Skip to content

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5044

Describe changes:

  • On top of Detect int count 7211 v1 #13897
  • adds a count option to multi-buffers, behaving like a keyword but syntax is email.received: count <3; instead of email.received; count: <3;
  • adds other modes to multi-buffers like all, all1 and nb

SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2634

Draft :

  • Feedback about general design ?

TODOs :

  • improve commit message (split ?)
  • update doc
  • add mode for precise index, question of back indexing...
  • add support for all multi-buf keywords

enip.command is not a keyword nor an alias
Ticket: 7211

Allows to count the number of elements, without matching on
individual elements
@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline = 27704

without matching to a specific value.

The syntax is::
keyword: count [mode] value;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we document the usages such as all, all1, nb etc that are also valid?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TODOs :

  • update doc

That is what I meant

Unless you are referring to #13897 ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had missed the TODO description in the PR, apologies.

Copy link
Contributor

@jufajardini jufajardini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Curious: this looks different than what is discussed here https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5044#note-2
Would there be a follow up to support that, or a decision to approach the feature differently?

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

Curious: this looks different than what is discussed here https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5044#note-2 Would there be a follow up to support that, or a decision to approach the feature differently?

Good catch,

So, this PR is implementing the ticket title, what is discussed further (repeated pattern) should be another ticket...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants