-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 418
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
[RFC] Host and Hostname fields - Stage 0 #1512
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
6127321
b97705c
9cb92f4
60f3117
d6ec5b2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ | ||
# 0000: host and hostname fields | ||
<!-- Leave this ID at 0000. The ECS team will assign a unique, contiguous RFC number upon merging the initial stage of this RFC. --> | ||
|
||
- Stage: **0 (strawperson)** <!-- Update to reflect target stage. See https://elastic.github.io/ecs/stages.html --> | ||
- Date: **TBD** <!-- The ECS team sets this date at merge time. This is the date of the latest stage advancement. --> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
As you work on your RFC, use the "Stage N" comments to guide you in what you should focus on, for the stage you're targeting. | ||
Feel free to remove these comments as you go along. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 0: Provide a high level summary of the premise of these changes. Briefly describe the nature, purpose, and impact of the changes. ~2-5 sentences. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
Include host information (serial number, manufacturer, and model), bring hostname across other applicable fieldsets. These fields represent fields not currently represented in the ECS standard that we see in our data sources Tenable SC, Tanium, etc.) that we believe are important enough to create an ECS field to capture for our ELK Siem users. | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 1: If the changes include field additions or modifications, please create a folder titled as the RFC number under rfcs/text/. This will be where proposed schema changes as standalone YAML files or extended example mappings and larger source documents will go as the RFC is iterated upon. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage X: Provide a brief explanation of why the proposal is being marked as abandoned. This is useful context for anyone revisiting this proposal or considering similar changes later on. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## Fields | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 1: Describe at a high level how this change affects fields. Include new or updated yml field definitions for all of the essential fields in this draft. While not exhaustive, the fields documented here should be comprehensive enough to deeply evaluate the technical considerations of this change. The goal here is to validate the technical details for all essential fields and to provide a basis for adding experimental field definitions to the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 2: Add or update all remaining field definitions. The list should now be exhaustive. The goal here is to validate the technical details of all remaining fields and to provide a basis for releasing these field definitions as beta in the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting, and add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## Usage | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 1: Describe at a high-level how these field changes will be used in practice. Real world examples are encouraged. The goal here is to understand how people would leverage these fields to gain insights or solve problems. ~1-3 paragraphs. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## Source data | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 1: Provide a high-level description of example sources of data. This does not yet need to be a concrete example of a source document, but instead can simply describe a potential source (e.g. nginx access log). This will ultimately be fleshed out to include literal source examples in a future stage. The goal here is to identify practical sources for these fields in the real world. ~1-3 sentences or unordered list. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 2: Included a real world example source document. Ideally this example comes from the source(s) identified in stage 1. If not, it should replace them. The goal here is to validate the utility of these field changes in the context of a real world example. Format with the source name as a ### header and the example document in a GitHub code block with json formatting, or if on the larger side, add them to the corresponding RFC folder. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 3: Add more real world example source documents so we have at least 2 total, but ideally 3. Format as described in stage 2. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## Scope of impact | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 2: Identifies scope of impact of changes. Are breaking changes required? Should deprecation strategies be adopted? Will significant refactoring be involved? Break the impact down into: | ||
* Ingestion mechanisms (e.g. beats/logstash) | ||
* Usage mechanisms (e.g. Kibana applications, detections) | ||
* ECS project (e.g. docs, tooling) | ||
The goal here is to research and understand the impact of these changes on users in the community and development teams across Elastic. 2-5 sentences each. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## Concerns | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 1: Identify potential concerns, implementation challenges, or complexity. Spend some time on this. Play devil's advocate. Try to identify the sort of non-obvious challenges that tend to surface later. The goal here is to surface risks early, allow everyone the time to work through them, and ultimately document resolution for posterity's sake. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 2: Document new concerns or resolutions to previously listed concerns. It's not critical that all concerns have resolutions at this point, but it would be helpful if resolutions were taking shape for the most significant concerns. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Stage 3: Document resolutions for all existing concerns. Any new concerns should be documented along with their resolution. The goal here is to eliminate risk of churn and instability by ensuring all concerns have been addressed. | ||
--> | ||
|
||
## People | ||
|
||
The following are the people that consulted on the contents of this RFC. | ||
|
||
* @hadadata59 | author | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
Who will be or has been consulted on the contents of this RFC? Identify authorship and sponsorship, and optionally identify the nature of involvement of others. Link to GitHub aliases where possible. This list will likely change or grow stage after stage. | ||
|
||
e.g.: | ||
|
||
* @Yasmina | author | ||
* @Monique | sponsor | ||
* @EunJung | subject matter expert | ||
* @JaneDoe | grammar, spelling, prose | ||
* @Mariana | ||
--> | ||
|
||
|
||
## References | ||
|
||
<!-- Insert any links appropriate to this RFC in this section. --> | ||
|
||
### RFC Pull Requests | ||
|
||
<!-- An RFC should link to the PRs for each of it stage advancements. --> | ||
|
||
* Stage 0: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/1512 | ||
|
||
<!-- | ||
* Stage 1: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN | ||
... | ||
--> |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
- name: agent | ||
fields: | ||
- name: hostname | ||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
description: The agent hostname. | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
- name: destination | ||
fields: | ||
- name: hostname | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. With the I believe the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Using the example of somehost.example.com as a fully qualified domain name: There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think this addition can make sense here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Very early drafts of ECS did include Here are some of the past conversations, if anyone's curious: #175 #84 Sometimes revisiting past decisions is valuable, though, of course! However, there would be a good bit of work to reassign the |
||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
description: The destination hostname. | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | ||
- name: host | ||
fields: | ||
- name: model | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Capturing these types of inventory attributes has come up in past ECS discussions. One pitfall to avoid would be limiting them to certain field sets that wouldn't allow them to describe a broader range of assets someone might have in their inventory or CMDB. Examples could be power supplies, generators, or server racks. These items would still have In past brainstorming, the idea of creating an There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make here. We have other lower level objects that are disimmilar (.name). Not sure why using a .model for host would preclude using a .model with a different description for another object would be problematic? The inventory. or asset. concept is still talking about an entity (a host), so it would be nice for context but it would also make my search problematic (E.G. if I needed to see a SW inventory on a host). In that case the fact that the scan came from tenable or my EDR host module would be the indicator that it was a point in time inventory vice an event with an associated host. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think what @ebeahan was trying to say was that in ECS, we describe host broadly as a 'general computing instance' meaning it can be anything from hardware to virtual machine to docker container, etc. The intention with a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Understood. 1.12 has container fields, so I think that we can not worry about that issue. As far as a VM, host.model would be hard to populate, as it is not a current vmware field I am aware of. But, serial_number and vendor are capturable and exist. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I personally prefer There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As I revisited and am rethinking my suggestion, I'm starting to think adding these fields under Like @hadadata59 mentioned, we already store asset details about a host, like architecture, OS details, geolocation data, underneath There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As mentioned in #1512 (comment), I like the symmetry of using |
||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
short: Model of the host. | ||
example: "Latitude 5580" | ||
description: > | ||
The model associated with the host. | ||
|
||
- name: manufacturer | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thoughts about using
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. we have been using vendor for software and manufacturer for hardware. However, I do not see a reason to object. |
||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
short: Manufacturer of the host. | ||
example: "Dell Inc." | ||
description: > | ||
The manufacturer associated with the host. | ||
|
||
- name: serial_number | ||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
short: Serial number of the host. | ||
description: > | ||
The serial number (unique identifier) associated with the host. | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | ||
- name: source | ||
fields: | ||
- name: hostname | ||
type: keyword | ||
level: extended | ||
description: The source hostname. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
agent.*
fields are meant to describe the software entity collecting events on a host or observer. As a software entity, theagent.hostname
field has been left out intentionally since the hostname is instead an attribute of ahost.*
or anobserver.*
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have seen evidence of records (observer.) which report on a host (host.) and regarding the agent (agent.*) where the hostnames of each (observer, host, and agent) are unique.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you have an example you'd be willing to share for this discussion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ebeahan
Here is an anonymized representation of the event output from the agent (represented with 123) reporting on the HOST and the other agent deployed on the host (321).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @hadadata59! Just catching up here and want to verify I understand correctly.
From your example, you have agent 123 and agent 321 and both run on the same host that they are monitoring?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kgeller yes. two agents, one host.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome.
So in this scenario, we would say we are receiving logs from both agent 123 and agent 321 about host 1? If so, could we not just populate the host.name field in both of those sets of logs from the agent?
I don't quite follow how, in this scenario, we'd need additional hostname fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What are thoughts on leveraging the existing
agent.name
to capture the hostname?For example, Beats does this as the default, unless overridden in the configuration: elastic/beats#18000
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a single log record (not sets of logs) where the box (host.hostname), the non-reporting 'resident' agent (?) and the reporting agent (agent.hostname) all provide unique hostnames in the record.