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-stix] RE: Initial stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases


Trying to see if we have consensus that we start with a small vocabulary and grow it over time.  And remember, this is an open vocabulary so products or communities can extend as they see fit.

 

Right now the two vocab entries I think people generally agree on are:

  • suspicious-activity-event
  • malware-analysis

 

Are there other values that you feel MUST be standardized right now?  If so, what are they and how would you see them being used.

 

Thanks,

Rich

From: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 11:03 AM
To: Richard Struse <rjs@mitre.org>, "Katz, Gary CTR DC3\DCCI" <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: Initial stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases

 

That was the intent of breaking up the list of values.

Focus on the small first set for now while providing the broader set for consideration, discussion and potential future inclusion if real-world use demonstrates its value.

 

Sean Barnum

Principal Architect

FireEye

M: 703.473.8262

E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com

 

From: "Struse, Richard J." <rjs@mitre.org>
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 5:13 PM
To: "Katz, Gary CTR DC3\DCCI" <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] RE: Initial stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases

 

Gary,

 

I share your view on this and depending on how other folks think I was wondering if we might focus on the handful of values like suspicious-activity-event for now and debate the relative merits of expanding the vocabulary later on?  This would allow us to move forward without rushing the discussion of the other values.

 

Thoughts?

 

Rich

 

From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Katz, Gary CTR DC3\DCCI" <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 5:03 PM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-stix] RE: Initial stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases

 

Hey Sean,

   I’ve been thinking about your proposal these last couple of days and had some comments I wished to share.  I’m interested in if I am thinking about this incorrectly or if there are others that have a similar view.

 

   In your email you state that the ‘Grouping object is to convey a specific set of STIX content shares some context.’  In my view, the fact that STIX content shares some context should be shown through the relationship links that the content has to other content.  i.e. If you are trying to show Malware analysis relationships, we have a malware analysis object and we have observable data that can be linked.  Do we need a grouping object to further connect it all together?  Don’t the relationships in of themselves show that grouping?  Similarly an objects-relationships grouping would just be shown by sending the core object, related objects and the links between them, we don’t need another object to then encapsulate that information.  Threat-actor-content, campaign-content, intrusion-set-content can all be explained similarly, just send the threat-actor, campaign, or intrusion-set, related objects and relationships and we’re good. 

 

  In my view this is a key distinction between the suspicious-activity-event and the other grouping types.  For the other grouping types, we have ways to relate the data together, either through a malware object, an intrusion set object, a campaign object, threat actor object, etc.  In the case of the suspicious-activity-event, that IS the object to provide context and relate that data together. 

 

Interested in everyone’s thoughts,

   -Gary

 

From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barnum
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:43 PM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti-stix] Initial stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases

 

A couple of weeks ago on the working call I took an action item to provide an initial minimal stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases.

I got busy and did not follow through.

 

So, at the F2F last week we had a small side discussion where I provided an initial minimal stab at grouping-context-ov values based on real-world use cases that we see and then we discussed which ones we might have consensus on as a small initial set, which ones might make longer term sense but not have consensus for an initial set and which ones might be considered a bit more esoteric and considerable for future versions if real-world use proved out their value.

 

To reiterate for clarity, the purpose of the Grouping object is to convey that a specific set of STIX content shares some context.

It is not intended to be the first choice for sharing any set of related STIX content and is not intended to replace CTI domain-relevant objects.

It is the generalized last resort for specifying this sort of thing when there is no STIX domain-relevant object already available for the given type of context (e.g. STIX content that describes the structure or behavior of a piece of malware would utilize the Malware object,  STIX content that characterizes details of infrastructure would utilize the Infrastructure object, etc).

The context property of the Grouping object is intended to convey the nature of context that the referenced content shares.

The intent of the grouping-context-ov is to provide consistently defined values for common cases of Grouping context while also leaving open the option of specifying values not defined by the standard.

Values of grouping-context-ov fall below the threshold required (at least for now) for defining a new SDO for that sort of context but above the threshold for uncommon or highly specialized forms of grouping context.

 

Here is the initial stab that resulted from the discussion at the F2F:

 

  • Suggested values
    • suspicious-activity-event

A set of STIX content related to a particular suspicious activity event. 

(Answers question: what do we know about what happened in this suspicious activity/attack?)

    • indicator-sightings (name specifies Indicator id)

A set of STIX Sightings for a given Indicator.

(Answers question: what sightings are known for this indicator?)

    • object-relationships (name specifies object id)

A set of STIX objects related to a given object along with any relevant Relationship objects.

(Answers question: what objects are related to this specific object (embedded/external relationship from this object, embedded/external relationship to this object)?)

    • malware-analysis

A set of STIX content from a malware analysis action (sandbox execution, structural analysis, etc).

 

  • Common cases but possibly not consensus need in initial version of grouping-context-ov
    • malware-context (name specifies malware id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Malware object.                                                       **It should be noted that this is not details of the malware which would be conveyed in a Malware object but rather other STIX content related to the Malware object

    • threat-actor-context (name specifies TA id)

A set of STIX content related to a given ThreatActor object.                                                 **It should be noted that this is not details of the threat actor which would be conveyed in a ThreatActor object but rather other STIX content related to the ThreatActor object

    • campaign-context (name specifies Campaign id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Campaign object.                                                      **It should be noted that this is not details of the campaign which would be conveyed in a Campaign object but rather other STIX content related to the Campaign object

    • intrusion-set-context (name specifies IntrusionSet id)

A set of STIX content related to a given IntrusionSet object.                                                  **It should be noted that this is not details of the intrusion set which would be conveyed in a IntrusionSet object but rather other STIX content related to the IntrusionSet object

    • identity-context (name specifies Identity id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Identity object.                                                          **It should be noted that this is not details of the identity which would be conveyed in an Identity object but rather other STIX content related to the Identity object

    • location-context (name specifies Location id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Location object.                                                        **It should be noted that this is not details of the location which would be conveyed in a Location object but rather other STIX content related to the Location object

    • tool-context (name specifies Tool id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Tool object.                                                                **It should be noted that this is not details of the tool which would be conveyed in a Tool object but rather other STIX content related to the Tool object

    • vulnerability-context (name specifies Vulnerability id)

A set of STIX content related to a given Vulnerability object.                                                 **It should be noted that this is not details of the vulnerability which would be conveyed in a Vulnerability object but rather other STIX content related to the Vulnerability object

    • observable-context (name specifies observable)

A set of STIX content related to a given Observable object.                                                   **It should be noted that this is not details of the observable which would be conveyed in an Observable object but rather other STIX content related to the Observable object

 

  • Outlier possibilities
    • temporal-activity-window (name specifies time window)

A set of STIX activity content that occurred within a given time window

    • temporal-creation-window (name specifies time window)

A set of STIX content created within a given time window

    • selector-result (name specifies selector)

A set of STIX content that matches a specific selector pattern

 

 

 

Please feel free to offer your thoughts.

Do you disagree with including any of these values?

Do you think that we should start with only the suggested values?

Do you think we should also include any/all of the “common case” or “outlier” values?

 

 

 

Sean Barnum

Principal Architect

FireEye

M: 703.473.8262

E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com

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.



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