| A lot of this discussion really falls in to the implementation side of the house with a product. What STIX needs to make sure of is that we can send information in a lossless way. Meaning, if I produce something, and you enrich it or add to it, how do we do that in a lossless way. I think what we have in the form of versioning still works. I should be the only one that can add a new version to my content. However, what we probably need is a "derived-from" or "enhanced" or "added-to" or some other type of relationship so that you can add your own content and send it to someone else in a lossless way.
At this point it is really up to product to do something with that data that makes sense. This also allows vendors to innovate and provide value add to their customers.
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector 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."
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-
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;
- it makes completely sense that only you can reversion your own intelligence, or people from your namespace, considering your conveying your analysis and insights - not to mention conflicts of merging etc
- its among the most requested features from our customer/prospect base who view it more as a knowledge base then a collection of our people’s analysis fused with their own (namespace)
On 7/23/16, 6:12 AM, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Jerome Athias" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
on behalf of
athiasjerome@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Reviewing the current draft, I would have this question regarding Versioning:
>(The Only Stupid Question is the One You Don't Ask)
>
>"Only the object creator is permitted to create new versions of a STIX
>Object. Producers other than the object creator MUST NOT create new
>versions of that object."
>vs "Derived Object"
>
>Question: If I want to derive (duplicate/enhance - create a "new
>version" of) one STIX Object (object creator=Org A), as-is, is there a
>mechanism for me (Org B) to reference the ID of the initial Object?
>
>
>
>PS:
>"As with issuing a new version, only the object creator is permitted
>to revoke a STIX object."
>Note: this could have to be reevaluated, investigated further in the future.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
|