OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti-stix message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object


Yeah, I concur - this sort of many-to-many “grouping” relationship is a separate class of relationship that likely needs its own structure. In MAEC we have the notion of “collections” which serve this very purpose [1], and I could see many parallels to the Report object as well.


Regards,
Ivan

From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John Wunder
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:14 AM
To: Jon Baker, Bret Jordan
Cc: JG on CTI-TC, Chris O'Brien, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

Maybe that could be a different type of relationship construct? Or even a use case for the Report object?

From: Jon Baker
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:37 AM
To: "Wunder, John A.", "Jordan, Bret"
Cc: JG on CTI-TC, Chris O'Brien, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: RE: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

John,

 

Have you considered the case where an analyst wants to simply say that this collection of objects seems to be related?

 

Imagine a case where you think that a bunch of things (incidents/observables/etc) are related, but you have not yet done the in depth analysis to understand the nature of their relationship. I had this sort of generic grouping of things in mind for a top level relationship object. In this case, I don’t think you could always have a From and To IDREF. You might just have a collection of IDREFs.

 

Jon

 

============================================

Jonathan O. Baker

J83D - Cyber Security Partnerships, Sharing, and Automation

The MITRE Corporation

Email: bakerj@mitre.org

 

From:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Wunder, John A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Cc: JG on CTI-TC <jg@ctin.us>; Chris O'Brien <COBrien@cert.gov.uk>; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

 

Sure...personally I would do this, which is almost identical to what we do now (other than being at the top level rather than within an object):

 

Relationship

ID (for the relationship) [required]

From IDREF [required]

To IDREF [required]

Relationship Qualifier [required]

Confidence [optional]

 

I'm undecided on whether information source information belongs in the STIX data model at all. By virtue of being in the data model it means someone is asserting it so it's impossible to verify. Digital signatures or something else out of the data model (relying on TAXII, etc.) seem like a better approach to me. But I don't have strong opinions on this and if we do include information source in the data model I would add that here.

 

John

 

From: "Jordan, Bret"
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM
To: "Wunder, John A."
Cc: JG on CTI-TC, Chris O'Brien, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

 

Great... Now we are discussing it... Please spell out what that would look like.  

 

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." 

 

On Jul 28, 2015, at 13:51, Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org> wrote:

 

No directionality or description/qualifier? It seems like you want to be able to say *what* a relationship is describing and also which direction it goes in.

 

I.e. TTP malware "is variant of" other TTP malware

vs. TTP malware "is same as" other TTP malware given a different name by a different vendor

 

From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret"
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM
To: JG on CTI-TC
Cc: Chris O'Brien, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

 

I see the relationship object being pretty simple and straight forward:

 

 

Relationship

IDREF (1-n)

Source

Confidence

 

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." 

 

On Jul 28, 2015, at 13:16, JG on CTI-TC <jg@ctin.us> wrote:

 

Chris:

You are not going insane...we are all dealing with these same issues.

Some of the more recent discussions (after you made this post) with
respect to 'Sightings' seem to make a lot of sense to me...that is, to
push the Sighting functionality further down in the data model...That
is, down to the CybOX level...

And I think we need to think about the Relationship object with respect
to 'Communities of Interest'... For example, a malware research
Community of Interest that is using Indicator, Observable, TTP and
ExploitTarget may seek to express Relationships in a way that shows the
Static and Behavioral characteristics of the malware (deep in the data
model and at a very refined level of granularity)

...Whereas an Incident Response Community of Interest that is using
Indicator, Incident and CourseOfAction may need the Relationship object
defined in a separate way.... that is, one that is more tied to
"actionable intelligence" which may then tie into ExploitTarget,
ThreatActor, and Campaign...which then becomes of interest to a law
enforcement Community of Interest.

Of course... handling this may take us back into the debate on Profiles...

Jane Ginn
CTIN

On 7/27/2015 3:44 AM, Chris O'Brien wrote:

For what it's worth, from me, I think this would be pretty huge (coupled with the sightings object as well). As an analyst trying to identify useful data for my customers on large data sets, I'm interested in being able to produce top-level, automated assessments on data quality of feeds/dbs of stix data, and one of the ways that I'd suggest that a specific data point is of a 'high quality' is if it has multiple relationships and/or sightings. Add in to that the ability to rank producers, and even analytical assertion confidence, and you've got all the makings of a an algorithm for a heuristic grading scheme that could feed something even more awesome...like a machine learning project that can conduct threat pattern detection... As you say, Bret, this also gives scope for those relationships to have their own concept of 'quality' based on their related analytical assertions / confidence.

I'd perhaps throw in to the discussion that it may not need to be a standalone object in its own right - we're currently experimenting with using the existing stix architecture relationships (with a little extra meta data) to achieve the desired effect, but it gets messy quickly and direct references to the relationships are by-way-of the object that they sit on (then you ask...which end of the relationship is the 'master' for that relationship, or must they both be updated when a change is made...what happens if one of them isn't in your namespace, etc, etc). Jimmy-rigging solutions to those issues feels feasible, but messy, prescriptive and makes anyone with a coding background have a little cry to themselves. It's something we're having to think about here at the moment - just wanted to mention that it's still possible and would be less impactful to existing deployments.

Cheers,
cob

PS: If anyone else is looking in to this sort of heuristic / predictive / minority report-esque implementation, it'd be good to hear from you. If only to confirm that I'm not going completely insane.


-----Original Message-----
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret
Sent: 24 July 2015 22:57
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object

I would like to see a top level relationship object that just contains references to the times that are related.  This needs its own ID so people can reference it and disagree with it or sight it or enrich it with other data.

Bret

Sent from my Commodore 64
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


--
Jane Ginn, MSIA, MRP
Cyber Threat Intelligence Network, Inc.
jg@ctin.us



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

 

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]