Sigma Rules
r2026-07-01 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Sigma Rules's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Open repository of 3000+ vendor-agnostic SIEMSIEMSecurity information and event management, collecting logs from many systems and correlating events to find suspicious activity. Analysts use it to investigate alerts and incidents. detection rules in the Sigma generic signature format for log event detection.
sigma-uuid --help
sigma-similarity ./rules/
---
title: Test Rule
status: test
description: Example rule with value modifiers
logsource:
category: process_creation
product: windows
detection:
selection:
CommandLine|startswith: 'cmd.exe'
condition: selection
---
Summary
Sigma Rules is an open-source, free detection format and rule repository for writing SIEM-agnostic detections in a shared YAML syntax, then converting them to the query language of whatever backend a team runs, via a CLI or library rather than as a hosted service. It's aimed at detection engineers, threat hunters, 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. analysts who need to share and reuse detections instead of writing platform-specific queries from scratch, and its documentation describes itself as a shareable detection format usable across "any supported SIEM." The repository holds over 3,000 rules covering generic detections, threat hunting, emerging threats, and compliance mappings, with recent additions targeting supply-chain compromises, Active DirectoryActive DirectoryMicrosoft's directory service for Windows networks that centralises authentication and authorisation; cyber tools target or integrate with it because it controls identity and access across most enterprise environments. abuse, and cloud identity attacks. First committed in 2016 and maintained by 738 contributors, it remains active with 315 commits in the past year and a release 43 days ago.
Open repository of 3000+ vendor-agnostic SIEM detection rules in the Sigma generic signature format for log event detection.
How Sigma Rules helps
Which behaviors in my logs already have a detection written for them, across generic techniques, specific campaigns, and hunting leads?
searches the rule repository's generic, threat-hunting, emerging-threat, and compliance rule sets by technique, actor, or log source and returns matching YAML detections rather than requiring one written from scratch
How do I take a detection written for one SIEM and run it against the query language my own backend actually speaks?
converts the shared YAML syntax into the target query language via a conversion command, shown for example turning a cloud root-account-usage rule into a native search string
Have I already got coverage for a newly disclosed supply-chain or campaign-specific compromise?
the emerging-threats rule set is updated with indicators for named incidents, so checking it against a fresh CVE or malware name shows whether file, process, or network indicators are already written
Do I have a documented reason to exclude certain legitimate activity before a rule fires on it?
each rule carries a falsepositives list and a severity level, naming known benign causes an analyst can rule out before treating a match as an incident
Are there compliance-mapped detections I can point to for a specific framework requirement?
a dedicated compliance rule category ties detections to named frameworks such as CIS Controls, NIST, and ISO 27001
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 Sigma 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 Sigma 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…
Website history
sigmahq.io, every changeSigmaHQ's home page and 7 more pages as they looked each month from October 2023 to October 2026: 27 renders, 9 changes of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
24 entries
No entries match these filters.
- July 20261
- April 20261
- January 20261
- November 20251
- October 20252
- July 20251
- May 20251
- February 20251
- December 20241
- November 20241
- September 20241
- July 20241
- May 20241
- April 20221
- August 20211
- February 20211
- August 20201
- June 20201
- February 20201
- December 20191
- November 20193
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in SigmaHQ/sigma, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 97 +21 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 5 +4 joined · −8 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 90% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 55 days first maintainer reply 6 days
- Open backlog 6 of 667 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 6
- Contributors / month 14
- Commits / month 28
- Stars 11,064
- other 100%
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.Sigma Rules has content for 512 of the 982 threats tracked in the last year, 28 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 Sigma Rules covers
Peers cover, Sigma 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.