OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [cti] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28

I could get behind this idea, or some variant of it. It is a variant of what John Wunder proposed at the F2F.

-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown




From:        "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>
To:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <Jeffrey.Mates@dc3.mil>
Cc:        "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, Sean Barnum <[email protected]>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Date:        10/31/2018 11:15 AM
Subject:        Re: [cti] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28



I have a compromise suggestion â and as a compromise â Iâm sure no one will like it, but here goes.
 
As I looked at the various examples that Sean and John came up with, I was struck on how similar they really were.  As Sean said, the semantics is basically the same.  It seems to be there are two main issues here:
  
Here is the idea:
Letâs extend the idea of an identifier to allow references to individual cyber observables within an observed_data.
Use the key in observed_data to refer to an individual cyber observable.
 
                observed_data-3f708258-8c84-4b31-acd9-ff479618f88c.0
 
For instance:
 

{
  "type": "bundle",
  "id": "bundle--44af6c39-c09b-49c5-9de2-394224b04982",
  "objects": [
    {
      "type": "observed_data",
      "id": "observed_data-3f708258-8c84-4b31-acd9-ff479618f88c",
       "objects": {
        "0": {
            "value": "joebob@example.com",
           "type": "email-addr"
        }
       }
       "spec_version": "2.1",
       "created": "2018-04-16T20:03:48.000Z",
      "modified": "2018-04-16T20:03:48.000Z",
    },
    {
      "type": "threat-actor",
      "id": "threat-actor--8e2e2d2b-17d4-4cbf-938f-98ee46b3cd3f",
      "spec_version": "2.1",
      "created": "2016-04-06T20:03:48.000Z",
      "modified": "2016-04-06T20:03:48.000Z",
      "name": "Evil Org"
    },
    {
      "type": "relationship",
      "id": "relationship--f82356ae-fe6c-437c-9c24-6b64314ae68a",
      "spec_version": "2.1",
      "created": "2015-07-01T00:00:00.000Z",
      "modified": "2016-07-01T00:00:00.000Z",
      "source_ref": "threat-actor--8e2e2d2b-17d4-4cbf-938f-98ee46b3cd3f",
      "target_ref": "observed_data-3f708258-8c84-4b31-acd9-ff479618f88c.0",
      "relationship_type": "uses",
      "start_time": "2015-07-01T00:00:00.000000Z",
      "stop_time": "2016-07-01T00:00:00.000000Z"
    }
  ]
}
 
 

I can see some problems with this approach immediately, like how do we deal with the refs to other cyber observables in the same observed-data.
But I see this as solving the relationship issue, without really changing observed_data.  Maybe someone can improve upon the basic idea.
 
                Rich P.
 
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:44 AM
To: "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
 
Jeff the problem is not re-using objects internally in a single server.

It is the problem of re-using objects across the entire ecosystem of thousands of tools and hundreds of thousands of instances of said tools. That is not something that will be able to realistically occur with this model.


-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown




From:        "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <Jeffrey.Mates@dc3.mil>
To:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, Sean Barnum <[email protected]>
Cc:        "[email protected]" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <[email protected]>
Date:        10/31/2018 10:39 AM
Subject:        [cti] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
Sent by:        <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>





My concern is that the current approach does nothing to even allow producers to attempt to minimize duplication of static factual entries.  Every time I want to say I saw an IP address right now I need to create both an observed data for it and a sighting.  If I want to say that this IP resolved to an FQDN I need another observed that contains it and the FQDN.  If I want to say that the FQDN was part of someoneâs infrastructure I need YET another copy of that FQDN to make that relationship.

With this at the very least I can keep referencing the same IP and FQDN if I choose to do so.  In most cases systems wonât bother doing this outside of a single STIX message unless theyâre configured as a TAXII server as well.

If you do have a TAXII server then itâs vital to be able to re-use as many STIX objects as possible.  Otherwise asking for them by ID and looking up references to them is meaningless.

Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/TSD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer Scientist
Defense Cyber Crime Institute
jeffrey.mates@dc3.mil
410-694-4335

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:15 AM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Cc: [email protected]; Kelley, Sarah E. <[email protected]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28

All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.




What I see missing from this proposal is how we are going to avoid the proliferation of thousands / millions of duplicate entries for static, factual objects such as IPs, URLs, Hosts, and file hashes in the CTI ecosystem if we go down this path.

How many instances of "8.8.8.8" or will there be in the wild that a CTI repository will have to store to maintain this graph? Tens of thousands? Millions? Every time a new data source wants to link an observation to an IP they will have a new UUID.. its not like they will very often be able to refer to an existing one, as there is no "global repository of STIX objects" that exists anywhere.

We will have so, so much duplication. The number of top level objects that have to be tracked among all third parties will explode exponentially.

I am fully aware that internally some software has to do some things like this anyway for certain analytical use cases - our own teams do this. That is not the point. The purpose of STIX is not to emulate a graph database. If it was, we could all just switch to Gremlin.

-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
Caution-www.ibm.com/security< Caution-www.ibm.com/security >

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown




From:        Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
To:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:        "[email protected]" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <[email protected]>
Date:        10/30/2018 02:38 PM
Subject:        Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
Sent by:        <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>





I would realistically and truthfully argue that âthe proposal as submitted does not contain a very large number of significant breaking changes to the spec.â
There are 5 substantive changes.
  1. Observables keep their same type structure but are now TLOs
  2. Observed-data.objects now contains references to the observable objects rather than defining them inline
  3. Observed-data.objects can now contain references to relationships
  4. Inter-Observable relationships currently expressed as properties on source object are broken out into Relationships
  5. Extensions are possible on all STIX objects
I would argue that this is nowhere close to âan order of magnitude larger than the total combined changes we have done thus far in 2.1 specâ.

I used the term FUD in its literal sense âfear, uncertainty and doubtâ. During the F2F, you expressed your fear, uncertainty and doubt by making the assertion that Option1 would require âmassiveâ change to the specifications and that the  months of effort it would take to do that made it a non-starter to even consider Option1. This was not âsimply stating the factsâ. This was an assertion of an opinion without any factual evidence in support. I was doubtful of this assertion but did not feel it would be appropriate to argue strongly against it without having actual evidence rather than just words to throw around. That is why I took the time to review and revise the STIX specs for Option1. In the end, I believe the referenced modded specifications demonstrate that Option1 does NOT represent âmassiveâ change to the specifications (in fact it proved out to be even much less than I anticipated) and did NOT take months to do (I did it alone in a few days time).

This concrete evidence-based approach is also the approach we all agreed to take in evaluating the technical issues involved in supporting requisite STIX use cases.
I would assert that the evidence presented at the technical level also clearly demonstrates the need for change and that Option1 is the only option on the table that supports the needed change.

Obviously, we can disagree on what is a minor vs major release.
I would suggest that the limited and localized nature of substantive changes represented in this proposal clearly would be allowable in a 2.1 or 2.2 release.

Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com

From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:32 PM
To: Sean Barnum <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28

Sean - I don't think anyone could realistically argue that the proposal as submitted does not contain a very large number of significant breaking changes to the spec. Said changes are an order of magnitude larger than the total combined changes we have done thus far in 2.1 spec... I would hardly call it "FUD", it is simply stating the facts.

One thing that has yet to be discussed in the TC is the scope to which a changeset can even be considered for a minor vs. a major release.

I would argue that this changeset and the breakages within are substantial enough that it should only be being discussed in the scope of a major change (STIX 3.0).

-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
Caution-www.ibm.com/security< Caution-www.ibm.com/security >

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown




From:        Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
To:        "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>, "[email protected]" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        10/30/2018 12:33 PM
Subject:        Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
Sent by:        <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>






All,

At the F2F there was a lot of conversation around WHY Option1 may be needed, identifying and discussing numerous use case scenarios and leading to a fairly strong majority consensus (9-5 of attendees I believe) in favor. To further demonstrate what was discussed in a fact-based manner and to help other TC members who did not attend the F2F, it was decided to list out a list of some use case scenarios for use cases that STIX should/must (some would argue should while some would argue must) support and then provide actual JSON examples of how that Use Case would be supported with Option1 and how it would be supported with Option7 (which is mostly status quo with a couple very minor changes). It was recognized by all that the list would not be complete but would at least give us something concrete to think about and discuss.
That list is located here: Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit#< Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit >
It contains links to some submitted Option1 and Option7 examples that claim to demonstrate support for the use cases.

As very strong proponents of Option1 (proven out operationally across FireEye every day), FireEye submitted Option1 examples for almost all of the use cases on the list. The 3 out of 20 that we did not provide examples for were due to ambiguities in the use case characterizations rather than any inability of Option1 to cover them.
In addition, we are in the process of writing up a brief rationale/justification for Option1 but it is not yet ready to share prior to todayâs call.

Beyond the question of which option is needed technically there was also discussion of FUD around what level of change/impact would be required on the STIX specifications with at least one party expressing worry that the change could be massive and take months to do.

In an attempt to determine if the FUD about massive specification change was justified or not we also performed a quick review/revision pass through all 5 parts of the STIX 2.1 working draft specs making appropriate modifications to implement Option1. There still is some editorial cleanup required beyond our suggested changes but we believe our suggested changes fully cover the substantive changes required for Option1. We were pleasantly surprised at the minimal level of impact and the fact that I was able to complete the review and suggested revision in only a few days time.
You can find a very brief summarization of the proposal and the changes it involves at a high-level and at a spec level as well as links to the modified specs here: Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j0gXMp3MFLzHCrudfbDn5NeZSUeBCc8EBsvPsP1epOg/edit?usp=sharing< Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j0gXMp3MFLzHCrudfbDn5NeZSUeBCc8EBsvPsP1epOg/edit?usp=sharing >

That link should give you all permissions to not only read but also provide any comments you feel are relevant.

We are hopeful that this in addition to the forthcoming rationale writeup will be helpful for everyone to understand the reality of the issues involved and the reality of spec change impact.

Let me know if you have any questions.


Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com

From: <[email protected]> on behalf of "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28

All,

Today on the working call weâll be discussing the 1` option that discussed at the F2F in NYC. For those not in attendance, there was a proposal to redesign the STIX data model and make observables top level objects (known as option 1`). A second proposal was made to just modify observed data and use that instead (option 7). The two options have been modeled here: (Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit< Caution-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit > ) for various use cases.

Please join us to  make this conversation productive and successful.

Thanks,

Sarah Kelley
Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2
Defensive Operations
The MITRE Corporation
703-983-6242
skelley@mitre.org < Caution-mailto:skelley@mitre.org >

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. [attachment "image001.jpg" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]

 

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.

 

 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]