[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object
I like the idea of making TAXII handle all auth and passing it up the stack. I am not sold yet on a public registry of identifiers. TAXII could be used on networks where access to this registry is denied not to mention that a lot of good data purposely travels around anonymously. Why not include certificate encryption (PKI) in the TAXII spec? This would allow us to encrypt the data and give some semblance that the person who received the data is the person who should view it.
Aharon Chernin
CTO SOLTRA
| An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
18301 Bermuda green Dr
Tampa, fl 33647
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:54 AM To: Jordan, Bret Cc: Wunder, John A.; JG on CTI-TC; Chris O'Brien; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Top Level Relationship Object " One option is if we could get authentication channel-binding in place between TAXII and STIX and STIX and CybOX then we could do the authentication down in TAXII land and just pass that information up the stack." Now we are designing and working together!!!! I like these ideas... One option is if we could get authentication channel-binding in place between TAXII and STIX and STIX and CybOX then we could do the authentication down in TAXII land and just pass that information up the stack. 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."
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."
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."
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:
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]