Hi Julie,
Will that secret marking information ever be seen by someone who is not allowed to see that marking information? What I’m wondering is whether it is redundant to apply data marking
restrictions to data marking if the recipients will only ever see that data marking if they are already allowed to see it.
Additionally, which data marking format would one use to document the restriction on the data marking system? i.e. if someone was using TOP_SECRET_MARKING marking system, will they
describe the restriction of that using TLP, or using TOP_SECRET_MARKING? If it’s the later, then how would they describe the restriction of the restriction of that TOP_SECRET_MARKING? By labelling it with TOP_SECRET_MARKING?
As you can see I’m somewhat worried about the cyclical nature of allowing data marking to apply to data marking. I can see it has its uses (e.g. sharing restrictions on the terms of
use) but it also seems to have its problems.
I’d really like to know how you and others in a similar position handle this problem in current systems.
Cheers
Terry MacDonald
Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
+61 (407) 203 206 |
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Modlin, Julie K.
Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 6:59 AM
To: '' <>
Cc: Moss, Mark B. <>; Barnum, Sean D. () <>
Subject: [cti] Use case for data markings
Regarding the recent question and discussion regarding data marking use cases, the ESSA Community (Federal Entities including the National Cyber Centers) has a need for a capability to indicate that
certain markings used on STIX documents are themselves sensitive. To support this in the proposed construct, there is a need for the ability to apply data markings (object_marking_refs or granular_markings) to specific marking_definitions themselves. This
is supported by making marking_definitions standard TLOs.
Julie Modlin
Enhance Shared Situational Awareness (ESSA) Systems Engineering Team
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
443-778-6989 / Baltimore
240-228-6989 / Washington
