<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Malware Operations CIM, catering for multiple engines and pattern types in Security</title>
    <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/Malware-Operations-CIM-catering-for-multiple-engines-and-pattern/m-p/128770#M3900</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I am currently adapting sourcetypes for Trend Micro Products to the the CIM, in order to use them with ES and the CIM app.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The CIM caters for:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;product &lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;vendor&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;product_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;However, the products I deal with have multiple scanning engines as well as multiple pattern file types. I thus propose some new fields:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;engine&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;engine_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_type&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Perhaps &lt;EM&gt;signature_version&lt;/EM&gt; can then be created using an eval of the specified fields.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
Stephan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:00:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>stephanbuys</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-11-05T14:00:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Malware Operations CIM, catering for multiple engines and pattern types</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/Malware-Operations-CIM-catering-for-multiple-engines-and-pattern/m-p/128770#M3900</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I am currently adapting sourcetypes for Trend Micro Products to the the CIM, in order to use them with ES and the CIM app.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The CIM caters for:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;product &lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;vendor&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;product_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;However, the products I deal with have multiple scanning engines as well as multiple pattern file types. I thus propose some new fields:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;engine&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;engine_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_type&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;signature_version&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Perhaps &lt;EM&gt;signature_version&lt;/EM&gt; can then be created using an eval of the specified fields.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
Stephan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:00:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/Malware-Operations-CIM-catering-for-multiple-engines-and-pattern/m-p/128770#M3900</guid>
      <dc:creator>stephanbuys</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-11-05T14:00:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Malware Operations CIM, catering for multiple engines and pattern types</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/Malware-Operations-CIM-catering-for-multiple-engines-and-pattern/m-p/128771#M3901</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Stephan,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;good suggestions, we'll look into this for the future. In the meantime, you're probably best off treating each engine version as a different product type for simplicity's sake.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:07:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Security/Malware-Operations-CIM-catering-for-multiple-engines-and-pattern/m-p/128771#M3901</guid>
      <dc:creator>jcoates_splunk</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-11-05T18:07:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

