metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zeolla@GMail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pcap UI user requirements
Date Mon, 07 May 2018 20:04:45 GMT
>From my perspective PCAP is primarily used as a follow-on to an alert or
meta-alert - people very rarely use PCAP for initial hunting.  I know this
has been brought up by Otto, Mike, and Ryan across the two related threads
and I think it's all spot on.  Going from an alert or meta-alert to pulling
PCAP would by far the primary use case for this in every SOC I've ever
worked in (not necessarily a representative sample).

I also have some additional thoughts on the feature side after doing some
brainstorming and talking to two of the SOCs I work most with:
 - Limit the size of the PCAP, not just the date range, and maybe even have
a configurable cluster-wide admin max for PCAP retrieval, set to 0/infinite
by default.
 - Set priority of PCAP queries.  Perhaps there's an automated
pcap retrieval 'just in case', which should have a lower priority than an
interactive request via the UI.
 - Ability to pause/resume (not just cancel) jobs.
 - Configurable cluster-wide admin max # of current PCAP queries, set to
0/infinite by default.
 - Ability to pull PCAP live off the wire and stream it into a file.
 - Ability to filter PCAP by providing a BPF filter to apply in server-side
post-processing (less efficient, but very versatile).
 - Request what PCAP data exists in the cluster (answering "how far back
can I go?")
 - This is obvious and is probably assumed, but queries based on any set of
the network 5 tuple (IPs, Ports, Protocol) with at least 1 required.

Jon

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:44 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is the ‘views’ part.
>
> We can have options on the data output, if you have output full data, then
> we can have different views and interactions for inspection and level of
> detail.
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2018 at 09:37:13, Michel Sumbul (michelsumbul@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> It can be like a report but also to investigate some case where the user
> want to see the whole packet (all the bits and bytes). Like in wireshark,
> something interactive no?
>
> 2018-05-04 14:33 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>:
>
> > The PCAP Query seems more like PCAP Report to me. You are generating a
> > report based on parameters.
> > That report is something that takes some time and external process to
> > generate… ie you have to wait for it.
> >
> > I can almost imagine a flow where you:
> >
> > * Are in the AlertUI
> > * Ask to generate a PCAP report based on some selected alerts/meta-alert,
> > possibly picking from on or more report ‘templates’
> > that have query options etc
> > * The report request is ‘queued’, that is dispatched to be be
> > executed/generated
> > * You as a user have a ‘queue’ of your report results, and when the
> report
> > is done it is queued there
> > * We ‘monitor’ the report/queue press through the yarn rest ( report
> > info/meta has the yarn details )
> > * You can select the report from your queue and view it either in a new
> UI
> > or custom component
> > * You can then apply a different ‘view’ to the report or work with the
> > report data
> > * You can print / save etc
> > * You can associate the report with the alerts ( again in the report info
> )
> > with…. a ‘case’ or ‘ticket’ or investigation something or other
> >
> >
> > We can introduce extensibility into the report templates, report views (
> > thinks that work with the json data of the report )
> >
> > Something like that.
> >
> >
> > On May 4, 2018 at 09:19:15, Ryan Merriman (merrimanr@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Continuing a discussion that started in a discuss thread about exposing
> > Pcap query capabilities in the back end. How should we expose this
> feature
> > to users? Should it be integrated into the Alerts UI or be separate
> > standalone UI?
> >
> > To summarize the general points made in the other thread:
> >
> > - Adding this capability to the Alerts UI will make it more of a
> > composite app. Is that really what we want since we have separate UIs for
> > Alerts and management?
> > - Would it be better to bring it in on it's own so it can be released
> > with qualifiers and tested with the right expectations without affecting
> > the Alerts UI?
> > - There are some use cases that begin with an infosec analyst doing a
> > search on alerts
> > followed by them going to query pcap data corresponding to the
> > threats they're investigating. Would having these features in the same
> > UI streamline this process?
> >
> > There was also mention of some features we should consider:
> >
> > - Pcap queries should be made asynchronous via the UI
> > - Take care that a user doesn't hit refresh or POST multiple times and
> kick
> > off 50 mapreduce jobs
> > - Options for managing the YARN queue that is used
> > - Provide a "cancel" option that kills the MR job, or tell the user to
> > go to the CLI to kill their job
> > - Managing data if multiple users run queries
> > - Strategy for cleaning up jobs and implementing a TTL (I think this one
> > will be tricky and definitely needs discussion)
> > - Date range or other query limits
> >
> > A couple other features I would add:
> >
> > - Ability to paginate through results
> > - Ability to download results through the UI
> > - Realtime status of a running job in the UI
> >
> > Let me know if I missed any points or did not correctly capture them
> > here. What
> > other points do we need to consider? What other features should be
> > required? Nice to have?
> >
>
-- 

Jon

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