[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Malware SDO Remaining Open Questions
I 100% agree that file name should be flexible. I have seen many reports that discuss malware and give hashes, but do not give the filename, and given that this is required, flexibility is a must. I think
I also prefer “exploits” to “Targets” for vulnerability. 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 From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>
I’m on board with updated the description From:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> Thanks – I agree with your comment around “exploits”, though maybe we can just update the description to state that the malware “exploits or
attempts to exploit” a vulnerability to get around this. Regards, Ivan From:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com> 1) definitely feel this should be flexible and not a filename. 2) exploits is clearer but I do have some minor worry that it conveys an impression that the malware always successfully exploits the vuln where reality in many cases is that malware
may target a vuln for exploitation but its success may depend on many other factors within the targeted environment. Not a huge worry but something to consider. Get
Outlook for iOS From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kirillov, Ivan A. <ikirillov@mitre.org> All, As we mentioned on the TC call, there are a few small open questions remaining on the updated Malware SDO [1]:
1.
Regarding the name property, should this property always capture the filename for a malware instance? Or should we leave this flexible so that you can capture more semantic (e.g., family-derived)
names such as “Zeus.A”?
2.
Regarding the existing “targets” relationship in STIX 2.0 from Malware to Vulnerability, we’ve suggested updating this to a new “exploits” relationship (i.e., Malware -> exploits -> Vulnerability) for semantic
clarity. This would be a breaking change, but our thinking is that there would be far less confusion as to what this means. My own thoughts:
1.
I feel like name should be flexible – we already have the
samples property for capturing the information about the binaries associated with the malware, including their filenames.
2.
“Exploits” is much clearer and preferable than “targets” with regards to vulnerabilities (I’ve never seen any malware reporting which states that malware “targets” a vulnerability) so it’s worth making
a breaking change for this. Regards, Ivan 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.
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]