Perfect, I agree a simple string would be good.... Do we need to provide a helper for those things that are not TLP? Something like:
{ ID: "12312312321312", MarkingType: "TLP", Marking: "Amber", etc }
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector 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."
The most common used Marking today is TLP. Today we just use a string to describe the TLP. Below, we just say "Amber".
<marking:Marking_Structure color="AMBER" xsi:type="tlpMarking:TLPMarkingStructureType"/>
The next most used marking is simple marking type, which in the grand scheme of things is just a string.
I could see the creation of an object if there was more context or metadata around marking than just a string
Aharon Chernin CTO
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company 18301 Bermuda green Dr Tampa, fl 33647
The reason why I like a top level Marking object is, I believe, and PLEASE correct me if my assumptions are wrong, that we could build a small repository of simple markings that will work for say 70% to 80% of the market. Then people just need to use those ID values. They become well known markings and it makes it easier to understand and process.. Then for those groups that need really super elaborate markings, they can do that as well. The other reason for having a top level marking object, is that I think people will end up using them over and over in side of an trust-group or eco-system, or in other parts of a STIX document. If I am wrong, please correct me....
Updated based on John's comments... I think we are getting close to the point of being able to pull this out of email and make it an official proposal in a wiki document... Things outstanding from my view: 1) Start and End times, 2) What does Reliability/Confidence actually look like inside, 3) Marking, 4) Type. Anyone want to take a stab at those?
ID [1]: The ID of the relationship, a simple random GUID Marking [0..n]: The ID of the marking object that you should reference Version [1]: The version of the relationship; a simple number to be used with the ID for version control Type [1]: The “type” of relationship being expressed. (Not sure of how this works yet) Description [1]: A single simple and short description Source [1] : The ID of one or more source entities in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Targets [1..N]: The ID of one or more targets in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Start [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects started, or the text 'unknown'. End [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects ended, or the text 'ongoing', or the text 'unknown'. Reliability/ Confidence [1]: A measure of confidence in the relationship using the Information Reliability scale. Producer [1]: A simple producer object like what John calls out Timestamp [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship object was created.
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector 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."
ID [1]:
The ID of the relationship, a simple random GUID Marking[1]:
The ID of the marking object that you should reference Version [1]:
The version of the relationship; a simple number to be used with the ID for version control Type [1]: The “type” of relationship being expressed. (Not sure of how this works yet) Description [1]:
A single simple and short description Source [1] :
The ID of one or more source entities in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Targets [1..N]:
The ID of one or more targets in the relationship as a URI (not QName) Start [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects started, or the text 'unknown'. End [1]: A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship between the objects ended, or the text 'ongoing', or the text 'unknown'. Reliability/Confidence [1]: A measure of confidence in the relationship using the Information Reliability scale. Producer [1]:
A simple producer object like what John calls out Timestamp [1]:
A timestamp in UTC stating when the relationship object was created.
|