
> quickly as you did seems to me directly related to the fact we made the
> decision to keep the loader somewhat flexible rather than very specific.
> The operation ordering and state carry from one phase of processing to the
> next would simply have been inscrutable, if not impossible, with a CLI
> option-only approach. Sure, it's not as simple as "put infile.txt
> outfile.txt", but the alternatives are not that clear either. One might
> argue we could split up the processing pieces as in traditional Hadoop, eg
> ETL: Sqoop ingest -> HDFS -> mapreduce, pig, hive, or spark transform. But
> quite frankly that's going in the *opposite* direction I think we want
> here. That's more complex in terms of moving parts. The config approach
> with pluggable Stellar insulates users from specific implementations, but
> also gives you the ability to pass lower level constructs, eg Spark SQL or
> HiveQL, should the need arise.
>
> In summary, my impressions are that at this point the features and level of
> abstraction feel appropriate to me. I think it buys us 1) learning from a
> starting typosquatting use case, 2) flexibility to change and adapt it
> without affecting users, and 3) enough concrete capability to make more
> specific use cases easy to deliver with a UI.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
> On Jan 4, 2018 9:59 AM, "Casey Stella" <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It also occurs to me that even in this situation, it's not a sufficient
> > generalization for just Bloom, but this is a bloom filter of the output
> of
> > the all the typosquatted domains for the domain in each row.  If we
> wanted
> > to hard code, we'd have to hard code specifically the bloom filter *for*
> > typosquatting use-case.  Hard coding this would prevent things like bloom
> > filters containing malicious IPs from a reference source, for instance.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > So, there is value outside of just bloom usage.  The most specific
> > example
> > > of this would be in order to configure a bloom filter, we need to know
> at
> > > least an upper bound of the number of items that are going to be added
> to
> > > the bloom filter.  In order to do that, we need to count the number of
> > > typosquatted domains.  Specifically at https://github.com/
> > > cestella/incubator-metron/tree/typosquat_merge/use-
> > > cases/typosquat_detection#configure-the-bloom-filter you can see how
> we
> > > use the CONSOLE writer with an extractor config to count the number of
> > > typosquatted domains in the alexa top 10k dataset so we can size the
> > filter
> > > appropriately.
> > >
> > > I'd argue that other types of probabalistic data structures could also
> > > make sense here as well, like statistical sketches. Consider, for
> > instance,
> > > a cheap and dirty DGA indicator where we take the Alexa top 1M and look
> > at
> > > the distribution of shannon entropy in the domains.  If the shannon
> > entropy
> > > of a domain going across metron is more than 5 std devs from the mean,
> > that
> > > could be circumstantial evidence of a malicious attack.  This would
> > yield a
> > > lot of false positives, but used in conjunction with other indicators
> it
> > > could be valuable.
> > >
> > > Computing that would be as follows:
> > >
> > > {
> > >   "config" : {
> > >     "columns" : {
> > >        "rank" : 0,
> > >        "domain" : 1
> > >     },
> > >     "value_transform" : {
> > >        "domain" : "DOMAIN_REMOVE_TLD(domain)"
> > >     },
> > >     "value_filter" : "LENGTH(domain) > 0",
> > >     "state_init" : "STATS_INIT()",
> > >     "state_update" : {
> > >        "state" : "STATS_ADD(state, STRING_ENTROPY(domain))"
> > >                      },
> > >     "state_merge" : "STATS_MERGE(states)",
> > >     "separator" : ","
> > >   },
> > >   "extractor" : "CSV"
> > > }
> > >
> > > Also, for another example, imagine a situation where we have a
> SPARK_SQL
> > > engine rather than just LOCAL for summarizing.  We could create a
> general
> > > summary of URL lengths in bro data which could be used for determining
> if
> > > someone is trying to send in very large URLs maliciously (see Jon
> > Zeolla's
> > > concerns in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-517 for a
> > > discussion of this).  In order to do that, we could simply execute:
> > >
> > > $METRON_HOME/bin/flatfile_summarizer.sh -i "select uri from bro" -o
> > /tmp/reference/bro_uri_distribution.ser -e ~/uri_length_extractor.json
> -p
> > 5 -om HDFS -m SPARK_SQL
> > >
> > > with uri_length_extractor.json containing:
> > >
> > > {
> > >   "config" : {
> > >     "value_filter" : "LENGTH(uri) > 0",
> > >     "state_init" : "STATS_INIT()",
> > >     "state_update" : {
> > >        "state" : "STATS_ADD(state, LENGTH(uri))"
> > >                      },
> > >     "state_merge" : "STATS_MERGE(states)",
> > >     "separator" : ","
> > >   },
> > >   "extractor" : "SQL_ROW"
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding value filter, that's already around in the extractor config
> > > because of the need to transform data in the flatfile loader.  While I
> > > definitely see the desire to use unix tools to prep data, there are
> some
> > > things that aren't as easy to do.  For instance, here, removing the TLD
> > of
> > > a domain is not a trivial task in a shell script and we have existing
> > > functions for that in Stellar.  I would see people using both.
> > >
> > > To address the issue of a more targeted experience to bloom, I think
> that
> > > sort of specialization should best exist in the UI layer.  Having a
> more
> > > complete and expressive backend reused across specific UIs seems to be
> > the
> > > best of all worlds.  It allows power users to drop down and do more
> > complex
> > > things and still provides a (mostly) code-free and targeted experience
> > for
> > > users.  It seems to me that limiting the expressibility in the backend
> > > isn't the right way to go since this work just fits in with our
> existing
> > > engine.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:40 AM, James Sirota <jsirota@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I just went through these pull requests as well and also agree this is
> > >> good work.  I think it's a good first pass.  I would be careful with
> > trying
> > >> to boil the ocean here.  I think for the initial use case I would only
> > >> support loading the bloom filters from HDFS.  If people want to
> > pre-process
> > >> the CSV file of domains using awk or sed this should be out of scope
> of
> > >> this work.  It's easy enough to do out of band and I would not include
> > any
> > >> of these functions at all.   I also think that the config could be
> > >> considerably simplified.  I think value_filter should be removed
> (since
> > I
> > >> believe that preprocessing should be done by the user outside of this
> > >> process).  I also have a question about the init, update, and merge
> > >> configurations.  Would I ever initialize to anything but an empty
> bloom
> > >> filter?  For the state update would I ever do anything other than add
> to
> > >> the bloom filter?  For the state merge would I ever do anything other
> > than
> > >> merge the states?  If the answer to these is 'no', then this should
> > simply
> > >> be hard coded and not externalized into config values.
> > >>
> > >> 03.01.2018, 14:20, "Michael Miklavcic" <michael.miklavcic@gmail.com>:
> > >> > I just finished stepping through the typosquatting use case README
> in
> > >> your
> > >> > merge branch. This is really, really good work Casey. I see most of
> > our
> > >> > previous documentation issues addressed up front, e.g. special
> > variables
> > >> > are cited, all new fields explained, side effects documented. The
> use
> > >> case
> > >> > doc brings it all together soup-to-nuts and I think all the pieces
> > make
> > >> > sense in a mostly self-contained way. I can't think of anything I
> had
> > to
> > >> > sit and think about for more than a few seconds. I'll be making my
> way
> > >> > through your individual PR's in more detail, but my first
> impressions
> > >> are
> > >> > that this is excellent.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
> > >> > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>  I'm liking this design and growth strategy, Casey. I also think
> Nick
> > >> and
> > >> >>  Otto have some valid points. I always find there's a natural
> tension
> > >> >>  between too little, just enough, and boiling the ocean and these
> > >> discuss
> > >> >>  threads really help drive what the short and long term visions
> > should
> > >> look
> > >> >>  like.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  On the subject of repositories and strategies, I agree that
> > pluggable
> > >> >>  repos and strategies for modifying them would be useful. For
the
> > first
> > >> >>  pass, I'd really like to see HDFS with the proposed set of Stellar
> > >> >>  functions. This gives us a lot of bang for our buck - we can
> > >> capitalize on
> > >> >>  a set of powerful features around existence checking earlier
> without
> > >> having
> > >> >>  to worry about later interface changes impacting users. With
the
> > >> primary
> > >> >>  interface coming through the JSON config, we are building a nice
> > >> facade
> > >> >>  that protects users from later implementation abstractions and
> > >> >>  improvements, all while providing a stable enough interface on
> which
> > >> we can
> > >> >>  develop UI features as desired. I'd be interested to hear more
> about
> > >> what
> > >> >>  features could be provided by a repository as time goes by.
> > >> Federation,
> > >> >>  permissions, governance, metadata management, perhaps?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  I also had some concern over duplicating existing Unix features.
I
> > >> think
> > >> >>  where I'm at has been largely addressed by Casey's comments on
1)
> > >> scaling,
> > >> >>  2) multiple variables, and 3) portability to Hadoop. Providing
2
> > >> approaches
> > >> >>  - 1 which is config-based and the other a composable set of
> > functions
> > >> gives
> > >> >>  us the ability to provide a core set of features that can later
be
> > >> easily
> > >> >>  expanded by users as the need arises. Here again I think the
> > >> prescribed
> > >> >>  approach provides a strong first pass that we can then expand
on
> > >> without
> > >> >>  concern of future improvements becoming a hassle for end users.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  Best,
> > >> >>  Mike
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Simon Elliston Ball <
> > >> >>  simon@simonellistonball.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>  There is some really cool stuff happening here, if only I’d
been
> > >> allowed
> > >> >>>  to see the lists over Christmas... :)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  A few thoughts...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  I like Otto’s generalisation of the problem to include
specific
> > local
> > >> >>>  stellar objects in a cache loaded from a store (HDFS seems
a
> > >> natural, but
> > >> >>>  not only place, maybe even a web service / local microservicey
> > object
> > >> >>>  provider!?) That said, I suspect that’s a good platform
> > optimisation
> > >> >>>  approach. Should we look at this as a separate piece of work
> given
> > it
> > >> >>>  extends beyond the scope of the summarisation concept and
> > ultimately
> > >> use it
> > >> >>>  as a back-end to feed the summarising engine proposed here
for
> the
> > >> >>>  enrichment loader?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  On the more specific use case, one think I would comment
on is
> the
> > >> >>>  configuration approach. The iteration loop
> > (state_{init|update|merge}
> > >> >>>  should be consistent with the way we handle things like the
> > profiler
> > >> >>>  config, since it’s the same approach to data handling.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  The other thing that seems to have crept in here is the interface
> > to
> > >> >>>  something like Spark, which again, I am really very very
keen on
> > >> seeing
> > >> >>>  happen. That said, not sure how that would happen in this
> context,
> > >> unless
> > >> >>>  you’re talking about pushing to something like livy for
example
> > >> (eminently
> > >> >>>  sensible for things like cross instance caching and faster
> RPC-ish
> > >> access
> > >> >>>  to an existing spark context which seem to be what Casey
is
> driving
> > >> at with
> > >> >>>  the spark piece.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  To address the question of text manipulation in Stellar /
metron
> > >> >>>  enrichment ingest etc, we already have this outside of the
> context
> > >> of the
> > >> >>>  issues here. I would argue that yes, we don’t want too
many paths
> > >> for this,
> > >> >>>  and that maybe our parser approach might be heavily related
to
> > >> text-based
> > >> >>>  ingest. I would say the scope worth dealing with here though
is
> not
> > >> really
> > >> >>>  text manipulation, but summarisation, which is not well served
by
> > >> existing
> > >> >>>  CLI tools like awk / sed and friends.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  Simon
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  > On 3 Jan 2018, at 15:48, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >> Even with 5 threads, it takes an hour for the full
Alexa 1m,
> so
> > I
> > >> >>>  think
> > >> >>>  > this will impact performance
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  > What exactly takes an hour? Adding 1M entries to a bloom
> filter?
> > >> That
> > >> >>>  > seems really high, unless I am not understanding something.
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Casey Stella <
> > cestella@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>  wrote:
> > >> >>>  >
> > >> >>>  >> Thanks for the feedback, Nick.
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> Regarding "IMHO, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel
for text
> > >> >>>  manipulation."
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> I would argue that we are not reinventing the wheel
for text
> > >> >>>  manipulation
> > >> >>>  >> as the extractor config exists already and we are
doing a
> > similar
> > >> >>>  thing in
> > >> >>>  >> the flatfile loader (in fact, the code is reused
and merely
> > >> extended).
> > >> >>>  >> Transformation operations are already supported
in our
> codebase
> > >> in the
> > >> >>>  >> extractor config, this PR has just added some hooks
for
> stateful
> > >> >>>  >> operations.
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> Furthermore, we will need a configuration object
to pass to
> the
> > >> REST
> > >> >>>  call
> > >> >>>  >> if we are ever to create a UI around importing data
into hbase
> > or
> > >> >>>  creating
> > >> >>>  >> these summary objects.
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> Regarding your example:
> > >> >>>  >> $ cat top-1m.csv | awk -F, '{print $2}' | sed '/^$/d'
|
> stellar
> > -i
> > >> >>>  >> 'DOMAIN_REMOVE_TLD(_)' | stellar -i 'BLOOM_ADD(_)'
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> I'm very sympathetic to this type of extension,
but it has
> some
> > >> issues:
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> 1. This implies a single-threaded addition to the
bloom
> filter.
> > >> >>>  >> 1. Even with 5 threads, it takes an hour for the
full alexa
> 1m,
> > >> >>>  so I
> > >> >>>  >> think this will impact performance
> > >> >>>  >> 2. There's not a way to specify how to merge across
threads if
> > we
> > >> >>>  do
> > >> >>>  >> make a multithread command line option
> > >> >>>  >> 2. This restricts these kinds of operations to roles
with
> heavy
> > >> unix
> > >> >>>  CLI
> > >> >>>  >> knowledge, which isn't often the types of people
who would be
> > >> doing
> > >> >>>  this
> > >> >>>  >> type of operation
> > >> >>>  >> 3. What if we need two variables passed to stellar?
> > >> >>>  >> 4. This approach will be harder to move to Hadoop.
Eventually
> we
> > >> >>>  will
> > >> >>>  >> want to support data on HDFS being processed by
Hadoop
> (similar
> > to
> > >> >>>  >> flatfile
> > >> >>>  >> loader), so instead of -m LOCAL being passed for
the flatfile
> > >> >>>  summarizer
> > >> >>>  >> you'd pass -m SPARK and the processing would happen
on the
> > cluster
> > >> >>>  >> 1. This is particularly relevant in this case as
it's a
> > >> >>>  >> embarrassingly parallel problem in general
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> In summary, while this a CLI approach is attractive,
I prefer
> > the
> > >> >>>  extractor
> > >> >>>  >> config solution because it is the solution with
the smallest
> > >> iteration
> > >> >>>  >> that:
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> 1. Reuses existing metron extraction infrastructure
> > >> >>>  >> 2. Provides the most solid base for the extensions
that will
> be
> > >> >>>  sorely
> > >> >>>  >> needed soon (and will keep it in parity with the
flatfile
> > loader)
> > >> >>>  >> 3. Provides the most solid base for a future UI
extension in
> the
> > >> >>>  >> management UI to support both summarization and
loading
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Nick Allen <
> > nick@nickallen.org>
> > >> >>>  wrote:
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >> >>>  >>> First off, I really do like the typosquatting
use case and a
> > lot
> > >> of
> > >> >>>  what
> > >> >>>  >>> you have described.
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> We need a way to generate the summary sketches
from flat
> data
> > >> for
> > >> >>>  this
> > >> >>>  >> to
> > >> >>>  >>>> work.
> > >> >>>  >>>> ​..​
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> I took this quote directly from your use case.
Above is the
> > point
> > >> >>>  that
> > >> >>>  >> I'd
> > >> >>>  >>> like to discuss and what your proposed solutions
center on.
> > This
> > >> is
> > >> >>>  >> what I
> > >> >>>  >>> think you are trying to do, at least with PR
#879
> > >> >>>  >>> <https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/879>...
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> (Q) Can we repurpose Stellar functions so that
they can
> operate
> > >> on
> > >> >>>  text
> > >> >>>  >>> stored in a file system?
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> Whether we use the (1) Configuration or the
(2)
> Function-based
> > >> >>>  approach
> > >> >>>  >>> that you described, fundamentally we are introducing
new ways
> > to
> > >> >>>  perform
> > >> >>>  >>> text manipulation inside of Stellar.
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> IMHO, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel for
text
> manipulation.
> > It
> > >> >>>  would
> > >> >>>  >> be
> > >> >>>  >>> painful to implement and maintain a bunch of
Stellar
> functions
> > >> for
> > >> >>>  text
> > >> >>>  >>> manipulation. People already have a large number
of tools
> > >> available
> > >> >>>  to
> > >> >>>  >> do
> > >> >>>  >>> this and everyone has their favorites. People
are resistant
> to
> > >> >>>  learning
> > >> >>>  >>> something new when they already are familiar
with another way
> > to
> > >> do
> > >> >>>  the
> > >> >>>  >>> same thing.
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> So then the question is, how else can we do
this? My
> suggestion
> > >> is
> > >> >>>  that
> > >> >>>  >>> rather than introducing text manipulation tools
inside of
> > >> Stellar, we
> > >> >>>  >> allow
> > >> >>>  >>> people to use the text manipulation tools they
already know,
> > but
> > >> with
> > >> >>>  the
> > >> >>>  >>> Stellar functions that we already have. And
the obvious way
> to
> > >> tie
> > >> >>>  those
> > >> >>>  >>> two things together is the Unix pipeline.
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> A quick, albeit horribly incomplete, example
to flesh this
> out
> > a
> > >> bit
> > >> >>>  more
> > >> >>>  >>> based on the example you have in PR #879
> > >> >>>  >>> <https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/879>.
This would
> allow
> > >> me to
> > >> >>>  >>> integrate Stellar with whatever external tools
that I want.
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> $ cat top-1m.csv | awk -F, '{print $2}' | sed
'/^$/d' |
> stellar
> > >> -i
> > >> >>>  >>> 'DOMAIN_REMOVE_TLD(_)' | stellar -i 'BLOOM_ADD(_)'
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Casey Stella
<
> > >> cestella@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>  >> wrote:
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> I'll start this discussion off with my idea
around a 2nd
> step
> > >> that is
> > >> >>>  >>> more
> > >> >>>  >>>> adaptable. I propose the following set of
stellar functions
> > >> backed
> > >> >>>  by
> > >> >>>  >>>> Spark in the metron-management project:
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> - CSV_PARSE(location, separator?, columns?)
: Constructs a
> > Spark
> > >> >>>  >>>> Dataframe for reading the flatfile
> > >> >>>  >>>> - SQL_TRANSFORM(dataframe, spark sql statement):
Transforms
> > the
> > >> >>>  >>>> dataframe
> > >> >>>  >>>> - SUMMARIZE(state_init, state_update, state_merge):
> Summarize
> > >> the
> > >> >>>  >>>> dataframe using the lambda functions:
> > >> >>>  >>>> - state_init - executed once per worker
to initialize the
> > state
> > >> >>>  >>>> - state_update - executed once per row
> > >> >>>  >>>> - state_merge - Merge the worker states
into one worker
> state
> > >> >>>  >>>> - OBJECT_SAVE(obj, output_path) : Save the
object obj to the
> > >> path
> > >> >>>  >>>> output_path on HDFS.
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> This would enable more flexibility and composibility
than
> the
> > >> >>>  >>>> configuration-based approach that we have
in the flatfile
> > >> loader.
> > >> >>>  >>>> My concern with this approach, and the reason
I didn't do it
> > >> >>>  initially,
> > >> >>>  >>> was
> > >> >>>  >>>> that I think that users will want at least
2 ways to
> summarize
> > >> data
> > >> >>>  (or
> > >> >>>  >>>> load data):
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> - A configuration based approach, which
enables a UI
> > >> >>>  >>>> - A set of stellar functions via the scriptable
REPL
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> I would argue that both have a place and
I started with the
> > >> >>>  >> configuration
> > >> >>>  >>>> based approach as it was a more natural
extension of what we
> > >> already
> > >> >>>  >> had.
> > >> >>>  >>>> I'd love to hear thoughts about this idea
too.
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Casey Stella
<
> > >> cestella@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>  >>> wrote:
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> Hi all,
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> I wanted to get some feedback on a sensible
plan for
> > >> something. It
> > >> >>>  >>>>> occurred to me the other day when considering
the use-case
> of
> > >> >>>  >> detecting
> > >> >>>  >>>>> typosquatted domains, that one approach
was to generate the
> > >> set of
> > >> >>>  >>>>> typosquatted domains for some set of
reference domains and
> > >> compare
> > >> >>>  >>>> domains
> > >> >>>  >>>>> as they flow through.
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> One way we could do this would be to
generate this data and
> > >> import
> > >> >>>  >> the
> > >> >>>  >>>>> typosquatted domains into HBase. I thought,
however, that
> > >> another
> > >> >>>  >>>> approach
> > >> >>>  >>>>> which may trade-off accuracy to remove
the network hop and
> > >> potential
> > >> >>>  >>> disk
> > >> >>>  >>>>> seek by constructing a bloom filter
that includes the set
> of
> > >> >>>  >>> typosquatted
> > >> >>>  >>>>> domains.
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> The challenge was that we don't have
a way to do this
> > >> currently. We
> > >> >>>  >>> do,
> > >> >>>  >>>>> however, have a loading infrastructure
(e.g. the
> > >> flatfile_loader)
> > >> >>>  and
> > >> >>>  >>>>> configuration (see https://github.com/apache/
> > >> >>>  >>> metron/tree/master/metron-
> > >> >>>  >>>>> platform/metron-data-management#common-extractor-
> properties)
> > >> which
> > >> >>>  >>>>> handles:
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - parsing flat files
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - transforming the rows
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - filtering the rows
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> To enable the new use-case of generating
a summary object
> > >> (e.g. a
> > >> >>>  >> bloom
> > >> >>>  >>>>> filter), in METRON-1378 (https://github.com/apache/met
> > >> ron/pull/879)
> > >> >>>  >> I
> > >> >>>  >>>>> propose that we create a new utility
that uses the same
> > >> extractor
> > >> >>>  >>> config
> > >> >>>  >>>>> add the ability to:
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - initialize a state object
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - update the object for every row
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - merge the state objects (in the case
of multiple threads,
> > in
> > >> the
> > >> >>>  >>>>> case of one thread it's not needed).
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> I think this is a sensible decision
because:
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - It's a minimal movement from the flat
file loader
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - Uses the same configs
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - Abstracts and reuses the existing
infrastructure
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - Having one extractor config means
that it should be
> easier
> > to
> > >> >>>  >>>>> generate a UI around this to simplify
the experience
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> All that being said, our extractor config
is..shall we
> > >> >>>  say...daunting
> > >> >>>  >>> :).
> > >> >>>  >>>>> I am sensitive to the fact that this
adds to an existing
> > >> difficult
> > >> >>>  >>>> config.
> > >> >>>  >>>>> I propose that this is an initial step
forward to support
> the
> > >> >>>  >> use-case
> > >> >>>  >>>> and
> > >> >>>  >>>>> we can enable something more composable
going forward. My
> > >> concern
> > >> >>>  in
> > >> >>>  >>>>> considering this as the first step was
that it felt that
> the
> > >> >>>  >> composable
> > >> >>>  >>>>> units for data transformation and manipulation
suddenly
> takes
> > >> us
> > >> >>>  >> into a
> > >> >>>  >>>>> place where Stellar starts to look like
Pig or Spark RDD
> > API. I
> > >> >>>  >> wasn't
> > >> >>>  >>>>> ready for that without a lot more discussion.
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> To summarize, what I'd like to get from
the community is,
> > after
> > >> >>>  >>> reviewing
> > >> >>>  >>>>> the entire use-case at https://github.com/cestella/
> > >> >>>  >>>> incubator-metron/tree/
> > >> >>>  >>>>> typosquat_merge/use-cases/typosquat_detection:
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - Is this so confusing that it does
not belong in Metron
> even
> > >> as a
> > >> >>>  >>>>> first-step?
> > >> >>>  >>>>> - Is there a way to extend the extractor
config in a less
> > >> >>>  >> confusing
> > >> >>>  >>>>> way to enable this?
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>> I apologize for making the discuss thread
*after* the
> JIRAs,
> > >> but I
> > >> >>>  >> felt
> > >> >>>  >>>>> this one might bear having some working
code to consider.
> > >> >>>  >>>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>>
> > >> >>>  >>>
> > >> >>>  >>
> > >>
> > >> -------------------
> > >> Thank you,
> > >>
> > >> James Sirota
> > >> PMC- Apache Metron
> > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message