Skip to content

Conversation

JDKurma
Copy link

@JDKurma JDKurma commented Oct 9, 2025

Proposed commit message

The following packages are categorized as security despite not being semantically related to security nor having security related datastreams:

[
  "cisco_meraki_metrics",
  "miniflux",
  "mongodb",
  "mysql"
]

Datastreams:

[
  {
    "package": "cisco_meraki_metrics",
    "datastream": "cisco_meraki_metrics.device_health"
  },
  {
    "package": "miniflux",
    "datastream": "miniflux.feed_entry"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.collstats"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.dbstats"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.log"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.metrics"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.replstatus"
  },
  {
    "package": "mongodb",
    "datastream": "mongodb.status"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.error"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.galera_status"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.performance"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.replica_status"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.slowlog"
  },
  {
    "package": "mysql",
    "datastream": "mysql.status"
  }
]

I've removed the security tag for the above mentioned packages to accurately categorize them.

Checklist

  • I have reviewed tips for building integrations and this pull request is aligned with them.
  • I have verified that all data streams collect metrics or logs.
  • I have added an entry to my package's changelog.yml file.
  • I have verified that Kibana version constraints are current according to guidelines.
  • I have verified that any added dashboard complies with Kibana's Dashboard good practices

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Screenshots

@JDKurma JDKurma self-assigned this Oct 9, 2025
@JDKurma JDKurma added the bugfix Pull request that fixes a bug issue label Oct 9, 2025
@JDKurma JDKurma requested a review from trisch-me October 9, 2025 05:49
@JDKurma JDKurma marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2025 15:40
@JDKurma JDKurma requested review from a team as code owners October 9, 2025 15:40
@andrewkroh andrewkroh added Team:Obs-InfraObs Observability Infrastructure Monitoring team [elastic/obs-infraobs-integrations] Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations] labels Oct 9, 2025
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations)

Comment on lines -12 to -13
# Added security category as Miniflux integration is assigned to security team
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@clement-fouque Do you recall why this was added as a security integration?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we had a discussion but I don't remember why we added it. We can remove it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is owned by security team, has it no security use case?

- aws
- cloud
- observability
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Mikaayenson What's your view on whether the bedrock integration is a security product?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We do have prebuilt security detection rules that leverage this integration.

This is the same case for azure_openai.

Note: We have some PRs in the work to further codify security related genai fields. See:

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reverted the changes for those!

@elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod
Copy link

elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod bot commented Oct 10, 2025

🚀 Benchmarks report

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

@muthu-mps
Copy link
Contributor

  • azure_app_service logs include the AppServiceIPSecAuditLogs, AppServiceAuditLogs and AppServiceHTTPLogs categories. This integration can be tagged with security category.
  • Azure AI Foundry is an enhanced version of Azure OpenAI that currently enables monitoring of both third-party models and Azure OpenAI models. @Mikaayenson - Do you think the threat detection rule implementation can be done for AI Foundry similar to Azure OpenAI? If yes, Then this integration can get tagged with security category similar to Azure OpenAI.

@Mikaayenson
Copy link
Contributor

  • azure_app_service logs include the AppServiceIPSecAuditLogs, AppServiceAuditLogs and AppServiceHTTPLogs categories. This integration can be tagged with security category.
  • Azure AI Foundry is an enhanced version of Azure OpenAI that currently enables monitoring of both third-party models and Azure OpenAI models. @Mikaayenson - Do you think the threat detection rule implementation can be done for AI Foundry similar to Azure OpenAI? If yes, Then this integration can get tagged with security category similar to Azure OpenAI.

Yes, we just do not yet have any prebuilt rules for this integration. And if we ever get a gemini integration that would too.

@JDKurma JDKurma removed the Integration:azure_app_service Azure App Service label Oct 14, 2025
@JDKurma JDKurma removed the Integration:azure_ai_foundry Azure AI Foundry label Oct 14, 2025
@JDKurma
Copy link
Author

JDKurma commented Oct 14, 2025

@muthu-mps removed both!

@andrewkroh andrewkroh added the Integration:azure_app_service Azure App Service label Oct 14, 2025
@JDKurma JDKurma removed the Integration:azure_app_service Azure App Service label Oct 14, 2025
categories:
- network
- observability
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why this was removed? It was added a year ago so I’m concerned if this is a correct approach.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is fine to assume that the metrics one is purely o11y usecase?

Copy link
Contributor

@trisch-me trisch-me left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm apart from 1 change

@trisch-me trisch-me enabled auto-merge (squash) October 16, 2025 13:25
@trisch-me trisch-me disabled auto-merge October 16, 2025 13:29
@elasticmachine
Copy link

💚 Build Succeeded

History

cc @JDKurma

Comment on lines -12 to -13
# Added security category as Miniflux integration is assigned to security team
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is owned by security team, has it no security use case?

# Added database_security category as it collects database logs and metrics including collection statistics, database statistics, and replication status
- database_security
# Added global security category as this integration collects security-relevant data
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine

# Added database_security category as it collects error logs, slow query logs, and replication status metrics that are relevant for database security monitoring
- database_security
# Added global security category as this integration collects security-relevant data
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks fine

categories:
- network
- observability
- security
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is fine to assume that the metrics one is purely o11y usecase?

@daniela-elastic
Copy link

CC @jamiehynds There was a whole re-categorization effort done recently to more effectively label the various use cases for each integration (see PR). As a result, additional solution categories were added to some integrations.

The bigger picture:
A decision of how we label an integration (o11y or security) is how customers ultimately use it. Today there are integrations that are effectively used for both but are mis-labled as only catering to one use case. For example, recently speaking with field team revealed that the Netflow integration is being used by customers and sold as a through-and-through observability integration, however it is not labeled as such (see manifest file)

Next steps:
@jamiehynds it would be worth for sec and o11y to align on the usefuless and intended purpose of the solution category. This can help drive more clarity and easier decision making on the correct labelling.

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

Labels

bugfix Pull request that fixes a bug issue Integration:cisco_meraki_metrics Cisco Meraki Metrics Integration:miniflux Miniflux RSS reader Integration:mongodb MongoDB Integration:mysql MySQL Team:Obs-InfraObs Observability Infrastructure Monitoring team [elastic/obs-infraobs-integrations] Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations]

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants