refactor(rules): Rename and improve Potential process doppelganging injection rule
#562
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…njection rule Make the rule more robust against false positives by checking that the process name is different than the base executable path, and also check the callstack to deduce the process is created from the low-level API function.
rabbitstack
deleted the
rename-and-improve-potential-process-doppelganging-rule
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the purpose of this PR / why it is needed?
Make the rule more robust against false positives by checking that the process name is different from the base executable path, and also check the call stack to deduce that the process was created from the low-level API function. Use
file.name/ps.namejoin links.What type of change does this PR introduce?
/kind refactor (non-breaking change that restructures the code, while not changing the original functionality)
/kind improvement
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area rules
Special notes for the reviewer
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?