Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

[New Rule] Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned #5113

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[New Rule] Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned #5113

wants to merge 8 commits into from
+112 −1

Conversation

terrancedejesus
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request

Issue link(s):

Summary - What I changed

Adds a new rule for detecting Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned from Azure Activity Logs. Please se issue for more details.

How To Test

Query can be used in TRADE serverless stack.

Checklist

  • Added a label for the type of pr: bug, enhancement, schema, maintenance, Rule: New, Rule: Deprecation, Rule: Tuning, Hunt: New, or Hunt: Tuning so guidelines can be generated
  • Added the meta:rapid-merge label 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

@terrancedejesus
[New Rule] Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned
ffc66d5 
<!--
Thank you for your interest in and contributing to Detection Rules!
There are a few simple things to check before submitting your pull request
that can help with the review process. You should delete these items
from your submission, but they are here to help bring them to your attention.
-->
# Pull Request

*Issue link(s)*:
* #5108

<!--
  Add Related Issues / PRs for context. Eg:
    Related to elastic/repo#999
    Resolves #123
  If there is no issue link, take extra care to write a clear summary and label the PR just as you would label an issue to give additional context to reviewers.
-->

## Summary - What I changed
Adds a new rule for detecting `Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned` from Azure Activity Logs. Please se issue for more details.

<!--
  Summarize your PR. Animated gifs are 💯. Code snippets are ⚡️. Examples & screenshots are 🔥
-->

## How To Test
Query can be used in TRADE serverless stack.

<!--
  Some examples of what you could include here are:
  * Links to GitHub action results for CI test improvements
  * Sample data before/after screenshots (or short videos showing how something works)
  * Copy/pasted commands and output from the testing you did in your local terminal window
  * If tests run in GitHub, you can 🪁or 🔱, respectively, to indicate tests will run in CI
  * Query used in your stack to verify the change
-->

## Checklist

<!-- Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR. -->

- [ ] Added a label for the type of pr: `bug`, `enhancement`, `schema`, `maintenance`, `Rule: New`, `Rule: Deprecation`, `Rule: Tuning`, `Hunt: New`, or `Hunt: Tuning` so guidelines can be generated
- [ ] Added the `meta:rapid-merge` label 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](https://www.elastic.co/contributor-agreement)?
- Have you followed the [contributor guidelines](https://github.com/elastic/detection-rules/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)?
@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus linked an issue Sep 15, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
[New Rule] Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned #5108
Open
@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus self-assigned this Sep 15, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

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_date matches the date of creation PR initially 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, considering performance for diverse environments. Non ecs fields should be added to non-ecs-schema.json if not available in an integration.
  • min_stack_comments and min_stack_version should be included if the rule is only compatible starting from a specific stack version.
  • index pattern 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).
  • integration should align with the index. If the integration is newly introduced, ensure the manifest, schemas, and new_rule.yaml template are updated.
  • setup should include the necessary steps to configure the integration.
  • note should include any additional information (e.g. Triage and analysis investigation guides, timeline templates).
  • tags should be relevant to the threat and align/added to the EXPECTED_RULE_TAGS in the definitions.py file.
  • threat, techniques, and subtechniques should map to ATT&CK always if possible.

New BBR Rules

  • building_block_type should be included if the rule is a building block and the rule should be located in the rules_building_block folder.
  • bypass_bbr_timing should 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.

@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus marked this pull request as ready for review September 15, 2025 17:02
Aegrah
Aegrah approved these changes Sep 16, 2025
View reviewed changes
rules/integrations/azure/privilege_escalation_azure_rbac_administrator_roles_assigned.toml
Comment on lines +84 to +89
*18d7d88d-d35e-4fb5-a5c3-7773c20a72d9* or
*f58310d9-a9f6-439a-9e8d-f62e7b41a168* or
*b24988ac-6180-42a0-ab88-20f7382dd24c* or
*8e3af657-a8ff-443c-a75c-2fe8c4bcb635* or
*92b92042-07d9-4307-87f7-36a593fc5850* or
*a8889054-8d42-49c9-bc1c-52486c10e7cd*
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These seem kind of expensive due to the starting wildcard. Any way to make it more efficient or is this the only way to capture those IDs?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately no. azure.activitylogs.properties is a nested object itself. KQL allows us to reach into requestbody.properties.roleDefinitionId. I was unable to get the query to match on the initial subscription text. The Role ID itself is located at the end after roleDefinitions

{
  "requestbody": "{\"properties\":{\"roleDefinitionId\":\"/subscriptions/159a7b82-6337-44c0-8edb-6a73e1ff5f3f/providers/Microsoft.Authorization/roleDefinitions/18d7d88d-d35e-4fb5-a5c3-7773c20a72d9\",\"principalId\":\"80744b0a-4a77-4a3e-9308-aa93e2c7c6db\",\"principalType\":\"User\"}}",
  "hierarchy": "fb83355b-3bfe-4849-a3bc-480c7564e41b/159a7b82-6337-44c0-8edb-6a73e1ff5f3f",
  "message": "Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments/write",
  "entity": "/subscriptions/159a7b82-6337-44c0-8edb-6a73e1ff5f3f/providers/Microsoft.Authorization/roleAssignments/92c948dd-1b92-4079-a251-01b723d2f4ef"
}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@DefSecSentinel DefSecSentinel Awaiting requested review from DefSecSentinel

@imays11 imays11 Awaiting requested review from imays11

@Samirbous Samirbous Awaiting requested review from Samirbous

@w0rk3r w0rk3r Awaiting requested review from w0rk3r

@Aegrah Aegrah Awaiting requested review from Aegrah

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus

Labels
backport: auto Domain: Cloud Domain: Identity Integration: Azure azure related rules Rule: New Proposal for new rule
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[New Rule] Azure RBAC Built-In Administrator Roles Assigned
2 participants
@terrancedejesus @Aegrah