cti-stix — archive

STIX 2.0 - Sightings object

From: Mark Davidson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:17:00 -0000

Great discussion topic! There has been some previous discussion on the STIX Schemas GitHub on this topic: https://github.com/STIXProject/schemas/issues/291 The conversation seemed (to me) to settle on the idea that there were three concepts that are related in some way: 1. Relationships – A link between objects (e.g., this TTP is related to that Indicator) 2. Assertions – The +1/-1 concept 3. Sightings – “I saw that, too!” It seems that the structures are similar across the three concepts (e.g., id, from, to, assertion, source/confidence/rationale) and that the larger open question is whether humans are benefitted by these things being variations of the same concept or three different concepts (or something else). I personally think there is a single set of common properties that can do Relationships, Assertions, and Sightings, and that it looks roughly like what Aharon posted. However, there was a counter-point that this combining of concepts makes it more difficult to understand. I’ll leave the group with these questions: 1. Is there a single set of properties that makes sense for Relationships, Assertions, and Sightings? 2. If there is a single set of properties, does it make sense to combine them, as Aharon has mentioned? 3. What clarifying questions, if any, do you have that will help you answer #1 or #2? a. Note that this might be the most important of the three questions! Thank you. - Mark From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aharon Chernin Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 8:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [cti-stix] STIX 2.0 - Sightings object This should be "sightings object rethought". While coming up with a proposal, I spotted a different way of thinking about Sightings. In my opinion, the most important thing is determining which STIX object is being sighted. However, there is some other bits of information that is useful: sightings producer and date/time of sighting. Now take a look at the recent relationship object discussions: Relationship Object Discussion: ID [1]: The ID of the relationship , a simple random GUID Marking [1]: The ID of the marking object that you should reference Version [1]: The version of the relationship ; a simple number to be used with the ID for version control Type [1]: The “type” of relationship being expressed. (Not sure of how this works yet) Description [1]: A single simple and short description Source [1] : The ID of one or more source entities in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Targets [1..N]: The ID of one or more targets in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Start [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the object s started, or the text 'unknown'. End [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the object s ended, or the text 'ongoing', or the text 'unknown'. Reliability/Confidence [1]: A measure of confidence in the relationship using the Information Reliability scale. Producer [1]: A simple producer object like what John calls out Timestamp [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship object was created. Idea: Could a sighting be a type of Relationship? Relationship Object Discussion: ID [1]: <GUID> Marking [1]: TLP Green Version [1]: 1 Type [1]: Sighting Description [1]: Soltra Edge reported Sighting Source [1] : Soltra Targets [1..N]: soltra:indicator-<GUID> Start [1]: End [1]: Reliability/Confidence [1]: Producer [1]: Soltra Timestamp [1]: <timestamp> Or is there more meta data we need to collect regarding sightings that a sighting deserves it's own object? Aharon Chernin CTO SOLTRA An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company 18301 Bermuda green Dr Tampa, fl 33647 813.470.2173 [email protected] www.soltra.com