-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 413
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge branch 'main' into fix-type-code-signature
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
138 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,138 @@ | ||
| # 0000: Additional Vulnerability Fields | ||
| <!-- Leave this ID at 0000. The ECS team will assign a unique, contiguous RFC number upon merging the initial stage of this RFC. --> | ||
|
|
||
| - Stage: **0 (strawperson)** <!-- Update to reflect target stage. See https://elastic.github.io/ecs/stages.html --> | ||
| - Date: **TBD** <!-- The ECS team sets this date at merge time. This is the date of the latest stage advancement. --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| As you work on your RFC, use the "Stage N" comments to guide you in what you should focus on, for the stage you're targeting. | ||
| Feel free to remove these comments as you go along. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 0: Provide a high level summary of the premise of these changes. Briefly describe the nature, purpose, and impact of the changes. ~2-5 sentences. | ||
| --> | ||
| This RFC proposes to expand the vulnerability fieldset to include more fields, the proposal takes into consideration various customer feedbacks provided to Security integration team, inputs from Infosec team managing vulnerabilities across Elastic and other companies. This will benefit our customers and internal product teams to provide more effective vulnerability management experience to end user. to come up with the list of fields, extensive research was done across various Vulnerability management products and schemas like OSV. It is a continuation of one of the previous RFC on similar topic- https://github.com/elastic/ecs/issues/1685 | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 1: If the changes include field additions or modifications, please create a folder titled as the RFC number under rfcs/text/. This will be where proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents will go as the RFC is iterated upon. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage X: Provide a brief explanation of why the proposal is being marked as abandoned. This is useful context for anyone revisiting this proposal or considering similar changes later on. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Fields | ||
| The `vulnerabilities` fields being proposed are as follows: | ||
|
|
||
| | Field | Type | Description / Use Case | | ||
| | ----- | ---- | ---------------------- | | ||
| | `vulnerability.vendor.id` | keyword | A vulnerability doesn't have necessary a CVE associated with it. It makes sense to seperate vulnerability ID (like CVEs) to the vendor/detection IDs. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.title` | keyword | Title/Name/Short Description for vulnerability, to be used in flyout and dashboards. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.mitigation` | text | Explains user how to fix or mitigate the problem, could be usefd to store resolution from the scanner vendor or document mitigation in place | | ||
| | `vulnerability.published` | date | The “published” field indicates the date when information about a specific vulnerability was publicly disclosed or made available.It represents the moment when details about the vulnerability were shared with the security community, vendors, and the public.This field helps security professionals track the timeline of vulnerability awareness, in ISO 8601 format - YYYY-MM-DD | | ||
| | `vulnerability.patch.*` | object | - | | ||
| | `vulnerability.patch.exists` | boolean | The “patch” field refers to whether a security fix or update (commonly known as a patch) is available to address the identified vulnerability. It indicates whether the software vendor or developer has released a solution to mitigate the vulnerability. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.patch.name` | text | Name of the patch | | ||
| | `vulnerability.patch.code` | keyword | Associated patch code for example ESA-2020-13 | | ||
| | `vulnerability.evidence` | text | A demonstration of the validity of a vulnerability claim, e.g. app.any.run replaying the exploitation of the vulnerability. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.status` | keyword | The status field helps security teams track vulnerabilities, prioritize actions, and communicate their progress effectively. Examples- open/ignored/patched/mitigated/false_positive/risk_accepted/reopened..| | ||
| | `vulnerability.tags` | keyword | This is different from cloud provider assigned resource tags, this is specifically for vulnerability. Vulnerability tags serve as a way to add custom metadata to vulnerabilities, enhancing their context and aiding in search and automation. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.first_found` | date | First time a vulnerability was found on the asset, in ISO 8601 format: 2016-05-23T08:05:34.853Z | | ||
| | `vulnerability.last_found` | date | Last time a vulnerability was found on the asset, in ISO 8601 format: 2016-05-23T08:05:34.853Z | | ||
| | `vulnerability.last_scanned` | date | Last time a scan was performed on the asset. It's important as some companies are scanning on a quarterly basis. If last_found and last_scanned are close, it means it's still an active vulnerability, in ISO 8601 format: 2016-05-23T08:05:34.853Z| | ||
| | `vulnerability.age` | long | Numbers of days since the vulnerability is active. It should be dynamically calculated (runtime fields, ingest, ...). It could either be then difference between the last_found date and the published date (preferred). It could also be the difference between the first_found and last_found dates. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.uid` | keyword | It's extremely important to be able to deduplicate different scans. It's often that we have different scanners showing the same vulnerability on the same asset. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.type` | keyword | To conclude if the vulnerability is confirmed or potential. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.*` | object | - | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.exploited` | boolean | To indicate if the vulnerability has been exploited or not. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.reference` | keyword | Exploitability databse for example CSA-KEV. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.confidence` | keyword | Confidence measure the credibility of existence and exploitability. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.first_seen` | date | First time of exploitability, in ISO 8601 format: 2016-05-23T08:05:34.853Z | | ||
| | `vulnerability.exploitability.last_seen` | date | Last time of exploitability, in ISO 8601 format: 2016-05-23T08:05:34.853Z | | ||
| | `vulnerability.affected.*` | object | The affected field is a JSON array containing objects that describes the affected package versions, meaning those that contain the vulnerability. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.affected.package` | array | Package field is a JSON object identifying the affected code library or command provided by the package. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.affected.severity` | array | This field applies to a specific package, in cases where affected packages have differing severities for the same vulnerability. | | ||
| | `vulnerability.affected.versions` | array | Affected version in whatever version syntax is used by the given package ecosystem. | | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 1: Describe at a high level how this change affects fields. Include new or updated yml field definitions for all of the essential fields in this draft. While not exhaustive, the fields documented here should be comprehensive enough to deeply evaluate the technical considerations of this change. The goal here is to validate the technical details for all essential fields and to provide a basis for adding experimental field definitions to the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 2: Add or update all remaining field definitions. The list should now be exhaustive. The goal here is to validate the technical details of all remaining fields and to provide a basis for releasing these field definitions as beta in the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Usage | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 1: Describe at a high-level how these field changes will be used in practice. Real world examples are encouraged. The goal here is to understand how people would leverage these fields to gain insights or solve problems. ~1-3 paragraphs. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Source data | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 1: Provide a high-level description of example sources of data. This does not yet need to be a concrete example of a source document, but instead can simply describe a potential source (e.g. nginx access log). This will ultimately be fleshed out to include literal source examples in a future stage. The goal here is to identify practical sources for these fields in the real world. ~1-3 sentences or unordered list. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 2: Included a real world example source document. Ideally this example comes from the source(s) identified in stage 1. If not, it should replace them. The goal here is to validate the utility of these field changes in the context of a real world example. Format with the source name as a ### header and the example document in a GitHub code block with json formatting, or if on the larger side, add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 3: Add more real world example source documents so we have at least 2 total, but ideally 3. Format as described in stage 2. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Scope of impact | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 2: Identifies scope of impact of changes. Are breaking changes required? Should deprecation strategies be adopted? Will significant refactoring be involved? Break the impact down into: | ||
| * Ingestion mechanisms (e.g. beats/logstash) | ||
| * Usage mechanisms (e.g. Kibana applications, detections) | ||
| * ECS project (e.g. docs, tooling) | ||
| The goal here is to research and understand the impact of these changes on users in the community and development teams across Elastic. 2-5 sentences each. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Concerns | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 1: Identify potential concerns, implementation challenges, or complexity. Spend some time on this. Play devil's advocate. Try to identify the sort of non-obvious challenges that tend to surface later. The goal here is to surface risks early, allow everyone the time to work through them, and ultimately document resolution for posterity's sake. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 2: Document new concerns or resolutions to previously listed concerns. It's not critical that all concerns have resolutions at this point, but it would be helpful if resolutions were taking shape for the most significant concerns. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| Stage 3: Document resolutions for all existing concerns. Any new concerns should be documented along with their resolution. The goal here is to eliminate risk of churn and instability by ensuring all concerns have been addressed. | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## People | ||
|
|
||
| The following are the people that consulted on the contents of this RFC. | ||
|
|
||
| * @smriti0321 | author | ||
| * @tinnytintin10 | Product Manager Cloud Security | ||
| * @oren-zohar | Engineering Manager Cloud Security | ||
| * @orouz | Engineer | ||
| * @clement-fouque | Information Security Analyst | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## References | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- Insert any links appropriate to this RFC in this section. --> | ||
| previous RFC - https://github.com/elastic/ecs/issues/1685 | ||
| https://ossf.github.io/osv-schema/#affected-fields | ||
|
|
||
| ### RFC Pull Requests | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- An RFC should link to the PRs for each of it stage advancements. --> | ||
|
|
||
| * Stage 0: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/2331 | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| * Stage 1: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN | ||
| ... | ||
| --> |