[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
From: | "Allan Thomson" <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> |
To: | "Bret Jordan" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "Sean Barnum" <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, "Sarah Kelley" <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org |
Date: | Wed, Aug 30, 2017 5:03 PM |
Subject: | [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships |
Agreed that we should be clear on what we are trying to communicate.
Valid_until suggests to me that somehow the relationship will expire after X hours/mins/days.
Last_seen suggests to me that the last time the reporting entity saw the connection between those entities.
I prefer the later because it’s a statement in fact whereas valid_until is an estimate by the producer on when they “think” something is no longer connected. That later aspect is subjective at best.
Allan
From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "Wunder, John" <jwunder@mitre.org>, Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
well it depends on what we are saying and what use-case we are trying to solve. If we are saying that this relationship between this Malware and COA for example is only valid for these time frames, then valid_from
and valid_until are the better choice, just like what we did with Indicators.
If we are saying that this relationship was seen between these time frames, that seems like a "sighting". Remember Sighting is just a relationship with an extra property and the ability to have them be one-armed
relationships.
So what is the use-cases we are trying to solve with this request???
Bret
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:13:43 PM
To: Sean Barnum; Wunder, John A.; Sarah Kelley; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
We’ve used first_seen and last_seen in other objects.
I suggest we be consistent with both terminology and semantics of these properties with prior SDOs.
Regards
Allan
From: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM
To: "Wunder, John" <jwunder@mitre.org>, Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
I could support “valid_from” and “valid_to”
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 10:26 AM
To: Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
I support this change, which I believe was originally suggested by Allan. You can think of many use cases in real intelligence:
I would say that the big question here is whether we call the fields “valid_from” and “valid_to” or “first_seen” and “last_seen”. I think I have a slight preference for valid_from and valid_to because of some
of the connotations of “last_seen” being present vs. absent. Like if last_seen is not on the object, what does it mean, vs. if last_seen is on the object set to yesterday. Valid_from on the other hand makes it clear that if the producer feels like the relationship
is still valid they don’t provide the field.
John
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 10:18 AM
To: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-stix] Small changes from 2.0 - 2.1 - dates on relationships
I’m going to be sending a series of emails regarding small changes that have been requested in moving from STIX 2.0 to STIX 2.1. The hope is that these won’t be particularly controversial, but if anyone has
any objections to these changes, please speak up.
GITHUB issue #11 (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/11
)
There has been a suggestion to add “first_seen” and “last_seen” properties onto the relationship object. The Relationship object would then look something like this (with the suggested changes highlighted
in yellow):
3.1.2 Properties
Common Properties |
||
type,
id, created_by_ref, created, modified, revoked,
labels, confidence, lang, external_references, object_marking_refs,
granular_markings |
||
Relationship Specific Properties |
||
relationship_type,
description, source_ref, target_ref |
||
Property Name |
Type |
Description |
type (required) |
string |
The value of this property
MUST be relationship. |
relationship_type (required) |
string |
The name used to identify the type of Relationship. This value
SHOULD be an exact value listed in the relationships for the source and target SDO, but
MAY be any string. The value of this property MUST be in ASCII and is limited to characters a–z (lowercase ASCII), 0–9, and hyphen (-). |
description (optional) |
string |
A description that provides more details and context about the Relationship, potentially including its purpose and its key characteristics. |
first_seen
(optional) |
timestamp |
The beginning of the time window during which the relationship should be considered valid. |
last_seen
(optional) |
timestamp |
The end of the time window during which the relationship should be considered valid. |
source_ref (required) |
identifier |
The id of the source (from) object. The value
MUST be an ID reference to an SDO (i.e., it cannot point to an SRO, Bundle, or Marking Definition). |
target_ref (required) |
identifier |
The id of the target (to) object. The value
MUST be an ID reference to an SDO (i.e., it cannot point to an SRO, Bundle, or Marking Definition). |
Does anyone have any objections to making this change?
Sarah Kelley
Senior Cyber Threat Analyst
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC)
31 Tech Valley Drive
East Greenbush, NY 12061
518-266-3493
24x7 Security Operations Center
SOC@cisecurity.org - 1-866-787-4722
This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If it appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and attachments
is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments.
. . . . .
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]