engine events: fix event names in rules or enum - v2

[jasonish]

Changes:

• Update rule rev.

Fixes these warnings when using engine events:

Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "dns" doesn't have event "not_a_request" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]
Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "dns" doesn't have event "not_a_response" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]
Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "http2" doesn't have event "invalid_http1_settings" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]
Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "ike" doesn't have event "weak_crypto_nodh" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]
Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "ike" doesn't have event "weak_crypto_noauth" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]
Warning: detect-app-layer-event: app-layer-event keyword's protocol "modbus" doesn't have event "invalid_unit_identifier" registered [DetectAppLayerEventSetup:detect-app-layer-event.c:262]

Ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7361

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.37%. Comparing base (b1e7917) to head (c2d3bac).
Report is 12 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #12079   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.37%   83.37%           
=======================================
  Files         910      910           
  Lines      257556   257556           
=======================================
  Hits       214748   214748           
  Misses      42808    42808           

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	61.54% <33.33%> (ø)
livemode	19.41% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
pcap	44.45% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
suricata-verify	62.77% <0.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
unittests	59.35% <0.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[suricata-qa]

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 23239

[victorjulien]

I think this looks good as a fix, but I was wondering if we should fix the rules or the code? We can make the existing rules work by changing the event names in the code, right? Or would we risk breaking ppls working rules that way?

[jasonish]

I think this looks good as a fix, but I was wondering if we should fix the rules or the code? We can make the existing rules work by changing the event names in the code, right? Or would we risk breaking ppls working rules that way?

Risk either way:

• If we change the code, the existing broken rules will start to work. Probably ideal, so probably better fixing the code
• But if they somehow managed to figure out these rules were broken and fixed them, then they'd break.

[victorjulien]

Merged in #12088, thanks!

[catenacyber]

Thanks for this one Jason :-)