Nterl0k - T1033 Query.exe usage on remote devices.

[nterl0k]

Details

More specific detection of Query.exe being used against remote devices.

Pending splunk/attack_data#931

Checklist

• Validate name matches <platform>_<mitre att&ck technique>_<short description> nomenclature
• CI/CD jobs passed ✔️
• Validated SPL logic.
• Validated tags, description, and how to implement.
• Verified references match analytic.
• Confirm updates to lookups are handled properly.

Notes For Submitters and Reviewers

• If you're submitting a PR from a fork, ensuring the box to allow updates from maintainers is checked will help speed up the process of getting it merged.
• Checking the output of the build CI job when it fails will likely show an error about what is failing. You may have a very descriptive error of the specific field(s) in the specific file(s) that is causing an issue. In some cases, its also possible there is an issue with the YAML. Many of these can be caught with the pre-commit hooks if you set them up. These errors will be less descriptive as to what exactly is wrong, but will give you a column and row position in a specific file where the YAML processing breaks. If you're having trouble with this, feel free to add a comment to your PR tagging one of the maintainers and we'll be happy to help troubleshoot it.
• Updates to existing lookup files can be tricky, because of how Splunk handles application updates and the differences between existing lookup files being updated vs new lookups. You can read more here but the short version is that any changes to lookup files need to bump the datestamp in the lookup CSV filename, and the reference to it in the YAML needs to be updated.

[nasbench]

Just noticed that we also have ad03bfcf-8a91-4bc2-a500-112993deba87 focusing on user discovery. In an edge case where a user would use

query user /sever: they would both match creating an inflated score.

We perhaps need to exclude the "/server" flag from the other rule to focus only on local queries

[nterl0k]

Agreed, I noticed the duplicate firing in our environment and choose to alter risk scoring on the user discovery correlation accordingly.

I can agree this is a bit of an overlap in coverage with the existing detection, but feel the lateral movement aspect adds more risk.

[nterl0k]

This would pass if I didn't put the testing data in the wrong folder

splunk/attack_data#936