baby steps.... Even the Wifi Alliance did not start out with everything.
The first steps in this process should be very basic. Namely, for patterning, can you support an equals/matching operator. For network devices they should be able to support IP address and domain names.. For host based stuff they should be able to support file hashes, and file names.
Rinse and repeat over time.
It would be an AMAZING problem to have, to have so many vendors out there doing STIX/CybOX and TAXII that we need to build a layered certification and assessment program. But for the next 2 years or so, the reality is, we just need people to adopt these standards and start doing things with them.
The market will ultimately decide how much of the certification and assessment we need to end up doing. If everyone's products work well with each other, and users do not complain to us that all of the solutions are broken, then things are good.
The biggest areas I can see us working on are:
1) If I send you a Object FOO, and then request that Object back, is it hash perfect? Do this for a whole library of objects.
2) For data markings over TAXII, if I tell you I can only support TLP AMBER, can I get a document that I know is TLP RED
things like that.. I am sure we can easily come up with a list of 15-20 simple tests that vendors can do, to verify their solutions work.
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 18, 2016, at 07:18, Trey Darley <> wrote:
On 18.07.2016 08:50:23, Terry MacDonald wrote:Maybe this is where we need to separate the STIX certification intodifferent categories to enable that differentiation to be recorded?Full STIX compliance: full STIX including full CybOX objects andpatterning.Partial STIX compliance: STIX implementation of more than thespecialized STIX compliance but not a full implementation of allparts of STIX.Specialized STIX compliance: STIX and CybOX only focused on aspecific subset of the language, and designed for a single purpose.The CybOX Patterning language was created to encompass matching onboth network and endpoint-related data. Yara does a fine job on theendpoint as does Snort on the network, but the CybOX SC as could findno open standard patterning language addressing both, the CybOXPatterning language was developed.Now clearly one would expect that a SIEM claiming to support STIXIndicators would have the capability to handle matching on bothnetwork and endpoint-related data. But one would *not* expect (forexample) a web proxy to know what to do with Windows Registry Keys buta web proxy claiming to support STIX Indicators *should* be able to dosomething sensible (and well-defined) upon receiving a STIX Indicator,containing a CybOX Pattern enumerating URLs, IP addresses, etc.From the perspective of claiming conformance to the standards, there'sobviously some variance to be accounted for depending on what type oftool or product you're talking aboutCurrently we addressed this by inserting this text into the STIXIndicator spec: "...and MUST be supported, as described by the CybOXPatterning conformance specification."We worked furiously on the CybOX Patterning spec last week but ran outof time to address this. There is currently no text in the CybOXPatterning spec describing conformance in these distinctly differentuse cases but this is a known issue and one which we will be workingto address this week.Hope that clears things up a bit! ^_^-- Cheers,Trey++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++Kingfisher Operations, sprlgpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4 5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++--"Every networking problem always takes longer to solve than it seemslike it should." --RFC 1925
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
