[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cti] Question Gathering: Relationship Preservation in Versioning (Implicit vs Explicit)
Hi All, This is great discussion! I realized that my original question lead to an implementation response(not my intent) but as @Trey said implicit-vs-explicit may not necessarily be a boolean question. In order for the community to make a well informed stance on the matter we'll need to go through both sides. This can lead into scope creep and vast changes across the CTI domain so I would like to go into each approach so we can see what we're getting into without diving into implementation first. That's how we discussed and came up with the principles. At some point implementations will get involved but I hope going through a "generics" approach we'll be able to identify what we what and possibly rule out some approaches without diving into them directly. Talking about of these items in a generics approach will definitely be a great idea to understand the underlying desires of members within the community. From previous experience, I don't find the timeframe or structure of our weekly meetings as a good means to solve this concern(for the versioning meeting we meet for 2, we concluded before that, outside of the regular meetings). But I'm open to any means we can work together to solving these issues and providing all the findings to the TC to make a decision. -Marlon From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Wunder, John A. Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:41:25 AM To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti] Question Gathering: Relationship Preservation in Versioning (Implicit vs Explicit) Is this a good topic for the call tomorrow? Versioning leads, does that seem reasonable to you, or do you need more time to prep?
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>
Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 11:24 AM To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti] Question Gathering: Relationship Preservation in Versioning (Implicit vs Explicit) I would argue that even as the producer I don’t want to have to update every relationship every time I revision something. Let’s say I have 600 indicators linked to a TTP or a Campaign. If I update that TTP or Campaign, I do NOT want to have to update
600 corresponding relationships, even if I do have the ability to do so.
Sarah Kelley
Senior CERT Analyst
Center for Internet Security (CIS)
Integrated Intelligence Center (IIC)
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC)
1-866-787-4722 (7×24 SOC)
Email: cert@cisecurity.org
www.cisecurity.org
Follow us @CISecurity
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 11:17 AM To: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> Cc: Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>, "Marlon.Taylor@us-cert.gov" <Marlon.Taylor@us-cert.gov>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti] Question Gathering: Relationship Preservation in Versioning (Implicit vs Explicit) I agree with Jason.... Major things the versioning mini-group needs to know:
1) Relationships will be created by groups other than the producer of the objects.
2) The producer may NEVER have access to those relationships.
3) When the producer updates some content in their object is MUST NOT break all of the relationships in the wild.
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
. . . |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]