cti-cybox message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for August 8 Working Call
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:34:38 -0300
I like this as well, I can foresee two
fields being added to both collections and channels:
required_markings
supported_markings
I will also throw out there that TAXII
channels really needs work if we want it to be completed.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From:
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
To:
Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>,
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org>
Date:
08/09/2017 06:41 PM
Subject:
[cti-stix] Re:
[cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox]
Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for August 8 Working Call
Sent by:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Terry,
I really like the idea of including IEP
support in TAXII. Assuming a user has the rights to know about certain
levels of content it would be great if you could pre-filter on IEP restrictions.
Bret
From: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 1:39:45 PM
To: Jason Keirstead
Cc: Allan Thomson; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org; Bret Jordan; cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org;
Back, Greg
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix]
Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for August 8 Working Call
Perhaps this is where we could add the ability within
TAXII channels to specify mandatory data marking requirements for that
channel? That seems a nice way of saying 'to participate in this community,
you need to support X'.
Cheers
Terry MacDonald
On 10/08/2017 05:35, "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:
That said... I would be extremely strongly
against requiring IEP in any interoperability profile.
Data markings have many uses, but there are entire swaths of the cybersecurity
space to which they are simply not applicable. There is no way we can mandate
marking support in interoperability testing without excluding whole segments
of the market.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From: Allan
Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
To: Bret
Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
"Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org>
Cc: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 08/08/2017
12:51 AM
Subject: [cti-stix]
Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda
for August 8 Working Call
Sent by: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
We have not finished interop test specification for STIX 2.0 so until we
have done that, it’s premature to be talking about what STIX 2.1 interop
will or will not do.
Part 1 ballot is still outstanding. Getting the TC to focus on Interop
2.0 is hard enough.
Allan
Thomson
CTO
+1-408-331-6646
LookingGlass
Cyber Solutions
From: OASIS list <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:58 PM
To: "Back, Greg" <gback@mitre.org>
Cc: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
OASIS list <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox]
Agenda for August 8 Working Call
Those are good questions. The specification will not mandate, or
I hope will not mandate, the use of IEP, but is the interop SC going to
mandate it in their profiles?
Bret
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Back, Greg <gback@mitre.org>
wrote:
As long as we aren’t mandating all consumers (and producers, though I’m
more worried about consumers) to implement IEP, I’m fine with this. I’m
also fine with using interoperability to promote the use of IEP, and (hopefully)
letting market forces make IEP used universally.
On 2017-08-07, 19:01 UTC, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.orgon
behalf of Struse, Richard J." <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.orgon
behalf of rjs@mitre.org>
wrote:
Meant to say: “…that we are NOTrequiring IEP nor…”
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Richard Struse <rjs@mitre.org>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:59 PM
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
"Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for
August 8 Working Call
Since we began this work there has been a clear recognition that TLP, while
useful, isn’t sufficient to represent the sorts of policy expressions
that are required to truly enable CTI sharing ecosystems. The FIRST community
is exactly the sort of hands-on community best suited to develop such policy
frameworks and it doesn’t seem like there are any competing policy frameworks
under consideration. Given that, and the fact that we are requiring
IEP nor are we “tying” STIX to IEP (or vice-versa), it seems worthwhile
to do the work necessary to figure out how to best support those communities
that wish to use IEP.
Is there anyone actively opposed to the TC figuring out how we might support
IEP?
From: <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>,
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-cybox] Re: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for August 8 Working
Call
On the IEP front, we need to make sure the TC wants to do it before we
figure out how we should do it. I would love to see some discussion
over email first, before we tackle it on a working call that only has a
subset of the membership. In other words, a working call is not a
good place to decide "if" we should do something. It is
a great place to figure out "how" we should do it, once the TC
has sufficiently debated and decided to do it.
Bret
From: cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org<cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 9:11 AM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org;
cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] [cti-cybox] Agenda for August 8 Working Call
All,
We have three topics for the working call this week:
1. Continue work on DNS Request/Response
2. Continue work on Location, in particular discuss
ISO 3166
3. Discuss inclusion of IEP (how we should do it)
John
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]