Yeah this is a good point, I agree with waiting.
From:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 at 12:37 PM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Opinion Object Proposal
Great catch Allan. Yes, we need to do originator confidence before we do third party confidence.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
For the same reason that other confidence information has been targeted post-MVP, I would say this proposal should wait until beyond the MVP.
For example, there is *no* conveyance of confidence information currently in MVP by the original source of the intel but this proposal would be added so *other* people’s opinion’s
would be conveyed?
That makes no sense.
allan
I love the idea, but I do not think we should do this for the Summer release. I see this being done in the Winter release.
The reason for that is this functionality is dependent on digitally signing content and that will NOT be ready for summer. Right it is being tracked as one of the primary things for the Winter release.
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
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."
Hi All,
Can I take it that the lack of responses means that you all think this is a great idea? If so that's excellent, as it means it can drop straight into the MVP build as it doesn't require any modification :).
Though seriously, if everyone is OK with the idea of this object which I've been banging on about for about a year then please speak up so we can get it added and allow people to have opinions about other's assertions. This object opens
up the ability for people to effectively 'upvote' or 'downvote' a piece of threat intelligence. This will allow consumers to crowd-source how much they should trust the assertions made in that threat intelligence - which is a key enabler for consumers to effectively
use the threat intelligence they receive.
I passionately believe we need this object in MVP.
- Threat Intel Vendor A provides some high confidence threat intel saying that 8.8.8.8 (Google DNS) is a malicious asset.
- 30 other vendors, producers and generate Opinion objects that all strongly disagree with the intel that Vendor A released.
- A consumer can now see that Vendor A's intel shouldn't be trusted to have a high confidence, and therefore shouldn't probably be used in production.
OUTCOME: Confidence in the value of the threat intel is decreased
- Threat Intel Vendor B provides some low confidence threat intel saying that they think that
www.compromisedsite.com has been compromised by Angler.
- Threat Intel Vendor C sends an Opinion Object strongly agreeing with Threat Intel Vendor C as they believe they are correct
- A consumer can now see that Vendor B's intel is pretty good, and they can potentially increase their confidence in that intel, and maybe use it in production.
OUTCOME: Confidence in the value of the threat intel is increased
What say you STIX community?
Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer
<cosive_mail_signature.png>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com> wrote:
Hi All,
As I've mentioned many times over the last year I firmly believe we need a way for third parties to agree or disagree with the threat intelligence they have received. If Org A has released a high confidence relationship between ActorX and
Campaign G, and Org B knows that the relationship is wrong, then they need a way of signalling that to the community, so that community members don't blindly accept what Org A has released.
Since late last year I've been suggesting we need an Opinion object. And today I took the step of writing up what that would look like.
I would like to propose that we add this to the draft as proposal, and that we include it in the MVP release.
1.2.Opinion
|
Status:
Proposal
MVP:
Undecided
|
The Opinion object is used to convey the Object creator's opinion about another object produced by a third-party. It will allow each organization to agree or disagree with another organization's
assertions, and ultimately will enable consumers to collect and understand the collective opinions of the community about the quality of the threat intelligence they have received.
This is the first step towards consumers being able to crowdsource the opinion of the community, which will help newcomers to the threat intelligence sharing groups better understand which
threats have a high degree of third party agreement and which are contentious.
1.2.1. Properties
STIX TLO Common Properties
|
type, id, created_by_ref, revision, created_time, modified_time, revoked, revision_comment, object_markings_refs, granular_markings
|
|
|
|
|
|
The value of this field
MUST be opinion
|
|
|
A description that provides the recipient with reasoning to back up the opinion identified in this Opinion object.
|
|
|
The
id of the object that the Opinion refers to. This
id can be any other STIX TLO except another Opinion object.
|
|
list of type
controlled-vocab
|
The opinion that the producer has about the object listed in the object_ref field. This is one of the following options:
|
1.2.2. Source Relationships
These are the relationships defined between the Opinion Object and other objects.
STIX TLO Common Relationships
|
|
1.2.3. Destination Relationships
These are the relationships defined between other objects and the Opinion Object.
|
|
|
|
|
Relates the Observation to an Opinion providing the evidence that the opinion was based on. This observation is evidence of why the organization formed the opinion it did about the threat
intelligence contained within the object_ref field.
|
Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer
<cosive_mail_signature.png>
|