[Security Solution] Smart limits for the package with prebuilt rules

[banderror]

Epics: https://github.com/elastic/security-team/issues/1974 (internal), #174168

Summary

Recently we had an incident in Serverless where Kibana instances would crash with an OOM because of an installation of the security_detection_engine Fleet package that Security Solution uses to distribute prebuilt detection rules. Fleet loads whole packages into memory before installing their assets, and this package had become too big for that. The incident has been mitigated by temporarily decreasing the number of assets in the package by ~50%. However, this is a short-term measure that we cannot keep for a long time, because we won't be able to release Milestone 3 of the prebuilt rule customization feature with the current limit of 2 versions per rule in the package.

Before we can release Milestone 3, we will need to increase back the number of versions per rule we ship in the package. In general, the more versions we ship, the better is the UX for upgrading prebuilt rules; the fewer versions we ship, the lighter is the package which also positively affects the UX and increases reliability.

Our goal is to find a balance between reliability and good UX and achieve both. For that, we need to come up with smart and efficient limits for the package with prebuilt rules.

Ideas

Total limits for the package as a whole:

• Total number of package assets (in our case, rule versions). Currently set to 15000 in Kibana for all Fleet packages. We might want to enforce this limit on the package side and set it to a lower value.
• Total size of the package in megabytes.

Per rule limits:

• Hard cap: <= X number of versions no matter what. Exclude older versions and keep newer ones.
• Hard time cap: exclude versions older than now - X days.
• "Exponential" time caps: keep <= X versions created within last 3 months, <= Y within last 6 months, <= Z within last 12 months, etc; X < Y < Z < ..., e.g. 4 < 6 < 7. Time ranges grow exponentially while limits grow slower than that: logarithmically or linearly.
• Time window cap: exclude versions if Elastic published more than X of them within a Y time window. E.g. it could be more than 2 per each 3 months. This could help prevent some "noisy" rules (in terms of the frequency of updates to them) from "eating" too much space of the package, as well as evicting older versions of a noisy rule by newer versions of the same rule.
• We could include more versions for more popular rules (rules that are installed by users more often) and less versions for less popular rules.

Todo

• Design the limits @approksiu (document)
• Create an implementation ticket in https://github.com/elastic/detection-rules @approksiu (ticket)
• Optimize the package installation process so we could have more relaxed limits (ticket) @xcrzx
• Make sure that starting from 8.17 a global limit of 15 000 rule assets is applied to the whole package and we ship all historical rule assets in it; collaborate with the TRADE team on that @xcrzx

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/security-detections-response (Team:Detections and Resp)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/security-solution (Team: SecuritySolution)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/security-detection-rule-management (Team:Detection Rule Management)

[approksiu]

Research update notes in the doc.

[brokensound77]

As an alternative to being limited to what is included in a single package, can we revisit additional rules being fetched from older EPR packages as needed within the specific workflows? I imagine this mostly applies when diving into a single rule?

• click rule -> load rule
• click load historical -> iterate EPR and fetch versions

[approksiu]

Research results here, to be discussed at the product meeting.

[banderror]

I'm closing this one as the v8.17.1 package with all historical rule versions has been released. Whether a global limit has been set or not is minor compared to that, as with the current amount of assets in the package (~8000) we have some room for growth before we start having issues with the package installation.

@approksiu @xcrzx I think we'll revisit the limit question in a few months from now, and we'll open a separate ticket for that.