Skip to content
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

[Security Solution] [Detections] Update wording for read privilege check #88763

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 20, 2021

Conversation

dhurley14
Copy link
Contributor

@dhurley14 dhurley14 commented Jan 19, 2021

Summary

Update rule to only write a partial failure status not an error status when checking for read privileges on indices because cross cluster search could be giving us a false negative via the elasticsearch _has_privileges api. Also updates the text to better reflect this.

With the introduction of #83134 to determine if a rule has the necessary privileges to run against the provided indices, we discovered that the _has_privileges endpoint does not work when checking for remote indices when using cross cluster search. This PR updates the wording and changes the rule status to reflect the possibility that this endpoint could be giving us false negatives where a rule status says it does not have read privileges on a remote index (pattern) when in actuality it does.

CC: @jmikell821 @Donnater

Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

For maintainers

…us a false negative, also update the text to better reflect this
@dhurley14 dhurley14 requested review from a team as code owners January 19, 2021 21:30
@dhurley14 dhurley14 self-assigned this Jan 19, 2021
@dhurley14 dhurley14 added docs release_note:skip Skip the PR/issue when compiling release notes review Team: SecuritySolution Security Solutions Team working on SIEM, Endpoint, Timeline, Resolver, etc. Team:Detections and Resp Security Detection Response Team v7.11.0 v7.12.0 v8.0.0 labels Jan 19, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@rylnd rylnd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@dhurley14
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elasticmachine merge upstream

@kibanamachine
Copy link
Contributor

💚 Build Succeeded

Metrics [docs]

✅ unchanged

History

To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with:
@elasticmachine merge upstream

@spong spong merged commit 4435006 into elastic:master Jan 20, 2021
spong pushed a commit to spong/kibana that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
…us a false negative, also update the text to better reflect this (elastic#88763)

Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>
spong pushed a commit to spong/kibana that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
…us a false negative, also update the text to better reflect this (elastic#88763)

Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>
peluja1012 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
…us a false negative, also update the text to better reflect this (#88763) (#88793)

Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Devin W. Hurley <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>
peluja1012 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
…us a false negative, also update the text to better reflect this (#88763) (#88798)

Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Devin W. Hurley <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs release_note:skip Skip the PR/issue when compiling release notes review Team:Detections and Resp Security Detection Response Team Team: SecuritySolution Security Solutions Team working on SIEM, Endpoint, Timeline, Resolver, etc. v7.11.0 v7.12.0 v8.0.0
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants