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

discussion: organizing Android/mobile focused capa rules #850

Open
mike-hunhoff opened this issue Nov 22, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

discussion: organizing Android/mobile focused capa rules #850

mike-hunhoff opened this issue Nov 22, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@mike-hunhoff
Copy link
Collaborator

          Collecting my thoughts here but happy to spin off separate issues/discussions.
  • I like the in .NET on Android naming
  • so far rules are inconsistent requiring format/os
    • this doesn't seem to be a problem though
  • important are:
    • rule readability and
    • organization
        1. duplicate all directories under android parent?
        1. only update namespaces to start with android/ root <-- my preferred option
  • testfiles should go into android directory

related discussion: mandiant/capa#701 (Rule organization for multiple file types PE and ELF)

Originally posted by @mr-tz in #824 (comment)

@williballenthin
Copy link
Collaborator

for (2), the files would be placed in the existing directories but the namespaces would not exactly match the directory?

@williballenthin
Copy link
Collaborator

as we discuss here, let's keep in mind there are other dimensions as well, like arch and format. these are probably less selective/important than OS, but i wonder if conceptually they're the same, or we should give more stock to OS (such as by codifying its location in the namespace).

@mr-tz
Copy link
Collaborator

mr-tz commented Nov 23, 2023

Hm, interesting idea to use the namespace here more. Alternatively, we could add a new meta field (or fields) that specify os/format/arch? Like windows/pe/i386 or android/elf/amd64...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants