[New Rule] Azure Compute Snapshot Deletion(s)

[terrancedejesus]

Fixes #5210

Pull Request

Issue link(s):

• [New Rule] Azure Compute Snapshot Deletion(s) #5210

Summary - What I changed

Adds detection coverage for unusual Azure Compute snapshot deletions. A threshold rule and a New Terms rule. Please see related issue for more details.

How To Test

Query can be used to test on data in TRADE 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

• Have you signed the contributor license agreement?
• Have you followed the contributor guidelines?

[github-actions]

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.

[imays11]

so is azure.resource.group something that is created for a group of snapshots in this case? I'm wondering why you need both fields here instead of just the azure.activitylogs.identity.claims_initiated_by_user.name field? Are you intending to capture the first time a user deletes any snapshot inside of a particular group of snapshots?

[imays11]

1. Is there ever an instance where azure.activitylogs.identity.claims_initiated_by_user.name field isn't populated?
2. Is azure.activitylogs.result_type: Accept or azure.activitylogs.result_signature: Accepted.Accepted equivalent to azure.activitylogs.properties.status_code: Accepted? If so should you use one of these in the query in place of the flattened field?

[imays11]

same comment here about the use of a flattened field