Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships - current consensus

I'm happy with this decision.

Cheers

Terry MacDonald

Cosive

On 6/09/2017 08:24, "Sarah Kelley" <> wrote:

On today’s working call, we discussed the proposal to add timestamps to the relationship object in order to indicate when the tool/analyst thought the relationship was correct.  We achieved consensus on several
 things. 

 

We agreed that we believe the below definitions are what we’re trying to capture and should be used (with minor wordsmithing):

Relationship Timestamp Field #1

This optional timestamp represents the earliest time at which the relationship between the objects exists. If the timestamp field #1 is a future timestamp,
 at the time of the updated field is defined, then this represents an estimate by the producer of the intelligence on the earliest time at which relationship will be asserted to be true. If not specified, then the earliest time at which the relationship between
 the objects exists is not defined.

Relationship Timestamp Field #2

This optional timestamp represents the latest time at which the relationship between the objects exists. If the timestamp field #2 is a future timestamp, at
 the time of the updated field is defined, then this represents an estimate by the producer of the intelligence on the latest time at which relationship will be asserted to be true. If the timestamp field #2 is defined, then it MUST be later than the timestamp
 #1 value. If not specified, then the latest time at which the relationship between the objects exists is not defined.

We gave everyone the choice of names for these fields. The votes were as follows:

 

first_seen/last_seen

0

valid_from/valid_until

0

start_time/end_time

13

 

There was some discussion about pushing this change to 2.2+:

Yes – 4

No – 10

 

 

So, current consensus is to use the above definitions (with minor wordsmithing), with the property names of “start_time” and “end_time”, and that it should be included in 2.1.

 

We’re sending this to the list to make sure everyone is aware of the discussion from the call and the current consensus, and to give everyone a chance to comment. If there are no objections, we will make these
 changes to the spec.

 

Thanks, 

 

 

Sarah Kelley

Senior Cyber Threat Analyst

Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC)                   

31 Tech Valley Drive

East Greenbush, NY 12061

 



518-266-3493

24x7 Security Operations Center

 - 1-866-787-4722

 

      
           

This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If it appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
 immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.

. . . . .