Skip to content

[Security Solution] Disable legacy rules on upgrade to 8.x #121442

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
madirey merged 13 commits into from
Jan 10, 2022
Merged

[Security Solution] Disable legacy rules on upgrade to 8.x #121442

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1ab12e2
Disable legacy rule and notify user to upgrade
madirey Dec 16, 2021
fb3655a
Ensure rules are disabled on upgrade
madirey Dec 20, 2021
4766e64
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:elastic/kibana into disable-legacy-…
madirey Dec 20, 2021
021ec0f
Fix dupe detection on upgrade
madirey Dec 20, 2021
c5853fc
Revert "Fix dupe detection on upgrade"
madirey Dec 20, 2021
6b7851a
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:elastic/kibana into disable-legacy-…
madirey Dec 20, 2021
e0079e0
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:elastic/kibana into disable-legacy-…
madirey Dec 21, 2021
feaa923
Add legacy notification
madirey Dec 21, 2021
4896404
Merge branch 'main' into disable-legacy-rule
kibanamachine Jan 4, 2022
5ba6fbe
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:elastic/kibana into disable-legacy-…
madirey Jan 6, 2022
1a27a72
Merge branch 'disable-legacy-rule' of github.com:madirey/kibana into …
madirey Jan 6, 2022
5d07f79
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:elastic/kibana into disable-legacy-…
madirey Jan 10, 2022
7d326d6
Add tests for 8.0 security_solution rule migration
madirey Jan 10, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
32 changes: 32 additions & 0 deletions x-pack/plugins/alerting/server/saved_objects/migrations.test.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ import { RawRule } from '../types';
import { SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc } from 'kibana/server';
import { encryptedSavedObjectsMock } from '../../../encrypted_saved_objects/server/mocks';
import { migrationMocks } from 'src/core/server/mocks';
import { RuleType, ruleTypeMappings } from '@kbn/securitysolution-rules';

const migrationContext = migrationMocks.createContext();
const encryptedSavedObjectsSetup = encryptedSavedObjectsMock.createSetup();
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2056,6 +2057,37 @@ describe('successful migrations', () => {
);
});

test('doesnt change AAD rule params if not a siem.signals rule', () => {
const migration800 = getMigrations(encryptedSavedObjectsSetup, isPreconfigured)['8.0.0'];
const alert = getMockData(
{ params: { outputIndex: 'output-index', type: 'query' }, alertTypeId: 'not.siem.signals' },
true
);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.alertTypeId).toEqual(
'not.siem.signals'
);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.enabled).toEqual(true);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.params.outputIndex).toEqual(
'output-index'
);
});

test.each(Object.keys(ruleTypeMappings) as RuleType[])(
'Changes AAD rule params accordingly if rule is a siem.signals %p rule',
(ruleType) => {
const migration800 = getMigrations(encryptedSavedObjectsSetup, isPreconfigured)['8.0.0'];
const alert = getMockData(
{ params: { outputIndex: 'output-index', type: ruleType }, alertTypeId: 'siem.signals' },
true
);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.alertTypeId).toEqual(
ruleTypeMappings[ruleType]
);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.enabled).toEqual(false);
expect(migration800(alert, migrationContext).attributes.params.outputIndex).toEqual('');
}
);

describe('Metrics Inventory Threshold rule', () => {
test('Migrates incorrect action group spelling', () => {
const migration800 = getMigrations(encryptedSavedObjectsSetup, isPreconfigured)['8.0.0'];
Expand Down
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions x-pack/plugins/alerting/server/saved_objects/migrations.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ export function getMigrations(
(doc: SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc<RawRule>): doc is SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc<RawRule> => true,
pipeMigrations(
addThreatIndicatorPathToThreatMatchRules,
addRACRuleTypes,
addSecuritySolutionAADRuleTypes,
fixInventoryThresholdGroupId
)
);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ function setLegacyId(doc: SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc<RawRule>): SavedObjectUnsani
};
}

function addRACRuleTypes(
function addSecuritySolutionAADRuleTypes(
doc: SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc<RawRule>
): SavedObjectUnsanitizedDoc<RawRule> {
const ruleType = doc.attributes.params.type;
Expand All @@ -662,6 +662,7 @@ function addRACRuleTypes(
attributes: {
...doc.attributes,
alertTypeId: ruleTypeMappings[ruleType],
enabled: false,
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mikecote mikecote Jan 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@elastic/kibana-alerting-services is this sufficient for disabling a rule during migration. Or because the task still exists, the rule runs regardless?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ymao1 ymao1 Jan 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As of 8.1, we have this logic in place to skip running rules when they are disabled: #119239

That hasn't been backported to 8.0 though, so maybe it needs to be to support this PR

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ymao1 ymao1 Jan 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Even if we backported the above-mentioned PR, I'm wondering if 2 tasks will run when the rule does get enabled. Since we're just setting enabled to false here but the scheduled task still exists, a new task document will get created when the rule gets enabled and then both tasks will run

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@marshallmain marshallmain Jan 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As part of this PR, we also delete the code that registered the old rule type so the old task still exists but it doesn't get picked up by task manager to actually execute since it can't find the executor logic.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ymao1 ymao1 Jan 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha! Verified that this all works as expected. It will just leave an API key that is never invalidated. Is that a big deal @mikecote ?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mikecote mikecote Jan 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

From a platform perspective, it is ok, it will not cause any harm leaving API keys behind. If folks in the security solution are ok with this caveat, we should be ok.

params: {
...doc.attributes.params,
outputIndex: '',
Expand Down
Loading