Skip to content

[Rule Tuning] Deprecate Individual MSFT Compliance Rules / Create BBR MSFT Purview Compliance Rule#5679

Draft
terrancedejesus wants to merge 9 commits intomainfrom
terrancedejesus/issue5678
Draft

[Rule Tuning] Deprecate Individual MSFT Compliance Rules / Create BBR MSFT Purview Compliance Rule#5679
terrancedejesus wants to merge 9 commits intomainfrom
terrancedejesus/issue5678

Conversation

@terrancedejesus
Copy link
Contributor

@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus commented Feb 4, 2026

Fixes #5678

Pull Request

Issue link(s):

Summary - What I changed

Begins deprecation process for all MSFT Purview (M365 Security and Compliance) related rules in favor of a single BBR rule. Please see linked issue for more details.

How To Test

Query for BBR rule can be used in TRADE or telemetry 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

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 4, 2026

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 added the bbr Building Block Rules label Feb 4, 2026
@terrancedejesus terrancedejesus changed the title [Rule Tuning] Deprecate Individual MSFT Defender Rules / Create BBR MSFT Defender Rule [Rule Tuning] Deprecate Individual MSFT Compliance Rules / Create BBR MSFT Purview Compliance Rule Feb 12, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@Mikaayenson Mikaayenson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤔 we may want to include in the bbr coverage for dlp if it doesn't already

@terrancedejesus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Moving this back into draft, pending some additional UAL matrix review.

Copy link
Contributor

@imays11 imays11 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the planned phases and coming back to build on top of this BBR, was worried about losing the value of the data here but your plan makes sense.

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.

[Rule Tuning] Deprecate Individual MSFT Defender Rules / Create BBR MSFT Defender Rule

3 participants