Thanks Jason.
Good point on the timestamps. I’ve haven’t mentioned them directly – more in passing under the Versioning topic. It could be a good
idea to add them when we add the document to the issue tracker/wiki.
We may not strictly need them for versioning reasons if we decide to go for Major versioning only, but we probably still should need
them to help with generating timelines to aid with analysis.
As and aside, timestamps must be in ISO8601 format, and should include time zone wherever possible
(http://stixproject.github.io/documentation/suggested-practices/#creating-timestamps)
Cheers
Terry MacDonald
Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
+61 (407) 203 206 |
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 4:37 AM
To: John Anderson <>
Cc: Terry MacDonald <>;
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: Things that are difficult in STIX
I think this document is excellent!
One I would like to add that I don't see present - timestamps. The fact that timestamps are (a) optional, and (b) have an undefined format (no required ISO format string), makes STIX very painful to work with as a consumer. All we have are best practices, which
are not always adhered to, and even the best practice is inconsistent with respect to things like how to treat time zones.
-
Jason Keirstead
Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security |
www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
John
Anderson ---11/18/2015 10:55:13 AM---Terry, Thank you. This document explicitly points out many of the "pain points" I (as a recent induc
From: John Anderson <>
To: Terry MacDonald <>, "" <>
Date: 11/18/2015 10:55 AM
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: Things that are difficult in STIX
Sent by: <>
Terry,
Thank you. This document explicitly points out many of the "pain points" I (as a recent inductee to the STIX/CybOX implementor's club) have felt. I am very encouraged by your vision of the future.
My two favorites are:
top-level Relationship object -> This foundational shift will greatly KISS the data model. Bring it on!
top-level Opinion object -> Can I "+1" this idea?
The rest is good, too, and I look forward to a greatly-improved STIX 1.2 that's very close to your proposal.
JSA
From:
<> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:47 PM
To:
Subject: [cti-stix] Things that are difficult in STIX
Hi All,
We’ve spent a bit of time over the last 2 weeks thinking about where STIX could be improved. We’ve gone through the various discussion points that people have raised on and off list, and through the various experiences
that we’ve had ourselves in using STIX. The attached document is the result of that work. In it we list 25 topics that we believe could be improved in some way (or at least should be discussed).
Our hope is that the document will help prompt discourse, and move us towards consensus so that we can agree some of the cross-cutting major issues that Sean mentioned in his STIX v2.0 Roadmap wiki page. We plan
to add these items to the STIX issue tracker, and to the STIX v2.0 Roadmap wiki page, so that they are accurately tracked and followed.
Please feel free to provide feedback on this document – positive or not – as the end goal is making something that was better than before. We have thick skins
J.
Also - thank you to all who provided items for inclusion in the list. I haven’t named people as I wasn’t sure if they wanted their names public. But please accept my thanks for your input.
Cheers
Terry MacDonald
Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
+61 (407) 203 206 |
