Rule Enrichment on rules with Negate

Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Rule Enrichment on rules with Negate

L3 Networker

So, I am doing a rule enrichment on a project. The rule I am enriching is very open, but utilizes negate objects in source/dest. I just noticed that the rules I generated in Expedition via rule enrichment contained the two group-objects I am negating, plus all the specific IPs and ranges, but the whole new rules were set to negate by default. Basically, I went in and manually un-negated them, and removed the two original groups that were the negated objects of the original rule. But it seems like the learning/rule enrichment logic might be flawed when it comes to negates. Setting the new, enriched rules to negate would then be really bad, as it would allow anything BUT the sources/destinations you wanted to let through.






L5 Sessionator
Good catch.
We will have to enhance this case.
If the original file was negated, we can't just include the new seen IP addresses.
Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.

The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!

These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!