RE: Results of the Campaign Mini-Group

After some additional research, I think this is not how Intrusion Set is typically used in the communities where the term originated. I'd like one of the DoD folks (Gary K, maybe?) to weigh in on that part.

--
Kyle Maxwell [kmaxwell@verisign.com]

iDefense Senior Analyst

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Jordan, Bret [bret.jordan@bluecoat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 20:26
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: Results of the Campaign Mini-Group

The Campaign mini-group also discussed two additional TLOs that the STIX SC might consider.

1) Threat Group

My question is, is this really a different TLO, or should we make a property on the Threat Actor TLO that has a Group_Name property. We could then allow Threat Actor TLOs to be related to other Threat Actor TLOs. So Threat_Actor (A) could be a GROUP and Threat_Actor (B) and Threat_Actor (C) could be individuals that are related to the Group (Threat_Actor (A)).

2) Intrusion_Set

The idea behind this TLO is that it is nearly identical to the Campaign TLO but is used for relating a collection of Campaigns.

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."

cti-stix message