Based on Bret's example below, is Marking it's own object now? I think we can put the Marking info we need on a per-object level without creating a whole new marking object.
Aharon Chernin
CTO
SOLTRA
An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
18301 Bermuda green Dr
Tampa, fl 33647
813.470.2173
www.soltra.com
From: <> on behalf of Jordan, Bret <>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
Okay so we have something like this so far. Need to flush out the Start and End Time stuff.
ID [1]:
The ID of the relationship, a simple random GUID
Marking [1]:
The ID of the marking object that you should reference
Version [1]:
The version of the relationship; a simple number to be used with the ID for version control
Type [1]:
The “type” of relationship being expressed. (Not sure of how this works yet)
Description [1]:
A single simple and short description
Source [1] :
The ID of one or more source entities in the relationship as a URI (not QName)
Targets [1..N]:
The ID of one or more targets in the relationship as a URI (not QName)
Start [1]:
A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects started, or the text 'unknown'.
End [1]:
A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects ended, or the text 'ongoing', or the text 'unknown'.
Reliability/Confidence [1]: A measure of confidence in the relationship using the Information Reliability scale.
Producer [1]:
A simple producer object like what John calls out
Timestamp [1]:
A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship object was created.
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards
Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Jul 30, 2015, at 09:32, Wunder, John A. <
> wrote:
Interesting thought. We could always move to raw GUIDs for the ID fields and add a "producer" field to all top-level constructs?
How "machine-correlatable" does the producer name need to be? I.e. is it worthwhile to have a producer identifier and a pretty name, or is just the pretty name sufficient? You could do something like:
{
id: "123412totallyrandom13423",
other_keys_go_here: true,
producer: {
name: "The MITRE Corporation",
id: " mitre.org "
}
}
Alternatively the producer can be a top-level object and you can reference it by ID, though that gets lengthy if you have a lot of small packages.
John
From: Aharon Chernin
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 9:53 AM
To: "Wunder, John A.", "Thompson, Dean", "'Jordan, Bret'"
Cc: Patrick Maroney, 'Terry MacDonald', 'Jason Keirstead', " ' '", 'Chris O'Brien', 'JG on CTI-TC', Jon Baker
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
I am starting to not be a fan of using the ID Namespace for identifying producer. Based on my experience with community usage of STIX today, most organizations are using a shortname in the namespace and using their full properly stated name "pretty
print name" in producer fields.
Aharon Chernin
CTO
SOLTRA
An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
18301 Bermuda green Dr
Tampa, fl 33647
813.470.2173
www.soltra.com
From: Wunder, John A. <
>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:14 AM
To: Aharon Chernin; Thompson, Dean; 'Jordan, Bret'
Cc: 'Patrick Maroney'; 'Terry MacDonald'; 'Jason Keirstead';
' '; 'Chris O'Brien'; 'JG on CTI-TC'; Baker, Jon
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
Yeah I completely agree, object-level markings are the way to go. I had mocked this up as something like:
marking_ids: ["us-cert:TLP-GREEN", "mitre.org:marking-1234"]
TLP would be some hardcoded marking IDs, no reason to redefine TLP:GREEN in every document. For things like copyright statements you could have a top-level marking object that defines the markings and reference by ID in the objects.
This would not allow field-level markings. If you really need to do that you would publish multiple versions of the object, each with different data and different markings. That approach would work for multiple languages as well without requiring
all description and title fields to be multiples.
To address information source again (Jason's question), my opinion is that information source is contained in the ID and in the mechanism by which you get the document. TAXII can tell you who *actually* sent you the document, the ID namespace
tells you who created it (assuming you trust the person that actually sent it to you).
John
From: Aharon Chernin
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:42 AM
To: "Wunder, John A.", "Thompson, Dean", "'Jordan, Bret'"
Cc: Patrick Maroney, 'Terry MacDonald', 'Jason Keirstead', " ' '", 'Chris O'Brien', 'JG on CTI-TC', Jon Baker
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
I really like how this object is shaping up. I am going to throw another wrench in
<OutlookEmoji-?.png>
I would like us to move towards object level markings vs document level markings. One of the ways we can prepare for this is to ensure that all high level objects have the ability to be marked. How does the group feel about adding marking to the
relationship object?
Aharon Chernin
CTO
SOLTRA
An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
18301 Bermuda green Dr
Tampa, fl 33647
813.470.2173
www.soltra.com
From: Wunder, John A. <
>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:04 AM
To: Thompson, Dean; 'Jordan, Bret'
Cc: 'Patrick Maroney'; 'Terry MacDonald'; 'Jason Keirstead';
' '; 'Chris O'Brien'; 'JG on CTI-TC'; Baker, Jon; Aharon Chernin
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
Thanks Bret, good points. Updated and removed the redundancy of both occurrence and optional/required statements.
ID [1]: The ID of the relationship
Version [ 1]: The version of the relationship; a simple number to be used with the ID for version control (instead of timestamp)
Type [1]: The “type” of relationship being expressed. (Not sure of how this works yet)
Descriptions [0..N]: Words about the relationship.
Source_ID [1] : The ID of one or more source entities in the relationship as a URI (not QName)
Target_IDs [1..N]: The ID of one or more targets in the relationship as a URI (not QName)
Start_Time [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects started, or the text 'unknown'.
End_Time [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects ended, or the text 'ongoing', or the text 'unknown'.
Reliability/Confidence [1]: A measure of confidence in the relationship using the Information Reliability scale.
Timestamp [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship object was created.
Also I apparently missed that Description is multiple elements. Is the intent behind that multiple languages? Multiple markings? Multiple paragraphs? If we do that, does that mean description needs to be something other than a plain
array of strings?
Keep in mind that STIX 1.2 is complicated for a reason. If we try to do everything that STIX 1.2 does we will end up with something just as complicated. Sometimes a simple 90% solution is better than a very complicated 99.9% solution.
(If you can't tell, I would prefer to allow a single string description.)
John
From: "Thompson, Dean"
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 3:33 AM
To: "'Jordan, Bret'", "Wunder, John A."
Cc: Patrick Maroney, 'Terry MacDonald', 'Jason Keirstead', " ' '", 'Chris O'Brien',
'JG on CTI-TC', Jon Baker, 'Aharon Chernin'
Subject: RE: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
Hi,
Whilst I agree that Start_Time should be made compulsory (although there could be reasons when you don’t know the exact start date), I am not sure that you can make
End_Time [1] rather than [0..1]. There are times when you might not know the End_Time (for example a web site is still redirecting Angler malware), a security event of incident may be on-going.
If we force End_Time to be compulsory, then that will either force producers to put in some fairy land End_Date, or for them to stamp the time that a STIX document was
produced as the End_Time of the incident/indicator or relationship. This will cause issues later on or those that implement these repositories of data as well as consumers using the data because they may expire or dis-regard valid data primarily on the basis
of the current time being greater than End_Time.
Regards,
Dean
From:
[ mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret
Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 1:59 PM
To: Wunder, John A.
Cc: Patrick Maroney; Terry MacDonald; Jason Keirstead;
; Chris O'Brien; JG on CTI-TC; Baker, Jon; Aharon Chernin
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
Timestamp is required so we need to change the value from [0..1] to just [1]. We should probably do the same for Start_Time and End_Time. I would also suggest that we maintain plurality rules so things that can have multiple we should make them plural. Target_IDs
and Descriptions
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards
Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
<OutlookEmoji-?.png>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
