[New Rule] Adding Coverage for `AWS S3 Static Site JavaScript File Uploaded`
Pull Request
Issue link(s):
- https://github.com/elastic/ia-trade-team/issues/585
Summary - What I changed
Adds coverage for static JS file uploads to AWS S3 buckets. This is a signal for potential web content manipulation via a compromised identity as noted in Safe{Wallet} attack.
"This rule detects when a JavaScript file is uploaded or accessed in an S3 static site directory (static/js/) by an IAM
user or assumed role. This can indicate suspicious modification of web content hosted on S3, such as injecting malicious scripts into a static website frontend."
Additional Information:
- Sites, such as Safe{Wallet}'s frontend interface for transactions are hosted in S3 buckets as static websites.
- Websites are often built via JavaScript libraries like React and then pushed to the S3 bucket
- Adversaries whom have access may download and modify the contents of the website to inject malicious code
- Typically authN is done via stolen credentials but leveraging AWS CLI or Boto3 (SDK)
- It is expected for this to have false-positives, however identity types have been scoped to IAMUser and Role as well as only when files with
.jsare uploaded. - We specifically ignore IaC user agents as it is the only fingerprint that identifies it was done via IaC. Additionally, it is not uncommon for developers to adjust the source code of the app, re-build and leverage Terraform to push it back up or leverage CloudFront.
How To Test
Testing was done via an OnWeek project for replicating ByBit attack behaviors. Query syntax is accurate.
Checklist
- [ ] Added a label for the type of pr:
bug,enhancement,schema,maintenance,Rule: New,Rule: Deprecation,Rule: Tuning,Hunt: New, orHunt: Tuningso guidelines can be generated - [ ] Added the
meta:rapid-mergelabel if planning to merge within 24 hours - [ ] Secret and sensitive material has been managed correctly
- [ ] Automated testing was updated or added to match the most common scenarios
- [ ] Documentation and comments were added for features that require explanation
Contributor checklist
- Have you signed the contributor license agreement?
- Have you followed the contributor guidelines?
Rule: New - Guidelines
These guidelines serve as a reminder set of considerations when proposing a new rule.
Documentation and Context
- [ ] Detailed description of the rule.
- [ ] List any new fields required in ECS/data sources.
- [ ] Link related issues or PRs.
- [ ] Include references.
Rule Metadata Checks
- [ ]
creation_datematches the date of creation PR initially merged. - [ ]
min_stack_versionshould support the widest stack versions. - [ ]
nameanddescriptionshould be descriptive and not include typos. - [ ]
queryshould be inclusive, not overly exclusive, considering performance for diverse environments. Non ecs fields should be added tonon-ecs-schema.jsonif not available in an integration. - [ ]
min_stack_commentsandmin_stack_versionshould be included if the rule is only compatible starting from a specific stack version. - [ ]
indexpattern should be neither too specific nor too vague, ensuring it accurately matches the relevant data stream (e.g., use logs-endpoint.process-* for process data). - [ ]
integrationshould align with theindex. If the integration is newly introduced, ensure the manifest, schemas, andnew_rule.yamltemplate are updated. - [ ]
setupshould include the necessary steps to configure the integration. - [ ]
noteshould include any additional information (e.g. Triage and analysis investigation guides, timeline templates). - [ ]
tagsshould be relevant to the threat and align/added to theEXPECTED_RULE_TAGSin the definitions.py file. - [ ]
threat,techniques, andsubtechniquesshould map to ATT&CK always if possible.
New BBR Rules
- [ ]
building_block_typeshould be included if the rule is a building block and the rule should be located in therules_building_blockfolder. - [ ]
bypass_bbr_timingshould be included if adding custom lookback timing to the rule.
Testing and Validation
- [ ] Provide evidence of testing and detecting the expected threat.
- [ ] Check for existence of coverage to prevent duplication.