This relates to Sightings so presume it is in the narrowed focus group of topics.
(1) Discourse on the definition of a "[+1]"?
Not sure what the objection(s) are to the approach suggested a number of times in the past: "Sharing my sightings, findings, assertions/basis for same are in fact "my vote""
Given an "RFI" construct (and or RFI COA) , then "I" can respond with as little or as much detail as I wish. This approach supports the CTI community CORE DOCTRINE: "One way to do "'stuff'" while supporting the "[+1]" Minimalism Camp.
For "me" I'll share what I saw, when, who it was targeting, what the C2 NetFlow patterns where, the Malware Samples, my analysis of the DNS Domain Registration correlations to prior Campaigns, and perhaps some PCAPs of Exfil from my HoneyNet as well.
This allows both Camps/Factions to have "their way"
I would like to circle back on this to understand the objections.
(2) What is the alternative to the proposed "Source Pathway Traceability" Construct/Methodology?
How does one "send" their "[+1]" package back to the original source?
(3) How does the Source track/tally these "votes" Does the Source share the tallied results/findings?
That's a potential approach for Incident.
Otherwise, what about "Under investigation" (for Opened) and potentially "False positive" as potential IncidentStatus enumeration items?
On Tuesday, 10 November 2015, Wunder, John A. <email@example.com
I like “sighting” and “confirmation”.
While we’re naming things, I’ll also suggest renaming “Incident” to “Investigation” and having some sort of field (status?) to denote whether it’s a true “incident” (per the definition of whoever is creating the construct, I guess)
If we do create two constructs, I would humbly suggest that we try to come up with a more distinct term for this, otherwise discussing "sighting" and "citation" in conversation will result in endless confusion.
Its already had enough for me to communicate the difference between an indicator and an observable to people :)
Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
<graycol.gif>Trey Darley ---11/10/2015 10:18:30 AM---On 06.11.2015 22:58:44, Terry MacDonald wrote: >
From: Trey Darley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Terry MacDonald <email@example.com>
Cc: Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM@IBMCA, "Barnum, Sean D." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com"
Date: 11/10/2015 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] [+1]'s
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 06.11.2015 22:58:44, Terry MacDonald wrote:
> 1. +1 = “I have seen this too” (A sighting)
I would call this a *sighting*.
> 2. +1 = “I agree with your assertion” (Agreement with an assertion
I would call this a *citing*. (Perhaps "citation" to minimize
Senior Security Engineer
4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
"In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]