I believe the call that John Wunder is referring to took place a few weeks ago (August 29th). Last Fridays’ call wound up getting cut short due to lack of attendance, and last Tuesday’s call was
about some of the smaller STIX related items to get them taken care of.
Sarah Kelley
Senior Cyber Threat Analyst
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC)
31 Tech Valley Drive
East Greenbush, NY 12061
518-266-3493
24x7 Security Operations Center
SOC@cisecurity.org - 1-866-787-4722
From: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:41 AM
To: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>, 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
Hmm. I thought you meant the working call on Friday.
I remember several “had raise” votes on the Tuesday call but don’t remember this being one of them.
Maybe I am finally overflowing my stack with too many things to think about. ;-)
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, 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
We had the straw poll with hand raises. IIRC you were on the call and, as below, were against putting it in Report :)
I’ll get the proposed changes out shortly. I got the review from the MISP folks and some others, just need to work through some comments. It’s in the playground now.
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Date: Monday, September 11, 2017 at 11:12 AM
To: John Wunder <jwunder@mitre.org>, 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
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
518-266-3493
24x7 Security Operations Center
SOC@cisecurity.org - 1-866-787-4722
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.
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.
.....
. . . . .