tests: add test for imap proto#2908
Open
glongo wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
glongo
force-pushed
the
tests-imap-v1
branch
from
5c27882 to
02c7a66
Compare
catenacyber
reviewed
Feb 16, 2026
| @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP CAPABILITY command"; imap.request; content:"CAPABILITY"; sid:1; rev:1;) | |||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP server ready"; imap.response; content:"OK IMAP server ready"; sid:2; rev:1;) | |||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP email Body"; flow:to_client; imap.email.body; content:"Hello"; imap.email.direction:to_client;sid:3; rev:1;) | |||
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need a imap.email.direction keyword ? can we not use flow: to_client; ?
catenacyber
reviewed
Feb 16, 2026
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP CAPABILITY command"; imap.request; content:"CAPABILITY"; sid:1; rev:1;) | ||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP server ready"; imap.response; content:"OK IMAP server ready"; sid:2; rev:1;) | ||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP email Body"; flow:to_client; imap.email.body; content:"Hello"; imap.email.direction:to_client;sid:3; rev:1;) | ||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP email header name and value"; flow:to_client; imap.email.header; content:"from:"; content:"digitalinvestigator"; sid:4; rev:1;) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the email.from keyword also work ?
catenacyber
reviewed
Feb 16, 2026
| imap.responses[3]: "* OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\\Answered \\Flagged \\Draft \\Deleted \\Seen \\*)] Unlimited" | ||
| imap.responses[4]: "* OK [UIDNEXT 2] Predicted next UID" | ||
| imap.responses[5]: "* OK [UIDVALIDITY 1377199071] UIDs valid" | ||
| imap.responses[6]: "4 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed" |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this not too verbose by default ?
catenacyber
reviewed
Feb 16, 2026
| pcap_cnt: 12 | ||
| event_type: imap | ||
| imap.requests[0]: "2 AUTHENTICATE plain" | ||
| imap.requests[1]: "AGRpZ2l0YWxpbnZlc3RpZ2F0b3JAbmV0d29ya3NpbXMuY29tAG5hcGllcjEyMw==" |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we logging clear-text credentials here ?
jufajardini
reviewed
Feb 24, 2026
| @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
| alert imap any any -> any any (msg:"IMAP CAPABILITY command"; imap.request; content:"CAPABILITY"; sid:1; rev:1;) | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we get also frame rules, or a dedicated test for the frames?
catenacyber
reviewed
Mar 16, 2026
| count: 2 | ||
| match: | ||
| event_type: alert | ||
| alert.signature_id: 9 |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we test that we get imap metadata in alerts ?
catenacyber
reviewed
Mar 16, 2026
| match: | ||
| pcap_cnt: 8 | ||
| event_type: imap | ||
| imap.requests[0]: "1 CAPABILITY" |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question : does it make sense to log the imap tag ?
catenacyber
reviewed
Mar 16, 2026
| # Test Purpose | ||
|
|
||
| Test that IMAP parser and sticky buffers are working correctly. | ||
|
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add ticket number ;-)
catenacyber
reviewed
Mar 16, 2026
| imap.responses[0]: "* 1 FETCH (UID 1 RFC822.SIZE 452 BODY[] {452})" | ||
| imap.responses[1]: "8 OK UID FETCH completed" | ||
| email.direction: "to_client" | ||
| email.from: "DI <digitalinvestigator@networksims.com>" |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have tests with emails in both ways ?
Contributor
Author
|
Suricata PR: OISF/suricata#15064 |
Contributor
Author
|
Suricata PR: OISF/suricata#15209 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ticket
If your pull request is related to a Suricata ticket, please provide
the full URL to the ticket here so this pull request can monitor
changes to the ticket status:
Redmine ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/8276