Skip to content

[Rule Tuning] Forwarded Google Workspace Security Alert#6166

Open
imays11 wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
rule_tuning_promotion_alert
Open

[Rule Tuning] Forwarded Google Workspace Security Alert#6166
imays11 wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
rule_tuning_promotion_alert

Conversation

@imays11
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@imays11 imays11 commented May 19, 2026

Pull Request

Issue link(s):

Summary - What I changed

  • reduced execution interval
    we have a pending Integrations request to reduce the default lag ingest time from 2 hours to 3-5 minutes since the data is available near real time. Until that request is made we will keep the large look back window as is.

  • removed filebeat index as it does not seem to be a supported data stream

  • specified .alert-* index

Otherwise the rule is triggering as expected, including the severity_override fields. The high volume in telemetry should be adjusted via customer exclusions as this rule is simply meant to surface existing alerts within customer GWS enviroment. Suggestions are included for exclusions.

Alerts in alert Center

Screenshot 2026-05-19 at 4 56 04 PM

Alerts in Kibana

Screenshot 2026-05-19 at 4 53 08 PM

How To Test

I manually tested this rule by creating, suspending, and deleting a new user.

- reduced execution interval
** we have a pending Integrations request to reduce the default lag ingest time from 2 hours to 3-5 minutes since the data is available near real time. Until that request is made we will keep the large look back window as is.

- replace `rule_name_override` with the ECS field `rule.name` which is derived from the original rule name field of the Security Rule. While in most cases the field we had `google_workspace.alert.type` was the same value, in some cases it is different showing that `rule.name` is the proper field for this.

Otherwise the rule is triggering as expected, including the severity_override fields
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rule: Tuning - Guidelines

These guidelines serve as a reminder set of considerations when tuning an existing rule.

Documentation and Context

  • Detailed description of the suggested changes.
  • Provide example JSON data or screenshots.
  • Provide evidence of reducing benign events mistakenly identified as threats (False Positives).
  • Provide evidence of enhancing detection of true threats that were previously missed (False Negatives).
  • Provide evidence of optimizing resource consumption and execution time of detection rules (Performance).
  • Provide evidence of specific environment factors influencing customized rule tuning (Contextual Tuning).
  • Provide evidence of improvements made by modifying sensitivity by changing alert triggering thresholds (Threshold Adjustments).
  • Provide evidence of refining rules to better detect deviations from typical behavior (Behavioral Tuning).
  • Provide evidence of improvements of adjusting rules based on time-based patterns (Temporal Tuning).
  • Provide reasoning of adjusting priority or severity levels of alerts (Severity Tuning).
  • Provide evidence of improving quality integrity of our data used by detection rules (Data Quality).
  • Ensure the tuning includes necessary updates to the release documentation and versioning.

Rule Metadata Checks

  • updated_date matches the date of tuning PR merged.
  • min_stack_version should support the widest stack versions.
  • name and description should be descriptive and not include typos.
  • query should be inclusive, not overly exclusive. Review to ensure the original intent of the rule is maintained.

Testing and Validation

  • Validate that the tuned rule's performance is satisfactory and does not negatively impact the stack.
  • Ensure that the tuned rule has a low false positive rate.

Comment thread rules/integrations/google_workspace/google_workspace_alert_center_promotion.toml Outdated
Comment thread rules/integrations/google_workspace/google_workspace_alert_center_promotion.toml Outdated
Co-authored-by: Isai <59296946+imays11@users.noreply.github.com>
@imays11
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

imays11 commented May 22, 2026

After further testing of different rule types, it seems rule.name is not as consistently populated as google_workspace.alert.type. The screenshot below shows the event.original for different alerts and you can see 2 of them are not populating the necessary fields for rule.name, unsure of why but google_workspace.alert.type is populating for those rules so I'm going to revert back to using this field.

I've also removed filebeat index as I don't see this datastream supported via filebeat and specified the .alert-* index

Screenshot 2026-05-22 at 1 52 19 PM

cc @bryans3c and @w0rk3r if you'd like to re-review

Comment thread rules/integrations/google_workspace/google_workspace_alert_center_promotion.toml Outdated
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants