Re: [cti-stix] Some thoughts on Sightings and conversations to date (Part #4): should sightings have IDs?

["Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>]

I think the main point is - if a mandatory ID is a requirement for Sightings, then we will be severely limiting the types entities that can produce sightings. You are cutting out all of those other device classes, because it is simply not possible for them to do that and have the IDs be meaningful. If they are forced to comply with the spec, then they will be simply be random UUIDs taking up space in the message, which may break other tools expecting them to have meaning.

I would strongly advocate to not force IDs for instances of sightings. If they are going to be there, they should be optional.

"The ID stays the same over the lifetime of the object even if it is updated and the content changes."

If a sighting is a vertex (as proposed earlier), then how does a sighting "change"? You can't have it both ways... are they point-in-time occurrences and each has their own record, or not... ? I am confused.

-
Jason Keirstead
Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com

Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown


"Barnum, Sean D." ---2015/11/03 03:12:53 PM---The fourth sightings sub-topic I wanted to comment on is around the question of whether sightings sh

From: "Barnum, Sean D." <sbarnum@mitre.org>
To: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 2015/11/03 03:12 PM
Subject: [cti-stix] Some thoughts on Sightings and conversations to date (Part #4): should sightings have IDs?
Sent by: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

The fourth sightings sub-topic I wanted to comment on is around the question of whether sightings should have IDs or not.
I think there have been some clear assertions (along with their rationale) from Jason and Bret that it does not make sense for sightings to have IDs but also some good clear arguments from John, Terry and others for why unique and persistent IDs are relevant for consumers to be able to reference, correlate and analyze diverse sightings from diverse sighters.

Again, putting on my expert hat rather than my co-chair hat, I wanted to offer some thoughts on this which are primarily just stating agreement with the arguments made by John, Terry and others.

• I do believe that it is important for sightings to have IDs for many of the reasons already expressed on the list.
• Specifically, I would also agree with Terry’s assertion that:
  • "We need an ID solution that:
    • Includes the domain namespace in the ID so that recipients know where to ask for more information.
    • The ID stays the same over the lifetime of the object even if it is updated and the content changes.
    • Recognizes that IDs will be coming from many different companies and many different sources and that we need a way of easily understanding who produced the data."
• On the sub-sub-topic ( :-) ) of Alternative_ID for Sightings,
  • I think that Alternative_ID does make sense for Sightings. It would allow the capture and reference of things like alert IDs issued by particular detection tools. The sightings would still need a STIX ID for effective referencing within STIX content but the external ID would help support the potential for seeking out more detailed information where appropriate.

sean