cti-stix message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution to conundrum of how to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:04:34 -0300
i think there is confusion in this thread.
My proposal was not to make Cyber Observable
TLOs. My proposal was to simply allow TLOs to be referenced in indicators
by reference using some kind of new namespace such as "stix"
or some other identifier. There is no need to make observables TLOs in
this proposal.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From:
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
To:
Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>,
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
05/25/2017 11:41 AM
Subject:
Re: [cti-stix]
Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution to conundrum of how to do patterns
for Infrastructure and Malware
Sent by:
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
We should really look at this Paul, and
see how this could work. We merged the former CybOX into STIX, but
now, maybe we need to go the rest of the way. Maybe there should
just be "STIX"objects. Personally, looking at where we
need to go, and based on what needs to happen with Malware and Infrastructure,
it might make the most sense.
Bret
From: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:31:25 AM
To: Bret Jordan; Jason Keirstead
Cc: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution
to conundrum of how to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
+1 for making Cyber Observables TLOs. It
would solve a number of problems
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:06 AM
To: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution to conundrum
of how to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
Jason,
I think this might be a good approach.
Thanks for thinking through the problem. We will just need
to make sure the patterning grammar like this can reference sub elements
of an object or the entire one. This may also cause us to re-think
the way the cyber observable container is formed (maybe it would have been
better if each cyber observable object was actually just a top-level STIX
object.).
I would like to model this design out with
say Malware that has 27 known versions (hashes) where each instance say
has 2 different filenames. While maybe not completely "real-world",
it should help verify the design. I would also like to see about
modeling this with say an Infrastructure object that has 1000 IPs in it.
So a pattern that references the entire list of a 1000 IPs and a
pattern that only references 3 non contiguous IPs from the list.
Bret
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 5:25:35 AM
To: Jason Keirstead
Cc: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti-stix] Possible solution to conundrum of how
to do patterns for Infrastructure and Malware
Sorry I wrote that pattern before I
had coffee.. it makes no sense.
This is what the pattern would be with my proposal.... you are looking
for the hash contained inside a specific object...
[file:hashes.“SHA-256" = stix-object:malware-12345-aaaaa-bbbbb-ccccc.sample_metadata[*].hashes.“SHA-256"]
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
From: "Jason
Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 05/25/2017
08:22 AM
Subject: [cti-stix]
Possible solution to conundrum of how to do patterns for Infrastructure
and Malware
Sent by: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Yesterday a major discussion at the face-to-face was around trying to work
out the end to end workflow by which the indicators come out of the malware.
Myself (and it seems several others as well) are concerned that if malware
sandboxes automatically start sharing tons of “malware” objects via TAXII,
or sensors start producing “infrastructure” objects linked to observations,
then software vendors are just going to code their implementations to look
for those things directly… indicators will never “show up” because either
there is no one to make them, and/or people don’t want to do things twice
(they don’t want to make an Infrastructure object with observations *and*
maintain a pattern for those observations and constantly update them both
and keep them in sync as they mature - it is going to be a large headache.
Folks seem to be having this implicit assumption that either (a) humans
will make and maintain all of these indicators from the tool output “just
because”, or (b) vendors will change their tools to output indicators
because someone (?) is asking for the indicators. This to me flies in the
face of the fact that the market is lazy and always seeks the shortest
path to success; if that path is to just write code to directly search
and alert on malware and infrastructure observations, then that is what
is going to happen…. after all, the vast majority of what people share
on threat intel feeds are pointers to malware or infrastructure.
The danger is that indicators become not very useful and we end up with
somewhat crippled STIX implementations everywhere since no one can look
for anything complicated, because they can’t use patterns… we end up
with STIX 1.X.
I have been thinking about this problem last night and am wondering if
a possible solution is to add an operator to allow patterns to somehow
reference STIX objects directly.
IE you would have something like
[stix-object:malware-12345-aaaaa-bbbbb-ccccc.sample_metadata[*].hashes.“SHA-256"
= ‘aec070645fe53ee3b3763059376134f058cc337247c978add178b6ccdfb0019f’]
This pattern would mean “you want to look for the hashes defined in this
specific STIX object“
If we had this, then I think it is an answer to what I think is an obvious
problem. This way the actual definition of the object is what is referred
to in the indicator. It also makes it much easier to create patterns from
malware and infrastructure, and also eliminates the problem of having to
constantly sync patterns with these objects.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]