I also vote #1 as appears to be concensus...
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
who hustle." - Unknown
From:
Sean Barnum <>
To:
Terry MacDonald <>,
"Kirillov, Ivan A." <>
Cc:
""
<>
Date:
05/17/2018 10:46 PM
Subject:
Re: [cti-stix]
RE: New property names for previous label properties
Sent by:
<>
+1
Get Outlook
for iOS
From:
<> on behalf of Terry MacDonald <>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:49:02 PM
To: Kirillov, Ivan A.
Cc:
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: New property names for previous label properties
Hi All,
I am also in favour of #1, but I also would prefer that
we use better names than restricting ourselves to *_types where it makes
sense. Specifically I'm thinking of the Identity object (where Roles makes
more sense). The following tweaked list (based on Jason's proposal earlier)
would suffice in my opinion:
Identity: roles
Indicator: indicator_types
Malware: malware_types
Report: report_types
Threat Actor: threat_actor_types
Tool: tool_types
Cheers
Terry MacDonald| Chief Product Officer
M: +64
211 918 814
E:
W: www.cosive.com
On 18 May 2018 at 08:34, Kirillov, Ivan A. <>
wrote:
I’m also in favor of Option 1, but mostly because I feel
like “_types” is vastly preferable semantically over the other options.
I could go either way on “labels” vs “tags”.
Regards,
Ivan
From: <>
on behalf of Paul Patrick <>
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:23 PM
To: Sean Barnum <>, "Kelley, Sarah
E." <>,
John Wunder <>,
""
<>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: New property names for previous label properties
+1 in
agreement with Sean’s assessment.
From: <>
on behalf of Sean Barnum <>
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:29 PM
To: "Kelley, Sarah E." <>,
"Wunder, John A." <>,
""
<>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: New property names for previous label properties
I will restate the FireEye position again. Based on both
our operational experience (currently generating, exchanging, analyzing,
consuming and presenting this data amongst a large FireEye ecosystem and
externally to customers/partners) and our experience with scores of developers
writing code against this data in dozens of systems we very strongly suggest
option #1, strongly oppose option #3 and very strongly oppose option #2.
The names of properties in these standards are for human
intuition and understanding. They are not for machines as machines would
be fine with just using numbers for the properties.
We would assert that option #1 is far and away the most
intuitive and clear naming approach for the information we are trying to
capture/convey. The vast majority of developers or consumers of STIX information
when handed a Malware object with a malware_type property are going to
immediately understand what that property is intended to convey. The same
cannot be said for labels, tags or classifications. I say this from experience
of having to explain the current structure to developers many times.
The current approach of using labels for this info and
for user-defined ad-hoc labeling/tagging has two main issues we are trying
to overcome:
1. By munging the object “type”
(e.g., malware_type) content into the ad-hoc list there is no way for consumers
of the data to inherently know which “labels” represent specific object
“type” info and which are user labels/tags.
2. The name is very ambiguous and
very non-intuitive for conveying a specific structured assertion of what
type of object it is (malware_type=”backdoor”, indicator_type=”IP blacklist”,
etc.). This leads to confusion for producing developers to know where to
put object “type” info as well as confusion for consuming developers
or users to know where to look for such info and how to distinguish it
from other info.
Option #1 presented here clearly solves both of these issues.
Option #2 solves the first issue (though will require a
developer to really read the spec to know how) and does not solve the second
issue. In fact, it actually makes the second issue worse as now there are
two ambiguous non-intuitive terms being used heightening the likelihood
of confusion.
Option #3 solves the first issue but does not solve the
second issue. While it does not increase the confusion as option #2 does,
it still uses an ambiguous and non-intuitive term that has clear and conflicting
semantic meaning to entire sub-portions of the CTI community.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E:
From: <>
on behalf of "Kelley, Sarah E." <>
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:44 PM
To: "Wunder, John A." <>,
""
<>
Subject: [cti-stix] RE: New property names for previous label properties
I would also like to remind people that not every object
has one of these vocabs that cause the issue. So you can’t, as Jeff mentioned,
always look in each object and expect to find the same data, because sometimes
it’s not there.
My preference would be for 1, 2, 3. I don’t like using
the word classifications, though as John said, they would all work.
Did we ever officially agree if we were going to make these
(labels/tags/classifications, whatever they wind up being) all optional?
Currently, the ones with defined vocabs are required.
Sarah Kelley
Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2
Defensive Operations
The MITRE Corporation
703-983-6242
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Wunder, John A.
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 1:32 PM
To:
Subject: [cti-stix] RE: New property names for previous label properties
All,
I wanted to bump this discussion on the “labels” topic
being tracked as issue 37 [1]. We discussed it on the May 8 working call
[2] but unfortunately still don’t seem to be at consensus on this topic.
It’s a blocker for releasing the STIX 2.1 CSD so getting to a resolution
is important.
Along those lines, one other option came up on Slack recently:
while we typically avoid using “classification” because of connotations
for the government community (and those supporting them), the feeling maybe
we should reconsider it. Given that new option, to restate the proposals:
1. *_types (indicator_types, malware_types,
threat_actor_types, etc.) for the categorizations/types, and use “labels”
for user-defined tagging
2. Keep these values from the vocab
in “labels” (as they are now), add a new property called “tags” to
capture the user-defined tagging
3. Use the name “classifications”
for the categorizations/types, and use “labels” for user-defined tagging
We could really use more input on these, in particular
if you’re now open to different options or have not yet weighed in. I’d
suggest we just list an order of preference to see if maybe there’s a
compromise that gets us somewhere. My order of preference is 1, 3, 2 but
any of them seem fine.
Thanks,
John
[1]: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37
[2]: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cti/document.php?document_id=63120
From: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <>
Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:48 PM
To: "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <>,
Terry MacDonald <>,
Sean Barnum <>
Cc: John Wunder <>,
""
<>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New
property names for previous label properties
Jeff, I think you hit on a really important point that
we need to all remember. STIX is a serialization format for COMPUTERS.
What you display in the UI is independent. So proposal 2 really seems
like a better solution for our design principles.
Bret
From: Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD <>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:41:04 AM
To: Terry MacDonald; Sean Barnum
Cc: Bret Jordan; Wunder, John A.;
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New
property names for previous label properties
I’m strongly in favor
of having a single named field for this (proposal 2). The primary
purpose that was being discussed for this was to allow display information
to be sent using STIX for specific products. As a programmer it’s
a lot easier for me to know that every object type will have the same field
that I should query for if I want this value rather than having to fill
in a special configuration entry for each and every STIX object type.
That way when a STIX viewer
application reads an entry it knows it always needs to look at 2 fields
to determine what icon to display.
1. Look
at tags and see if any match my icon rules. If one does use it, if
more than one does decide which to use.
2. Look
at the TLO and use the default icon for this type. If it is an unknown
TLO use a fallback icon.
If we go with options that
make more sense to a human then it ends up requiring an additional lookup
step:
1. Lookup
the key for tag names and see what field or fields to use.
3. If
a tag name exists for this type see if any match my icon rules. If
one does use it, if more than one does decide which to use.
2. Look
at the TLO and use the default icon for this type. If it is an unknown
TLO use a fallback icon.
Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/DCCI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer Scientist
Defense Cyber Crime Institute
410-694-4335
From: <>
On Behalf Of Terry MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 2:11 AM
To: Sean Barnum <>
Cc: Bret Jordan <>;
Wunder, John A. <>;
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property
names for previous label properties
I also strongly support #1, but with the caveat that we
don't always user _types if another word makes more sense e.g. roles for
the Identity object. I like the list that Jason posted in the issue comments,
with a slight tweak as suggested by Sean:
Identity: roles
Indicator: indicator_types
Malware: malware_types
Report: report_types
Threat Actor: threat_actor_types
Tool: tool_types
Cheers
Terry MacDonald| Chief Product Officer
M: +64
211 918 814
E:
W: www.cosive.com
On 25 April 2018 at 10:11, Sean Barnum <>
wrote:
I strongly support #1 as it meets what is needed and is
by far the most intuitively clear on what it means. I would suggest the
large majority of people would understand what it means.
I would strongly disagree with #2. I would suggest that
it would be found almost universally to be confusing and unclear on what
labels are, what tags are and what the difference is. “Labels” is far
too general to convey the specific meaning of a specific type of something
(malware, threat actor, indicator, etc).
Get Outlook
for iOS
From: <>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 5:32:01 PM
To: Wunder, John A.;
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for
previous label properties
I like #2, this is what we had originally in STIX 2.0 before
we merged them.
Bret
From: <>
on behalf of Wunder, John A. <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:31:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for
previous label properties
Hey all,
We discussed this on the working call and had a quick straw
poll. The options we discussed were:
1. *_types
(indicator_types, malware_types, threat_actor_types, etc.): 5 votes
2. Keep
these values from the vocab in labels (as they are now), add a new property
called tags to capture the user-defined tagging: 4 votes
3. Something
else: 0 votes
4. Abstain:
5
If you haven’t weighed in on this topic yet, can you please
shoot a message to the list to help us decide? It can be just a quick “I
like #3”, or it can be something with a longer description, or it can
be a new suggestion to consider. You can also comment on github: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37.
We need to resolve this issue before we can finish CSD01
so any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
John
From: <>
on behalf of Allan Thomson <>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 5:13 PM
To: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <>,
John Wunder <>,
""
<>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for
previous label properties
Agree with Bret’s issues. I posted my comment to the github
repo and suggested an alternative.
Allan Thomson
CTO (+1-408-331-6646)
LookingGlass
Cyber Solutions
From: ""
<>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 1:57 PM
To: "Wunder, John" <>,
""
<>
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous
label properties
As
noted in the Github issue tracker, I really dislike the "_type"
names. I think it will be really confusing for people long term.
Bret
From: <>
on behalf of Wunder, John A. <>
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 2:34:58 PM
To:
Subject: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
Hey all,
Per Issue 37 (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37),
the TC has decided to stop using the labels property for the default vocabularies
we have on some object types that generally categorizes the object. Given
that change, we need to name the new properties on each of the objects
that the change applies to.
After hearing from Jason on Slack, I captured some potential
names in the last comment on that github issue (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37#issuecomment-379361610).
Can you please take a moment and review those suggestions? If you agree,
please +1 my comment or respond over e-mail. If you disagree and have a
different suggestion, please comment in Github or respond over e-mail.
I’d like to get at least a few people to positively agree to these decisions…especially
if you were a proponent of making the change called out in the issue.
You can find the vocabs themselves in Part 1 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShNq4c3e1CkfANmD9O--mdZ5H0O_GLnjN28a_yrEaco/edit)
and the definitions for how they’re used in the objects in Part 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkMmU1PxlwlAwjrMmyWV147rvLcRs2x62FicHbpH2gU/edit).
Just search for the object name.
Many of the suggestions are “_type”…just note that there’s
already a “type” property on the objects, so it would lead to both a
required “type” property and a required “indicator_type” property on
Indicator, for example. That may be fine, it was just pointed out already
in Slack so I wanted to bring it up here.
Thanks!
John
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
