-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 155
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
use match-scanner library #90
Conversation
} else { | ||
m.FileSeverity = updatedSeverity | ||
} | ||
m.FileSeverity = updatedSeverity |
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.
IMO we need to do something about the way we calculated severity. currently we calculate sev per file instead of per malware using the length of total strings that matched. Instead we should be looking at rule to see percentage of $strings
that matched or mixing both approaches.
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.
@ibreakthecloud please propose an algorithm for the sev calculation, looks like you have some ideas in mind, let's review that in a separate PR
31f992a
to
006deff
Compare
006deff
to
4fdb35a
Compare
7937e51
to
b7ca09c
Compare
b2da95c
to
501dbec
Compare
501dbec
to
8e4d161
Compare
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 good perf numbers regarding cpu and mem.
my todos for later:
- fix the severity logic (have something better than what we have now)
- deepfence's own threatintel for malware, where we'll curate our own rules from multiple sources, this will result in more faster matching.
Currently rules are the only bottle necks we have.
No description provided.