[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: STIX 2.0-CORE Draft 1 8.4. Versioning Question
I’d be interested in exploring a solution whereby we don’t break the conceptual understanding that In STIX, you convey your insights (analysis, reporting, artifacts) - making only you or people on your behalf responsible for updates. Here too, we must
solve the gateway A->gateway B,C (who both reversion in your namespace)->gateway D who received two different new versions. Merging?
However, perhaps we could allow for something that says that when you reversion an entity from namespace X you can not reversion from namespace Y, but you could make some sort of similar reference “is associated with”, “is our understanding of”, “….”.
Or perhaps literally reversion but simply within your namespace – so that one can see this was “overwritten” by a new org/namespace.
J-
From: Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 8:59 AM To: Joep Gommers <joep@eclecticiq.com> Cc: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: STIX 2.0-CORE Draft 1 8.4. Versioning Question I do understand that and agree for the majority of cases.
To give a -special case- often coming as a concern/question about CTI:
What would happen if an adversary introduces fake/disinformation/counter-CTI?
Yes, one could use Confidence/Opinion/Judgment
But I'm looking for an answer to this, imho, valid concern.
Thanks
Best regards
On Sunday, 24 July 2016, Joep Gommers <joep@eclecticiq.com> wrote: For what its worth I’d be interested in this discussion because; |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]