Skip to content

Disable Filebeat's o365audit input and o365 module in FIPS builds #44909

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor

@ycombinator ycombinator commented Jun 18, 2025

Proposed commit message

This PR ensures that the Filebeat o365 module is only included in non-FIPS builds of Filebeat. It also ensures that the Filebeat o365audit input, which is used by the the o365 module, is only included in non-FIPS builds of Filebeat. In other words, neither the o365 module nor the o365audit input will be available in FIPS-capable Filebeat artifacts.

The o365audit input depends on the Azure Go SDK, specifically the github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity package. This package uses the golang.org/x/crypto/pkcs12 package, which is not FIPS-compliant, and the SDK doesn't plan to offer a way to disable the use of this package at compile time (see Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#24336).

As such, we have little choice but to exclude the o365audit input and the only module that uses it, o365, from FIPS-capable Filebeat builds.

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added an entry in CHANGELOG.next.asciidoc or CHANGELOG-developer.next.asciidoc.

Disruptive User Impact

FIPS-capable artifacts of Filebeat will not contain the o365 module or the o365audit input.

@botelastic botelastic bot added the needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label label Jun 18, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

Just comment with:

  • run docs-build : Re-trigger the docs validation. (use unformatted text in the comment!)

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jun 18, 2025

This pull request does not have a backport label.
If this is a bug or security fix, could you label this PR @ycombinator? 🙏.
For such, you'll need to label your PR with:

  • The upcoming major version of the Elastic Stack
  • The upcoming minor version of the Elastic Stack (if you're not pushing a breaking change)

To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

  • backport-8./d is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit
  • backport-active-all is the label that automatically backports to all active branches.
  • backport-active-8 is the label that automatically backports to all active minor branches for the 8 major.
  • backport-active-9 is the label that automatically backports to all active minor branches for the 9 major.

@ycombinator ycombinator added the backport-8.19 Automated backport to the 8.19 branch label Jun 18, 2025
@ycombinator ycombinator force-pushed the fips-disable-fb-o365 branch 2 times, most recently from 1d00ef8 to 3815c3a Compare June 18, 2025 23:13
@ycombinator ycombinator force-pushed the fips-disable-fb-o365 branch from 3815c3a to f592d35 Compare June 19, 2025 01:05
@ycombinator ycombinator marked this pull request as ready for review June 19, 2025 01:52
@ycombinator ycombinator requested review from a team as code owners June 19, 2025 01:52
Copy link
Contributor

@efd6 efd6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks like two PRs, one enabling and one that is what's described on the tin. Could we separate them? Also, please include the import path that leads to the concerning import.

@ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor Author

This looks like two PRs, one enabling and one that is what's described on the tin. Could we separate them?

Created #44920 to enable the module exclusion. Will rework this PR here to only be about what's on the tin once the enabling PR is merged.

@ycombinator
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also, please include the import path that leads to the concerning import.

Update the PR description. Let me know if that looks good to you.

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor

efd6 commented Jun 19, 2025

Let me know if that looks good to you.

Thanks. Crystal clear now.

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/elastic-agent-data-plane (Team:Elastic-Agent-Data-Plane)

@botelastic botelastic bot removed the needs_team Indicates that the issue/PR needs a Team:* label label Jun 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport-8.19 Automated backport to the 8.19 branch Team:Elastic-Agent-Data-Plane Label for the Agent Data Plane team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants