# Noisy rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Elastic Security\ **Created:** [May 2, 2024, 1:11pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/noisy-rule/358643 "2024-05-02T13:11:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bbreer](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/bbreer/32/130059_2.png) [@bbreer](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/bbreer)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2024, 1:11pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/noisy-rule/358643/1 "2024-05-02T13:11:43Z")
We have some endpoint security applications that are triggering the built-in rule _Suspicious Lsass Process Access_. They are using Powershell to access the lsass process. I created a rule exception using the field _process.parent.name_ to not alert when it was one of the security products triggering the alert. The alerts are still generated despite the rule exceptions. I am wondering if a rule exception can only use the fields shown in the alert details, of which _process.parent.name_ is not included. ---
**Author:** ![GuruLee](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/gurulee/32/104652_2.png) [@GuruLee](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/GuruLee)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2024, 2:15pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/noisy-rule/358643/2 "2024-05-09T14:15:16Z")
@bbreer we are seeing similar, thanks for posting. I can confirm that rule exceptions only work with fields shown in the alert details and adherence to ECS (elastic common schema). I posted about same rule triggering from a verified MSFT process and at face value seems suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2024, 2:16pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/noisy-rule/358643/3 "2024-06-06T14:16:00Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.