[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] CybOX Objects/Relationships
That matches my current thinking as well. It will be interesting to see what everyone else thinks :)
BTW feel free to comment on the GitHub Gist JSON Examples [1] directly. I can then roll the comments back into the main document or just create a new document around examples (most likely).
Regards,
Ivan
From: Bret Jordan <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:16 AM To: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> Cc: "cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-cybox@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti-cybox] CybOX Objects/Relationships
My vote....
Q1) Should CybOX define a set of top-level objects (TLOs) and be capable of being used in a standalone capacity? Or should it just define a set of types that are used in languages that incorporate CybOX?
No, CybOX should not be a standalone thing. It should be used by higher level languages.
Q2) Should CybOX Objects be defined using a relationship-driven approach, or one based on embedded Objects?
This needs to be done on a case by case basis. There might be some cases where it makes sense, but in turn there will be some where it will not make sense at all. There needs to be a good middle
ground.
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]