OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti-stix message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]


The purpose of mapping to a number is to open STIX up to be able to handle more use cases and not lock us into one scale.

Think not of "82 vs 83", but more along the lines of "is a 5 entry scale granular enough for all use cases, or will some people require a 6 or 7 entry scale", or "is a 5 entry scale TOO granular for some use cases, and a 3 entry scale is required because there are no more granular abilities to map confidence in this use case."

The actual scale being used and how it is expressed to the user then turns into a simple tooling problem and trust groups and vendors can adopt whatever they want, while remaining inter-operable with each other as actual testing is done based on numbers.

-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com

Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown


Inactive hide details for Terry MacDonald ---09/08/2016 08:16:34 PM---I would disagree with using a numbering scheme (and especTerry MacDonald ---09/08/2016 08:16:34 PM---I would disagree with using a numbering scheme (and especially one with a range of 0-100), as it mak

From: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
To: Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@specere.org>, Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>, JE <je@cybersecurityscout.eu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 09/08/2016 08:16 PM
Subject: [cti] Re: [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>





I would disagree with using a numbering scheme (and especially one with a range of 0-100), as it makes it much more complex than it needs to be.

Is something that is confidence level 82 really that worse than confidence 83? How is a user going to understand the difference at those small levels of difference? Will they care about the difference at all? Do people really want 6 different levels of difference rather than 100?

If we use an existing methodology that has been used for many years in the intelligence community such as the Admiralty Code then it is something that is understandable and useable by humans. 

I believe they will be able to comprehend the difference between 'Reliability of Source - B - Usually reliable' and 'Reliability of Source - D - Not usually reliable' a lot easier than looking at 'Reliability of Source - 79' and 'Reliability of Source - 48'.


Cheers

Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer



M: +64 211 918 814
E: terry.macdonald@cosive.com
W: www.cosive.com




On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]