SOLVED

Custom Entities

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1295028%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ECustom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1295028%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%20all%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EWhen%20you%20create%20a%20rule%20and%20configure%20your%20Entities%2C%20there%20used%20to%20be%20a%20line%20that%20says%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%22More%20custom%20entities%20coming%20soon%22%2C%20this%20seems%20to%20have%20been%20removed.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3ECan%20the%20PG%20share%20any%20announcements%20on%20this%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EWe%20would%20really%20need%20Arrays%20to%20be%20a%20supported%20Entity%20Type.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EIn%20rules%20like%20%22Failed%20login%20attempts%20to%20Azure%20Portal%22%2C%20there%20is%20an%20array%20of%20IP-addresses%20per%20event.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EAs%20we%20cannot%20map%20an%20array%20to%20the%20IP%20entity%2C%20I%20adapted%20the%20query%20to%20map%20the%20first%20address%20to%20the%20IP%20entity%20field.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThis%20solution%20isn't%20pretty%2C%20but%20it's%20the%20only%20workaround%20possible.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1307518%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Custom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1307518%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F186539%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Thijs%20Lecomte%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3BThanks%20for%20your%20feedback%2C%20unfortunately%20we%20don't%20have%20anything%20to%20share%20publicly%20about%20this%20right%20now.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThanks!%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ESarah%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1309405%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Custom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1309405%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F186539%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Thijs%20Lecomte%3C%2FA%3E%2C%20regarding%20the%20%22Failed%20login%20attempts%20to%20Azure%20Portal%22%20rule%2C%20that%20rule%20has%20been%20updated%20to%20correct%20the%20entity%20problem.%20You%20can%20copy%20the%20updated%20query%20from%20the%20Azure%20Sentinel%20Github%20repo%3A%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FAzure%2FAzure-Sentinel%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FDetections%2FSigninLogs%2FFailedLogonToAzurePortal.yaml%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FAzure%2FAzure-Sentinel%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FDetections%2FSigninLogs%2FFailedLogonToAzurePortal.yaml%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EHope%20that%20helps%20a%20bit%20until%20we%20get%20more%20entity%20types!%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1309457%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Custom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1309457%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EThis%20helps%20thank%20you!%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EBut%20this%20just%20tostrings%20the%20IP%20address.%20So%20we%20cannot%20use%20this%20to%20correlate%20to%20other%20alerts%20etc.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1312530%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Custom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1312530%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%2C%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F186539%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Thijs%20Lecomte%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThis%20is%20Ely%20from%20the%20product%20group.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ESupporting%20more%20entities%20as%20part%20of%20scheduled%20alerts%20is%20indeed%20required%20and%20planned.%20We%20are%20working%20on%20a%20solution%20to%20support%20a%20more%20flexible%20way%20to%20map%20entities%20that%20will%20support%20more%20entity%20types%20and%20more%20fields%20for%20each%20entity.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThe%20requirement%20for%20supporting%20arrays%20is%20a%20bit%20different%20and%20will%20require%20some%20thought.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EA%20short-term%20solution%20can%20be%20to%20use%20the%20mv-expand%20operator%20to%20create%20a%20line%20for%20each%20IP%20address%20and%20then%20map%20them%20using%20the%20regular%20way.%20You%20can%20then%20use%20the%20Alert%20Grouping%20feature%20(now%20available%20in%20public%20preview)%20to%20make%20sure%20you%20group%20the%20alerts%20as%20to%20not%20generate%20too%20many%20incidents.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-1352120%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Custom%20Entities%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-1352120%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F624382%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Ely_Abramovitch%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EWhen%20more%20custom%20entities%20is%20planned%20%3F%20Any%20timeline%20%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EAlso%20field%20aggregation%20in%20correlation%20should%20be%20considered%20in%20scenarios%20when%20we%20need%20to%20pass%20field%20as%20a%20parameter%20to%20the%20correlated%20rule%20especially%20in%20a%20MSSP%20enviroment%20or%20even%20multiple%20layers%20of%20correlation%20rules%20needed.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EE.g%20Alertname%20%2C%20CustomerName%20should%20be%20able%20to%20be%20aggregated%20to%20be%20able%20to%20check%20which%20alert%20got%20hit%20in%20which%20Customer.%20Is%20that%20something%20that%20will%20be%20considered%20also%20%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EDid%20not%20find%20any%20request%20so%20i%20added%20my%20own%20in%20the%20uservoice%3A%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ffeedback.azure.com%2Fforums%2F920458-azure-sentinel%2Fsuggestions%2F40271452-azure-sentinel-rules-fields-aggregation-and-custom%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22nofollow%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Ffeedback.azure.com%2Fforums%2F920458-azure-sentinel%2Fsuggestions%2F40271452-azure-sentinel-rules-fields-aggregation-and-custom%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThanks%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
Highlighted
Valued Contributor

Hi all

 

When you create a rule and configure your Entities, there used to be a line that says 

"More custom entities coming soon", this seems to have been removed.

 

Can the PG share any announcements on this?

We would really need Arrays to be a supported Entity Type.

In rules like "Failed login attempts to Azure Portal", there is an array of IP-addresses per event.

As we cannot map an array to the IP entity, I adapted the query to map the first address to the IP entity field.

 

This solution isn't pretty, but it's the only workaround possible.

5 Replies
Highlighted

@Thijs Lecomte Thanks for your feedback, unfortunately we don't have anything to share publicly about this right now.

 

Thanks!

Sarah

Highlighted

@Thijs Lecomte, regarding the "Failed login attempts to Azure Portal" rule, that rule has been updated to correct the entity problem. You can copy the updated query from the Azure Sentinel Github repo: https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Detections/SigninLogs/FailedLogonToAzurePortal.y...

 

Hope that helps a bit until we get more entity types!

Highlighted
This helps thank you!

But this just tostrings the IP address. So we cannot use this to correlate to other alerts etc.
Highlighted
Best Response confirmed by Thijs Lecomte (Valued Contributor)
Solution

Hi,@Thijs Lecomte 

 

This is Ely from the product group.

Supporting more entities as part of scheduled alerts is indeed required and planned. We are working on a solution to support a more flexible way to map entities that will support more entity types and more fields for each entity.

 

The requirement for supporting arrays is a bit different and will require some thought.

A short-term solution can be to use the mv-expand operator to create a line for each IP address and then map them using the regular way. You can then use the Alert Grouping feature (now available in public preview) to make sure you group the alerts as to not generate too many incidents.

Highlighted

@Ely_Abramovitch 

 

When more custom entities is planned ? Any timeline ?

 

Also field aggregation in correlation should be considered in scenarios when we need to pass field as a parameter to the correlated rule especially in a MSSP enviroment or even multiple layers of correlation rules needed.

 

E.g Alertname , CustomerName should be able to be aggregated to be able to check which alert got hit in which Customer. Is that something that will be considered also ?

 

Did not find any request so i added my own in the uservoice: https://feedback.azure.com/forums/920458-azure-sentinel/suggestions/40271452-azure-sentinel-rules-fi...

 

Thanks