Browse Rules

Web Server Potential SQL Injection Request

This rule detects potential SQL injection attempts in web server requests by identifying common SQL injection patterns in URLs. Such activity may indicate reconnaissance or exploitation attempts by attackers trying to manipulate backend databases or extract sensitive information.

Web Server Local File Inclusion Activity

This rule detects potential Local File Inclusion (LFI) activity on web servers by identifying HTTP GET requests that attempt to access sensitive local files through directory traversal techniques or known file paths. Attackers may exploit LFI vulnerabilities to read sensitive files, gain system information, or further compromise the server.

Web Server Cloud Metadata SSRF Request

Detects HTTP requests to web servers whose URL or query string references cloud instance metadata endpoints or equivalent encoded variants. Attackers exploit server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities in web applications to reach link-local metadata services on AWS, GCP, Azure, and similar cloud providers and harvest temporary credentials, tokens, or instance details.

Web Server Potential Remote File Inclusion Activity

This rule detects potential Remote File Inclusion (RFI) activity on web servers by identifying HTTP GET requests that attempt to access sensitive remote files through directory traversal techniques or known file paths. Attackers may exploit RFI vulnerabilities to read sensitive files, gain system information, or further compromise the server.

Web Server Suspicious User Agent Requests

This rule detects unusual spikes in web server requests with uncommon or suspicious user-agent strings. Such activity may indicate reconnaissance attempts by attackers trying to identify vulnerabilities in web applications or servers. These user-agents are often associated with automated tools used for scanning, vulnerability assessment, or brute-force attacks.

Web Server Discovery or Fuzzing Activity

This rule detects potential web server discovery or fuzzing activity by identifying a high volume of HTTP GET requests resulting in 404 or 403 status codes from a single source IP address within a short timeframe. Such patterns may indicate that an attacker is attempting to discover hidden or unlinked resources on a web server, which can be a precursor to more targeted attacks.

Web Server Potential Spike in Error Response Codes

This rule detects unusual spikes in error response codes (500, 502, 503, 504) from web servers, which may indicate reconnaissance activities such as vulnerability scanning or fuzzing attempts by adversaries. These activities often generate a high volume of error responses as they probe for weaknesses in web applications. Error response codes may potentially indicate server-side issues that could be exploited.

Potential Spike in Web Server Error Logs

This rule detects unusual spikes in error logs from web servers, which may indicate reconnaissance activities such as vulnerability scanning or fuzzing attempts by adversaries. These activities often generate a high volume of error responses as they probe for weaknesses in web applications. Error response codes may potentially indicate server-side issues that could be exploited.

Web Server Potential Command Injection Request

This rule detects potential command injection attempts via web server requests by identifying URLs that contain suspicious patterns commonly associated with command execution payloads. Attackers may exploit vulnerabilities in web applications to inject and execute arbitrary commands on the server, often using interpreters like Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, or shell commands. By monitoring for these indicators in web traffic, security teams can identify and respond to potential threats early.

Potential HTTP Downgrade Attack

Through the new_terms rule type, this rule detects potential HTTP downgrade attacks by identifying HTTP traffic that uses a different HTTP version than the one typically used in the environment. An HTTP downgrade attack occurs when an attacker forces a connection via an older HTTP version, resulting in potentially less secure communication. For example, an attacker might downgrade a connection from HTTP/2 to HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/1.0 to exploit known vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the older protoc