[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cacao] [EXT] [cacao] Remaining work items
In support of adoption, as an initial early release of the specification to be evolved, I think we can have consensus around:
- playbook_types as optional with a normative SHOULD
- playbook_functionalities and functions (on command) as optional with a normative SHOULD
- if playbook_types are used, playbook_functionalities associated with the referenced playbook type be MUST used
Â
To support understanding and use of playbook_types and playbook_functionalities we should provide examples for the community.
Â
Separate but related: The current values for playbook_types are limited to those defined within the TC where as the community may leverage more known frameworks/taxonomies so I suggest we provide a mechanism to support other taxonomies for playbook_types.
Â
Thoughts?
Â
-Marlon
Â
Â
From: cacao@lists.oasis-open.org <cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Vasileios Mavroeidis
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:48 PM
To: aa tt <atcyber1000@gmail.com>
Cc: Bret Jordan <jordan.oasisopen@gmail.com>; Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>; Dr. Desiree A Beck <dbeck@mitre.org>; duncan <duncan@sfractal.com>; cacao@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cacao] [EXT] [cacao] Remaining work itemsÂ
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of DHS. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your component SOC with questions or concerns.
Â
With regards to: "a) playbook_functionalties being required versus optional - Allan is the only one really pushing back on this. Everyone else seems to be okay with it."
Â
I was the first one against having this set of proposed properties "required". I support simplicity over complexity (Allan's points). I never heard a justification or the use case that needs them to be "required". Maybe I have lost episodes here, but I want to have something, so I can say, "Ah, I seeâ, and give +1. Otherwise, the proposal it self is of value.
Â
Des's compromise - a normative SHOULD - could also apply to theÂÂ"function"Âproperty.
-V
On Nov 2, 2022, at 1:23 AM, aa tt <atcyber1000@gmail.com> wrote:
Â
Bret - Whether itâs 1 person or 10 people, my argument/statements on this feature and its implication on the standard are still true. I suggest we focus on the technical implications of a feature and not make it a personal attack to suggest its only me. My argument has merit. Donât discount it just because one person said it.
Â
I donât appreciate that tactic.
Â
Allan
On Nov 1, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Bret Jordan <jordan.oasisopen@gmail.com> wrote:
Â
First off -Â
Â
1) We have and continue to make significant progress towards a release.Â
Â
2) We are working on merging that extra metadataÂtext Allan wrote into the document. Allan, you were on the call when we decided to do that. It just has not yet been done.
Â
3) There are three major issues that are holding up the release:
a) playbook_functionalties being required versus optional - Allan is the only one really pushing back on this. Everyone else seems to be okay with it.
b) The attack target types are not quite right and need some work. Both Des and I have played around with them and something is just not right there. So if we are looking to release fast, then we should drop them from this version as they are not yet ready.
c) We have had more discussion about the difference between playbook templates and executable playbooks. I think Rich's proposal today on the call can really address a lot of the concerns we have heard recently.
Â
Bret
Â
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 6:42 PM aa tt <atcyber1000@gmail.com> wrote:
In addition to Jason;s request I still havenât heard whether the metadata writeup that was written will be merged/added to the spec to help explain all the metadata properties we have in the spec.
Â
We seem to be going in the wrong direction as far as getting close to being complete on the spec. We might need a special session that everyone can make to discuss and resolve the issues. Unfortunately the meeting times havenât worked out for me and given that Marlon wasnât able to make the call today either then we might want to consider a specific call next week to resolve.
Â
Allan
Â
On Nov 1, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Â
Hi folks - wondering if someone can link to the detailed proposal being discussed? As Stephanie has recently left IBM I am trying to get back up to speed on CACAO and Allan's argument is concerning.Â
Â
Â
From:Âcacao@lists.oasis-open.orgÂ<cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of aa tt <atcyber1000@gmail.com>
Sent:ÂTuesday, November 1, 2022 6:41:50 PM
To:ÂDr. Desiree A Beck <dbeck@mitre.org>
Cc:ÂduncanÂsfractal.comÂ<duncan@sfractal.com>; Bret Jordan <jordan.oasisopen@gmail.com>;Âcacao@lists.oasis-open.orgÂ<cacao@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:Â[EXTERNAL] [cacao] Re: [EXT] [cacao] Remaining work itemsÂ
This Message Is From an Untrusted SenderÂ
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.Â
Desiree - This proposal effectively still makes the feature required.Â
Â
Most, if not all, playbooks will like have commands and if we are stating that a command must also define the meta-data that describes what the command is doing then this effectively makes the entire feature required.
Â
Secondly, this is absolutely the worst possible scenario of all because it is equivalent to requiring every single shell command within a shell script have to have a functional description of what that command is doing *in addition* to the actual command itself.Â
Â
This proposal results in extremely verbose playbooks with absolutely every single command having to have a descriptor in addition to the actual command itself.
Â
I am strongly opposed to this proposal as it will result in making playbooks bloated, overly cumbersome to define and effectively will result in playbooks not being defined or used at all.
Â
I suggest that all playbook metadata be optional and let the market/authors decide what is practical and reasonable to document. This is exactly the same as what occurs with other scripting languages. People comment on commands and scripts based on what they want to convey. They donât do it on every single command as itâs not required and would slow the development of the scripts down to a crawl.
Â
Â
Allan
On Nov 1, 2022, at 11:54 AM, Dr. Desiree A Beck <dbeck@mitre.org> wrote:
Â
Regarding the required/optional issue â as discussed on todayâs call, weâd like to propose the following compromise:
Â
- TheÂplaybook_functionalitiesÂproperty on Playbook is optional
- TheÂplaybook_functionalitiesÂdescription includes a normative "SHOULD" (i.e., âThe values for this propertyÂSHOULDÂcome from theÂplaybook-function-type-ovÂopen vocabulary.â)
- TheÂfunctionÂproperty on Command Data is required
Â
Dez
Â
From:Âcacao@lists.oasis-open.orgÂ<cacao@lists.oasis-open.org>ÂOn Behalf OfÂduncanÂsfractal.com
Sent:ÂThursday, October 27, 2022 4:26 PM
To:Âaa tt <atcyber1000@gmail.com>; Bret Jordan <jordan.oasisopen@gmail.com>
Cc:Âcacao@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:Â[EXT] Re: [cacao] Remaining work itemsÂ
On the required/ optional issue, I favor optional. I hear Allanâs arguments and I resonate with allowing new users to crawl before running. If it's that valuable the market will reward the optional feature. Remember customers can require optional features. It just means not everyone requires it in all cases. Plus making required would be a breaking. Just my 2 cents.Â
Duncan
Â
Â
Â
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
Â
Â
Â
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]