Detection Rules
dev-v3.0.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Detection Rules's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Detection Rules is Elastic's framework for defining and managing security detection logic to identify threats and anomalies in system and network data.
detection-rules export --kql-export 'rule.name: "Suspicious PowerShell*"' detection-rules analyze --local-dates rules/*.yml
Summary
Detection Rules is an open-source repository, maintained by Elastic, of detection logic and the Python tooling used to build, test, and package it for Elastic Security's Detection Engine. It runs as a command-line and CI-driven workflow rather than a hosted service: rules are authored as files, validated with the included Python module, and shipped through a detections-as-code pipeline into Kibana. This fits detection engineers and SOCSOCA security operations center, the team or function that monitors threats, investigates alerts and coordinates incident response. Its work can be internal, outsourced or shared. teams running Elastic Security who want version-controlled, testable rules rather than ones edited by hand in a UI, and it maps coverage to MITRE ATT&CKMITRE ATT&CKA publicly maintained knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques observed in real attacks, maintained by MITRE. Cyber tools use it as a common taxonomy to classify, map, and communicate threat behavior. out of the box. The rule set spans cloud platforms (AWS, Azure, GCP/GKEGKEGoogle Kubernetes Engine, Google's managed Kubernetes service, which lets cyber tools run containerized workloads without managing the underlying cluster infrastructure.), Linux and Windows endpoints, and network and application layers, so it functions as a shared library rather than a point tool. First committed in 2020, it has 125 contributors, thousands of commits in the past year, and a release 32 days ago, indicating active maintenance.
Detection Rules is Elastic's framework for defining and managing security detection logic to identify threats and anomalies in system and network data.
How Detection Rules helps
Which techniques in the ATT&CK matrix have no rule covering them yet in my Elastic deployment?
maps every rule in the set to its ATT&CK technique out of the box, so gaps in the navigator view show where no shipped rule exists
Are the detection rules I wrote actually valid before they reach production?
the included Python module validates rule files for schema and logic errors as part of the build, catching problems before packaging into Kibana
Did a change to a rule file get reviewed and tested the same way every time?
rules are authored as version-controlled files and run through unit tests and a CI-driven pipeline, so every change leaves a diff and a test result rather than a silent UI edit
Which cloud services and platforms does my current rule coverage actually reach?
the rule set is organized by platform (AWS, Azure/Entra ID, GCP/GKE, Linux, Windows, network, application layers), so coverage can be checked folder by folder against what the environment runs
Will upgrading my Elastic Stack change how existing rules map to ATT&CK?
rules carry a threat mapping framework and version that switch automatically on stack 9.5 and above, while older stacks keep the prior mapping unless explicitly configured
Can I still author rules the way I used to after a schema change to related integrations?
version constraints in emitted rule output changed from caret to greater-or-equal, so packages and stack schema maps need to be checked against the stack version before upgrading
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for Detection Rules, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail Detection Rules puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
14 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20262
- August 20261
- July 20261
- March 20262
- September 20251
- July 20251
- May 20251
- April 20251
- March 20251
- February 20252
- November 20241
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in elastic/detection-rules, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 35 +13 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 7 +3 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 4 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 15 days first maintainer reply 9.1 days
- Open backlog 140 of 2,098 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 8 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 140
- Contributors / month 11
- Commits / month 76
- Stars 2,701
- bugs 11%
- features 8%
- docs 0%
- other 81%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Threat coverage
Content for the last year of exploited CVEs and attack reports.Detection Rules has content for 515 of the 982 threats tracked in the last year, 64 of them exact.
See the threats, and how similar tools compare threat by threat, with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Threats with content
Compared with similar tools
Only Detection Rules covers
Peers cover, Detection Rules shows no content
Not indexed means we do not read this tool's content yet. It is not a gap.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.