IntelMQ-dev

intelmq-dev@lists.cert.at

6 participants
232 discussions

Classification of malware itself in IntelMQ
by Sebastian Wagner 22 Feb '21

22 Feb '21

Dear IntelMQ community, sorry for cross-posting, but I think this topic should be discussed in a wider group. IntelMQ always followed the Reference Security Incident Taxonomy (short: RSIT)[0] and its predecessor for its 'classification.taxonomy/type' fields. The Classification column in the RSIT corresponds to our "classification.taxonomy" field, and the RSIT's second column (currently called Incident examples) corresponds to our "classification.type" field. "classification.identifier" is an optional third level free-text field to give more specific context.[1] Due to historical reasons and changes on both sides - IntelMQ as well as the RSIT -, IntelMQ's classification scheme deviated a bit from the RSIT over time. I'm working on aligning them again for 3.0, which works straightforward in most cases. But for one case, I need your input. The predecessor of the RSIT (the eCSIRT.net taxonomy)[2] used the malicious code taxonomy differently: To classify malware itself into categories, like virus, worm, trojan, etc. The RSIT never did that, as classifying malware is never unambiguous and there are plenty of existing classification scheme out there, which do this already. Also, the focus of the RSIT is different, as it classifies the incidents/events, not malware samples. And for this reason, IntelMQ had (until < 3.0.0) the classification.type "malware" in IntelMQ. Most of the usages were wrong anyway, and should have been infected-device, malware-distribution or something else anyway. There is only one usage in IntelMQ, which can not be changed. And that one is really about malware itself (or: the hashes of samples) as used in the GitHub Feed parser[3] and the FireEye Parser[4]. But the issue is more generic, as we need to decide anyway, how we want to deal with such malware-IoCs. A malware (hash) does not fit into the RSIT. It's neither an Infected System, a C2 Server, Malware Distribution nor Malware Configuration. It's just a malware (hash). I see four options: 1) Deviate from the RSIT and just use 'classification.taxonomy' = 'Malicious Code' and 'classification.type' = 'malware' 2) Deviate slightly less from the RSIT and use 'classification.taxonomy' = 'other' and 'classification.type' = 'malware' 3) Adhere strictly to the RSIT and use 'classification.taxonomy' = 'other' and 'classification.type' = 'other' and "classification.identifier" = 'malware' 4) IntelMQ does not support this use case In cases 1) and 2) "classification.identifier" could be used to specify what the event is about, e.g. "hash", or the malware family. I'm currently in favor of option 2), as we can keep the meaning of "Malicious Code" in sync with the RSIT and still support the use-case sufficiently. But my opinion could change during the discussion :) Do you see any more options than I listed above? What do you favor? best regards Sebastian [0]: https://github.com/enisaeu/Reference-Security-Incident-Taxonomy-Task-Force/… [1]: https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dev/data-harmonization.html#classi… [2]: https://www.trusted-introducer.org/Incident-Classification-Taxonomy.pdf [3]: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/f7507ca2643fe8ddb3817c9be1209504e… [4]: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/pull/1745 -- // Sebastian Wagner <wagner(a)cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7201 // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

1 0

The IntelMQ 2.3.0 Release candidate waits to be tested
by Sebastian Wagner 22 Feb '21

22 Feb '21

Dear devs, We are in the final sprint of releasing the feature release version 2.3.0 and we are actively looking for testers! Ideally, we'd like to finish the 2.3.0 version at end of February. As Python 3.6 is required, support for Debian 9 and Ubuntu 16.04 had to be dropped. The list of supported operating systems is now: * CentOS 7 and 8 (with EPEL activated) * Debian 10 * Fedora 32, 33, Rawhide * openSUSE Leap 15.1, 15.2, Tumbleweed * Ubuntu: 18.04, 20.04, 20.10 (with universe activated) * Docker Engine: 18.x or higher The other major change is the split of the IntelMQ Manager into a separate API as backend (Thanks Birger) and the switch to Python for the latter (Thanks SUNET and Intevation). And thanks for all the numerous contributors who contributed greatly to the majorly extended feature set, by providing code, bug reports and other inputs. For all the other changes, please have a look at the changelog and the news file in the repository. I will give a more detailed overview of the changes in the final 2.3.0 announcement. https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/develop/CHANGELOG.md https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/develop/NEWS.md To install the release candidate version from git, use the "maintenance" branch or 2.3.0.rc1 Tag (or if you are looking for more adventures, the "develop" branch,which we will use for the development of 3.0 now). For installation via pip, use `pip install --pre intelmq`, the version is called 2.3.0rc1 there. And for the packages, use the unstable repository: https://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home:sebix:intelmq:unst… For the new beta docker image (Thanks Sebastian Waldbauer), install certat/intelmq-full: https://hub.docker.com/r/certat/intelmq-full Also summarized here: https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dev/guide.html#testing-pre-releases best regards Sebastian -- // Sebastian Wagner <wagner(a)cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7201 // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

1 0

Advice for setting up tests for bot chains
by Mika Silander 19 Feb '21

19 Feb '21

Hi, While writing tests to individual bots seems quite straightforward, what would be the recommended way for writing (unit?) tests for a chain of bots? Ideally, I'd like to feed in individual test events to the first bot and only check what is returned by the last bot (event or whatever the expected outcome should be). I suppose there are many bad and clumsy ways of doing this so that's why I air this question on the dev list. Thanks for all help in advance, Mika

4 6

Bot behaviour in case of unrecoverable errors
by Mika Silander 16 Feb '21

16 Feb '21

Hi, Trying to assess what safeguards are sufficient: what happens when a bot has some internal failure and it "dies"? Will intelmq restart the bot automatically or will it be up to the admin of intelmq to manually restart it? And if automatic restarts is the norm, how could one stop the bot from processing new incoming messages if say, X consecutive failures like these have happened within the time frame of the last 5 minutes? By writing some log entries at bot startup and then making the bot itself analyze the log at every restart? I'm trying to make sure a burst of erroneous/malformed events are not accidentally forwarded by a malfunctioning or partially functioning bot. Cheers, Mika

2 6

Event rate limiting
by Mika Silander 28 Jan '21

28 Jan '21

Hi, Maybe this is answered somewhere already but I wasn't able to find any hints and I've just recently started developing bots so here's one for the list: I'd need to limit the rate at which events are processed to avoid swamping a back end system with requests. Big bursts of events should remain in the inqueue of such a rate limiting bot, and then be forwarded at a configurable rate e.g. X events/minute. Afaik, by default, bots attempt to process all the events in their inqueue without delay. How should one go about to create such a bot? Is it safe to put the bot process (=operating system process) to sleep for N seconds from within the bot's process method and then proceed, can we do busy-looping (not nice!), or, some other solution? Br, Mika

3 5

IEP01: IntelMQ Configuration Handling
by Birger Schacht 26 Jan '21

26 Jan '21

Dear IntelMQ developers and users, below are a couple of ideas how to (hopefully) make configuration of IntelMQ easier. Feel free to give feedback, voice concerns or simply ask if there is something unclear. We plan to evaluate the feedback that emerged in two weeks (after the christmas holidays). # IntelMQ Configuration Handling (IntelMQ Enhancement Proposal 01) ## Format ### JSON At the moment, the configuration format of IntelMQ is JSON[^1]. It is parsed using the Python json library, which is part of the Python Standard Library. The downside of JSON is, that is is hard to read and and write for humans and it cannot contain comments. [^1]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/index.html ### YAML There is a proposal[^2] to use YAML as the default configuration format. YAML provides way better readability for humans and YAML supports single line comments. There are two Python YAML libraries out there, the one being PyYAML[^3] and the other being ruamel.yaml[^4]. The former is a project by the YAML project itself. The latter is a fork of the former and had much more activity over the years and better support of the standard. It seems that pyyaml caught up in the last few years. We don't need any edge cases, so both libraries would be good for configuration files. According to this issue[^5] pyyaml does not support “editing YAML whilst maintaining comments”, which might be a deal breaker, but this issue is from 2016, this might have changed. On the other hand, IntelMQ does not edit configuration at the moment. pyyaml and ruamel.yaml are available as package in all relevant Linux distributions. [^2]: https://github.com/gethvi/intelmq/blob/ideas/docs/Ideas.md#changing-configu… [^3]: https://pyyaml.org/ [^4]: https://yaml.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [^5]: https://github.com/yaml/pyyaml/issues/46 ### INI The Python Standard Library also ships configparser[^6], which is a “configuration language which provides a structure similar to what’s found in Microsoft Windows INI files”. The files can contain comments, it comes with a [DEFAULT] section, which can be used for default values and the configuration files can contain variables. One downside is that all the configurations are Strings, which means we would have to do parsing ourself. [^6]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/configparser.html ### toml Tom's Obvious, Minimal Language is another contender for the role of IntelMQs configuration file format. It looks similar to the INI file format, but comes with various data types. It also allows comments. There is a Python library[^7] that seems to be very active. toml is also used as the format for the proposed pyproject.toml file and by the rust community for their package configuration files. toml's syntax for dictionaries is hard to read/write, harder than with JSON. [^7]: https://pypi.org/project/toml/ ### Further information * The summary on file formats on the PEP518 proposition: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0518/#other-file-formats * At the moment we are leaning towards YAML. Regarding the library, we would choose ruamel.yaml, because it seems to have a more active upstream and it can retain comments when it modifies a yaml file. ## Storage This part is about the question where do we store the configuration?. The ideas document[^8] on GitHub already proposes to remove the pipeline.conf and specifying the destination pipelines in the individual bot configuration part. The declaration of the source queue can be dropped then as well, as it follows a rule anyway. In addition to that, to make the setup of IntelMQ easier, the defaults.conf should be dropped. Default values should be set in the Bot classes respectively in the IntelMQ process managers, but there is no need for a separate file. Another question is, if every bot should have their own configuration file. Some users wish to be able to start a bot without having to rely on IntelMQ, but at the moment, the bot gets the configuration from IntelMQ's runtime.conf. If we want to support the request to be able to pass individual configurations to bots, we could allow users to pass a separate configuration file to the bot (i.e. using `-c /path/to/config.$ext`). If that file is not set or does not contain the bots id, it is ignored and IntelMQ's runtime.conf is used as usual. If it does exists, the global runtime.conf is still parsed (if it exists - it should also be possible to run a bot without a runtime.conf) but only the values that are not set in the individual configuration file are considered. This individual configuration file would also allow a bot to be run in a docker environment without having to set any environment variables. This would make configuration handling probably easier, because then configuration settings could be stored in a file (and managed by a configuration management system) and the configuration file could contain comments. Proposal: * IntelMQ gets one global configuration file for all the bots and the pipeline.conf will be removed * This global configuration file is `${PREFIX}/etc/intelmq/intelmq.$ext`. If it does not exists or does not define any bots, IntelMQ should exit gracefully. The file extension depends on the chosen format. * The global configuration file contains an array of bot configurations with bot-ids as keys. * Every bot reads the global configuration file and extracts their own settings (as usual). * Every bot handles 0 to n `-c /path/to/configurationfile.$ext` flags, which are treated the same way as the global configuration file. The further ahead the configuration file in the commandline, the stronger the content (this allows us to have multiple non-global configuration files (i.e. for multiple groups)) Example: ``` > botcommand bot-id -c /etc/bots/botname.$ext -c /etc/bots/groups/group_foo.$ext ``` * Every bot also consults the environment and the values that are set their overwrite the values in any configuration file * There are also configuration files which list settings that are not bot specific, i.e. via a reserved key default (successor of the defaults.conf file) or group:id, those are also handled like other configuration files, but the bot does not compare its name to the key of the configuration. All the evaluated configuration formats provide the possibility to arrange the configuration parameters in hierarchies. To make the configuration files more readable, IntelMQ should make use of this hierarchy instead of denoting the different hierarchy levels with underscores. So instead of writing `http_proxy` the http parameter would have a childparameter proxy. For backwards compatibility and cases where the underscore does not imply hierarchy, the underscore notation will still work. In addition, IntelMQ should also make use of environment variables - those are still denoted using an underscore as delimiter and are prepended with `INTELMQ`: `INTELMQ_HTTP_PROXY`. [^8]: https://github.com/gethvi/intelmq/blob/ideas/docs/Ideas.md ### Caveats There are configuration settings, that do not really concern the bot- for example the type of process manager, that should be used to run the bot. In an ideal setup, the bot should be totally indifferent as to if it runs in a Docker container, on bare metal, in a SystemD unit file or with SupervisorD. This decision should only concern the tool managing all the bots (intelmqctl or in the future intelmq-api (which at the moment uses intelmqctl)). Another example is the enabled setting. At the moment, those are part of the individual bot configuration, but it might make sense to move them to a management.conf configuration file which is only for managing the individual bots, but not for configuring their parameters (this file would then also (for every bot) have a field that lists the configuration files the bot should consider when reading its configuration). On the other hand, this might make the configuration more complex again, now that we are trying to merge pipeline.conf and runtime.conf. We could also decide to make those configuration settings be part of the global configuration file, given that the individual bots should anyway simply ignore settings they do not know how to handle. ### Overriding by command line parameters If needed, a user can override specific bot settings using the -p switch (i.e. `-p redis_cache=example.com`). This should be easy to implement, in the best case scenario this is only one line of additional code in the Bot class. ### Examples A global configuration file with multiple bots /etc/intelmq/intelmq.yml ``` - shodan1: module: intelmq.bots.collectors.shodan.collector - mylittlebot23: module: intelmq.bots.expert.asn_lookup.expert http: proxy: http://myproxy.tld:80 - fop1: module: intelmq.bots.outputs.file output: filename: /dev/null ``` We can run a bot with intelmq-bot shodan1 which is the same as `intelmq-bot shodan1 -c /etc/intelmq/intelmq.yml` Another configuration file with multiple bots /root/intelmq-bots-managed-by-root: ``` - shodan2: module: intelmq.bots.collectors.shodan.collector - fop1: module: intelmq.bots.outputs.file output: filename: /var/log/fop1.log ``` We can run a bot with `intelmq-bot shodan2 -c /root/intelmq-bots-managed-by-root`; We can run a bot using `intelmq-bot fop1 -c /root/intelmq-bots-managed-by-root` which would then send output to `/var/log/fop1.log`. A configuration for a group in /etc/intelmq/collector-group.yml ``` - group:collectors http: proxy: http://thirdparty.proxy.tld:9000 ``` We can run a bot with intelmq-bot `mylittlebot23 -c /etc/intelmq/collector-group.yml` which uses the third-party proxy. ## Internal handling Every bot class defines their own settings as class variables. Every class variable has to be typed. Every class variable should be set to a reasonable default, otherwise None. The init of the (abstract) Bot class should load all the relevant configuration files and then overwrite the settings. If a setting is still None and the value of the setting is vital for the functionality of the bot, the bot should stop and emit a meaningful error message. For the most common types of settings, there should be Python objects to check the values. Value checking should only be done after all the configurations are merged. -- // Birger Schacht <schacht(a)cert.at> // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

6 14

Request for Testing and Feedback: Shadowserver API collector and parser
by Birger Schacht 19 Jan '21

19 Jan '21

Hi, Shadowserver nowadays not only sends out reports by Mail but also provides an API [0] to query reports. We recently implemented a Shadowserver Reports API collector bot [1] that downloads the reports from the API and feeds them into IntelMQ. To parse the downloaded feeds (in JSON format) we built upon the existing Shadowserver parsing logic and created a JSON parser [2] that's meant to be used together with the Shadowserver Reports API collector bot. If anyone is interested in testing the collector and parser that would be great- any feedback, bug reports or improvements are highly appreciated. To use the collector you will need a Report API Key, which you can request on [3]. cheers, Birger [0] https://www.shadowserver.org/what-we-do/network-reporting/api-reports-query/ [1] https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/bots.html#shadowserver-report… [2] https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/bots.html#shadowserver [3] https://www.shadowserver.org/contact/ -- // Birger Schacht <schacht(a)cert.at> // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

1 0

IntelMQ Docker Image (beta)
by Sebastian Waldbauer 15 Jan '21

15 Jan '21

====== IntelMQ Docker Image *(beta)* ====== *CAUTION* Please do not use this image in production yet! ===== Introduction ===== We are constantly trying to make the installation of IntelMQ easier for a wider user-base. Therefore we are currently working on an IntelMQ container[^1]. Because of the early stage, input from you is highly appreciated. We are currently targeting Docker Engine 18.x and higher. [^1] https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container ===== Current implementation ===== TL;DR: The image is a beta test, docker containers runs isolated, worth to test! *ATTENTION* The image provided is not fully Docker compliant. We are releasing the image to collect feedback and gather information for future improvements. The container should be considered as a beta version. There will likely be breaking changes in future versions of the container. The image is available on Dockerhub[^4]. You can find documentation on how to install and run the container in the IntelMQ documentation [^doc] The container comes preinstalled with IntelMQ Manager[^3], which will be the only way to control the IntelMQ installation in the container. You can't use `intelmqctl` outside the container to control IntelMQ in the container. At the moment, the image is shipped with the development version of IntelMQ[^2] and the last stable version 2.2.1 IntelMQ Manager[^3]. This means that the new IntelMQ API is //not// yet part of the Docker image. You can check the current included versions by using ```docker inspect --format '{{ index .Config.Labels "org.label-schema.vcs-ref"}}' certat/intelmq-full:1.0``` Build steps and deployment information is provided in IntelMQ Docker[^5] Repository. [^2] https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/ [^3] https://github.com/certtools/intelmq-manager [^4] https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/certat/intelmq-full/general [^5] https://github.com/certat/intelmq-docker [^doc]: https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user/installation.html -- // Sebastian Waldbauer <waldbauer(a)cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7202 // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

2 1

An expert bot for Request Tracker's RT::IR
by Mika Silander 13 Jan '21

13 Jan '21

Hi, We recently decided to try IntelMQ with the intent to have it push security events into a Request Tracker (RT) instance. The events would thus be managed as RT::IR tickets within RT. We didn't manage to make the Request Tracker output bot working and we are not entirely sure whether it is because we have just missed something in its configuration or whether it has some other problem. Thus, what is the current status of this bot? Is it still usable with RT versions 4.x and 5.0.x ? Ideally, we'd like to have/create an RT + RT::IR output bot that uses the newer RT REST API 2.0. If there's anyone with similar endeavours, I'd be happy to hear from you. Br, Mika

2 3

IntelMQ 2.2.3 Christmas release
by Sebastian Wagner 23 Dec '20

23 Dec '20

Merry Christmas, dear community :) More or less last minute I decided to do a bugfix release before the holidays *really* start, because we already collected some fixed in the last weeks/months. There a no spectacular changes in this minor release, but the upcoming 2.3.0 will have some major changes for the IntelMQ Manager backend / the new IntelMQ API and the deprecation of Python 3.5. Installation documentation: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/2.2.3/docs/INSTALL.md Upgrade documentation: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/2.2.3/docs/UPGRADING.md The deb/rpm packages will be available in the repositories in the next few hours. The NEWS: ### Harmonization A bug in the taxonomy expert did set the Taxonomy for the type `scanning` to `information gathering` whereas for the type `sniffing` and `social-engineering`, the taxonomy was correctly set to `information-gathering`. This inconsistency for the taxonomy `information-gathering` is now fixed, but the data eventually needs to fixed in data output (databases) as well. There are still some inconsistencies in the naming of the classification taxonomies and types, more fixes will come in version 3.0.0. See [issue #1409](https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues/1409). ### Postgres databases The following statements optionally update existing data. Please check if you did use these feed names and eventually adapt them for your setup! ```SQL UPDATE events SET "classification.taxonomy" = 'information-gathering' WHERE "classification.taxonomy" = 'information gathering'; ``` The full CHANGELOG: ### Documentation - Bots/Sieve expert: Add information about parenthesis in if-expressions (#1681, PR#1687 by Birger Schacht). ### Harmonization - See NEWS.md for information on a fixed bug in the taxonomy expert. ### Bots #### Collectors - `intelmq.bots.rt.collector_rt`: Log the size of the downloaded file in bytes on debug logging level. #### Parsers - `intelmq.bots.parsers.cymru.parser_cap_program`: - Add support for protocols 47 (GRE) and 59 (IPv6-NoNxt). - Add support for field `additional_asns` in optional information column. - `intelmq.bots.parsers.microsoft.parser_ctip`: - Fix mapping of `DestinationIpInfo.DestinationIpConnectionType` field (contained a typo). - Explicitly ignore field `DestinationIpInfo.DestinationIpv4Int` as the data is already in another field. - `intelmq.bots.parsers.generic.parser_csv`: - Ignore line having spaces or tabs only or comment having leading tabs or spaces (PR#1669 by Brajneesh). - Data fields containing `-` are now ignored and do not raise an exception anymore (#1651, PR#74 by Sebastian Waldbauer). #### Experts - `intelmq.bots.experts.taxonomy.expert`: Map type `scanner` to `information-gathering` instead of `information gathering`. See NEWS file for more information. ### Tests - Travis: Deactivate tests with optional requirements on Python 3.5, as the build fails because of abusix/querycontacts version conflicts on dnspython. ### Known issues - Bots started with IntelMQ-Manager stop when the webserver is restarted. (#952). - Corrupt dump files when interrupted during writing (#870). -- // Sebastian Wagner <wagner(a)cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7201 // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/ // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/ // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
24
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

IntelMQ-dev