Splunk Enterprise Security

CIM help

splunkcol
Builder

I'm reviewing the logs to make sure the fields match the Splunk Enterprise Security CIM and datamodels.

The query shows me this percentage, understanding that they are the fields that are required versus the fields that it is finding, in this order of ideas, to adjust these fields I must create an alias or I must perform an "extract" either by regular expressions or tabs?

cp_log.png

cp_log2.png

0 Karma
1 Solution

rajashekar_s
Path Finder

Per documentation, for example the action field in network traffic datamodel, prescribed values are allowed, blocked and teardown. But you have many values under action field. As suggested above, you can create a calculated field like

| eval action=case((action="xxx" OR action="yyy"),"allowed",1=1,"blocked")

Doing this on all recommended fields will increase you compliance %

View solution in original post

rajashekar_s
Path Finder

Per documentation, for example the action field in network traffic datamodel, prescribed values are allowed, blocked and teardown. But you have many values under action field. As suggested above, you can create a calculated field like

| eval action=case((action="xxx" OR action="yyy"),"allowed",1=1,"blocked")

Doing this on all recommended fields will increase you compliance %

richgalloway
SplunkTrust
SplunkTrust

Yes, you need to extract fields or create aliases to increase your CIM compliance.

---
If this reply helps you, Karma would be appreciated.
Get Updates on the Splunk Community!

Enterprise Security Content Update (ESCU) | New Releases

In December, the Splunk Threat Research Team had 1 release of new security content via the Enterprise Security ...

Why am I not seeing the finding in Splunk Enterprise Security Analyst Queue?

(This is the first of a series of 2 blogs). Splunk Enterprise Security is a fantastic tool that offers robust ...

Index This | What are the 12 Days of Splunk-mas?

December 2024 Edition Hayyy Splunk Education Enthusiasts and the Eternally Curious!  We’re back with another ...