[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Current thoughts on Event Object
Yep, indeed, for us Report works, but anything new would do too, as long as we get the option to bundle related data together and attach some context to it. Our biggest limitation is being able to convey that it is not a finished report of sorts, but something that could potentially be evolving over time (for example a regularly updated blacklist is also a valid use-case). We're not attached to using a retro-fitted Report at all, it was just one of the options that would have worked for us among many. Richard's suggestion for a collection object was great, though I understand the name is a bit loaded. Best regards, Andras On 11. sep. 2017 17:12, Sean Barnum wrote: > Hmm. I missed the last working call due to conflicting meetings. > > Before that I do not recall strong consensus for rolling Object 5 into > the Report object. > > We would object to this approach. > > We would suggest that the use cases for an object to convey a general > grouping of content with some shared context that is fully mutable and > the use cases for an object to convey a “report” of some content > including any relevant conclusions that is immutable are significantly > distinct and would best be served with distinct named objects. > > After chatting with Andras and Alexandre on Friday to get a better > understanding of what MISP is looking for in such an object, I believe > that they would agree with the above suggestion but will obviously let > them speak for themselves. > > > > Sean Barnum > > Principal Architect > > FireEye > > M: 703.473.8262 > > E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com > > > > *From: *<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Wunder, John A." > <jwunder@mitre.org> > *Date: *Monday, September 11, 2017 at 10:56 AM > *To: *Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>, Sarah Kelley > <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" > <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> > *Subject: *Re: [cti-stix] Current thoughts on Event Object > > > > So last we talked, on the working call, we had pretty strong consensus > that the path forward for Object 5 was to roll it in to the report > object. I’ve been working with a few people to get that integrated in > and will have a proposal to do so within the next day or two. At that > point I think we can either reinforce that consensus or decide on a > separate object. > > > > *From: *<cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Allan Thomson > <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> > *Date: *Monday, September 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM > *To: *Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org>, > "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> > *Subject: *Re: [cti-stix] Current thoughts on Event Object > > > > Sarah – thanks for sending the summary of different use cases. > > > > * I agree Object 1 is close to a sighting. We may want to just make > sure Object2/3 have ways to reference Object1/Sighting and that > might be sufficient to address the use case. > * Object 2 & 3 – I have a slight preference for making them the same > object with suitable properties to identify when its one or the > other. But could live with them being separate. > * Object 4 – this is a very common use case today but I’m convinced > that it needs to be a separate object. This could potentially be > solved by either a Report or Object 5. > * Object 5 – Agree that this should exist and is separate from a > Report object. > > > > Regards > > > > Allan > > > > *From: *"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> > on behalf of Sarah Kelley <Sarah.Kelley@cisecurity.org> > *Date: *Monday, September 11, 2017 at 6:41 AM > *To: *"cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> > *Subject: *[cti-stix] Current thoughts on Event Object > > > > CTI-TC, > > > > I have made an attempt to summarize the discussion to date surrounding > the Event object. I have tried to use the diagrams that we’ve been > referencing that show several workflows and where I see the various SDOs > we have been discussing. > > > > I think there are five separate things that we’ve been talking about > with regards to “Event”: > > > > Object 1) Some sort of front end device sensing something. You could > call this an alert, an event, a log line, etc. > > Object 2) A somewhat more mature version of the thing above. It /may/ be > one to one, but it may not be. There may be many of Object #1 that make > up one Object #2. > > Object 3) A way to document an incident/investigation that is either > ongoing or concluded. This may (or may not) have come from an evolution > out of an Object 1 or 2. Likely, most IR tools will not use Object 3 > directly, so it should probably be a sort of summary object that can > allow the results of an IR investigation to be linked back to all the > related data (like Objects 1 and 2, but also Actors, malware, etc) > > Object 4) Some sort of automated method of reporting, for cases such as > mandatory reporting (like to US CERT). > > Object 5) A way to group a bunch of related data together. > > > > I see these as five distinct SDOs. Objects 1 and 2 are very similar, and > /could/ be represented by one SDO, but if that was the case, then the > SDO would need to have a relationship type of “this arglebargle is one > of many arglebargles that make up this larger arglebargle”. > > > > Object 1 has a lot of logistical overlap with a Sighting. There would > need to be some sort of deconfliction between what properties were > trying to be represented by Object 1 to make sure it wasn’t just a > duplicate of Sighting (which, by definition, is something that was > ‘seen’, just as Object 1 was described to be). This could also just be > an Observed Data object, if the it wasn’t actually “sighted”. > > > > Object 2 is something that would likely be looked at by a SOC analyst. > It isn’t really something that involves IR, but rather “is this thing my > sensor generated good or bad?” > > > > Object 3 is for your IR people or your CERT. > > > > Object 4 is likely distinct from the Report object as we have it now, as > it’s not likely to be in the same vein as a ‘published report’, but > rather, “Here are the series of questions that US CERT makes me answer > every time we have an ‘incident’”. > > > > Object 5 is basically what MISP has been asking for. > > > > I believe Objects 1-3 roughly correlate to the first three objects from > the FireEye proposal of “Event”, “Alert”, and “Investigation”. Object 5 > is closer to their “Grouping” object. > > > > All that being said, many of these tasks are not currently done in STIX > (if not most of them). In the diagram, we have the TIP (in green) as > being a separate object that lives alongside the workflow, but isn’t > really *IN* the workflow. That being said, if we added objects 1, 2, 4, > and 5, I think it could allow for easier data flow into/out of a TIP. (I > don’t think the IR object will ever be used directly by the types of > tools that produce that data, but maybe I’m wrong.) > > > > Personally, I think the Event object as it currently stands is somewhat > of a combination of Object 2 and Object 3. If people agree that these > are really separate objects, I think we could scope out a few properties > and turn the current Event object into Object 2 or Object 3 fairly > easily (or easily split it into two objects). I think Object 1 is out of > scope for 2.1 (unless it’s already covered by sighting/Observed Data). I > think Object 4 is out of scope for 2.1. I think Object 5 will be covered > by the “collection vs. report” debate/object, for which we should soon > have a proposal. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts are appreciated. > > > > *Sarah Kelley* > > *Senior Cyber Threat Analyst* > > *Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center > (MS-ISAC) * > > *31 Tech Valley Drive* > > *East Greenbush, NY 12061* > > * * > > *sarah.kelley@cisecurity.org <mailto:sarah.kelley@cisecurity.org>* > > *518-266-3493* > > *24x7 Security Operations Center* > > *SOC@cisecurity.org <mailto:SOC@cisecurity.org> - 1-866-787-4722* > > * * > > ** <https://msisac.cisecurity.org/> > > * *** <https://www.facebook.com/CenterforIntSec>* *** > <https://twitter.com/CISecurity>* *** > <https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCISecurity>* *** > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-center-for-internet-security> > > This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If it > appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any retention, > dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and attachments > is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and > permanently delete the message and any attachments. > > . . . . . > ..... > > > > > This message and attachments may contain confidential information. If it > appears that this message was sent to you by mistake, any retention, > dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and attachments > is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and > permanently delete the message and any attachments. > > . . . . . > > 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]