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: [EXT] [cti-stix] RE: Current thoughts on Event Object


I agree with Gary here.


Bret


From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Katz, Gary CTR DC3\DCCI <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:00:42 AM
To: Sarah Kelley; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] [cti-stix] RE: Current thoughts on Event Object
 

Sarah,

   I think this is a nice breakdown of the various types of event use cases.  I’d be interested in seeing whether objects 3-5 could be combined into one object type and object 1 and 2 would be a separate object type (perhaps covered under some variation of a Sighting or Observed Data.. maybe?)

 

   One of the big reasons for this is if we have 5 different object types, people will invariantly not understand the distinction and use the wrong object type, creating issues on the receiving side and on correlation between events.  I would state that Object 3 should be the information you wish to send to another organization concerning an investigation, but the internals of how that investigation workflows occur would not be included within STIX.  The reporting agency in object 4 therefore would just be one of the organizations receiving the information.  It also means that the tools do not need to reformat information differently for mandatory reporting rather than a standard investigation. 

 

   Our organization has similar reporting requirements as US CERT.  My plan was to take the event object and add custom properties to it to support the Object 4 use case.  Since the reporting requirements will differ for each agency, it would be very difficult for OASIS to have an influence on what each agency (whether US or foreign) would wish to receive, I’d suggest keeping it at the custom property level.  The useful cyber intelligence data though should mirror what is anyway useful for sending in object 3.

 

  Object 5 I see as mainly being useful when you can add context to why you are grouping the stuff together, in which case it starts to look close to Object 3.

 

-Gary

 

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Kelley
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:41 AM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [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

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.

. . . . .



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