signed_sys_with_vulnerablity

YARA detection rule by wonderkun · Unknown

import "pe"
rule signed_sys_with_vulnerablity {
    meta:
		description = "signed_sys_with_vulnerablity"
        date = "2023-07-21"
        author ="wonderkun"
        yarahub_reference_md5     = "3b25a34bb08f4759792c24b121109513"
        yarahub_uuid = "615591f5-2e81-4c01-8ebf-ab8aade6efcf"
        yarahub_license =  "CC0 1.0"
        yarahub_rule_matching_tlp =  "TLP:WHITE"
        yarahub_rule_sharing_tlp =  "TLP:WHITE"
        tlp = "WHITE"

    strings:
        $MmMapIoSpace = "MmMapIoSpace"
        $MapViewOfSection = "MapViewOfSection"
        $PhysicalMemory = "PhysicalMemory"
	condition:
		(pe.imports("ntoskrnl.exe") and pe.number_of_signatures > 0)
        and
        ($MmMapIoSpace or $MapViewOfSection or $PhysicalMemory)
}

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

28952f80-e972-4bcc-8ff9-20dc76eac5c3

Propose edits, view related rules, and engage with the community through comments.

Executable code, not a declarative rule

This submission is arbitrary [[ currentRule.format ? currentRule.format.toUpperCase() : '' ]] code, not a declarative detection rule — review it as you would any script before running it, and note that it cannot be safely aggregated or auto-executed alongside YARA/Sigma/Suricata/CRS rules.

Rejected pattern present

[[ reason ]]

What does this mean?

Format & documentation suggestions

Not a security issue — this rule is valid and was accepted as-is. These are optional fields/conventions its own format recommends, mainly affecting its quality score and how well it documents itself for other reviewers.

[[ reason ]]

What do these messages mean?

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

[[ currentRule.title ]]

Community Discussion