Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jamf_protect: update manifest format version to v3.0.3 #9908

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 24, 2024

Conversation

efd6
Copy link
Contributor

@efd6 efd6 commented May 17, 2024

Proposed commit message

See title.

Note removal of ECS fields. The probably best approach to address these issues would be to retain a jamf_protect object to hold items like these. This is not done in this change.

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.

Author's Checklist

  • [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

Screenshots

@efd6 efd6 added enhancement New feature or request Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations Team Integration:Jamf Protect labels May 17, 2024
@efd6 efd6 self-assigned this May 17, 2024
Two ECS-defined fields are removed as they do not conform to ECS
requirements.

* In alerts, process.tty is removed since it is being used as a keyword
  while the ECS definition is an object. There is no obvious alternative
  ECS field for this value.
* In web_traffic_events, interface.name is removed since it is being
  used at root. The ECS definition requires that it be under the
  observer.{egress,ingress} fields; these are not relevant to the
  document.
@elasticmachine
Copy link

🚀 Benchmarks report

Package jamf_protect 👍(1) 💚(1) 💔(2)

Expand to view
Data stream Previous EPS New EPS Diff (%) Result
alerts 1512.86 1199.04 -313.82 (-20.74%) 💔
telemetry 1517.45 1129.94 -387.51 (-25.54%) 💔

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

@elasticmachine
Copy link

💚 Build Succeeded

cc @efd6

@efd6 efd6 marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2024 00:47
@efd6 efd6 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 17, 2024 00:47
@elasticmachine
Copy link

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

Copy link
Contributor

@kcreddy kcreddy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nits
LGTM 👍🏼

@efd6 efd6 merged commit af170e5 into elastic:main May 24, 2024
5 checks passed
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Package jamf_protect - 0.6.0 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/search?package=jamf_protect

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Integration:Jamf Protect Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[jamf_protect] Mark sensitive values as secret
3 participants