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: [EXT] [cti-stix] RE: [Non-DoD Source] [cti-stix] Eight Arguments for an Infrastructure SDO for STIX 2.1

We could discuss on a working call, but I am unsure what the agenda of said working call would be. We first need someone to propose something.... this is what JMG and I are saying... lead us to the water here...

It is easy to call for change  - I could easily call for a reopening of timestamps because of the order of magnitude higher computation overhead of parsing the current ones - but it wouldn't pass muster as this is an issue long ago voted upon by the TC, and STIX 2.0 will work without that change - * the burden needs to be high * for proponents to re-open fundamental debates that the TC has already voted on.

RE code, there are many, many folks who have written (and are writing now) STIX 2.0 code. There are multiple vendors who have support out in production, and I am sure there are many more in internal test. The Interoperability plugfest in January has many vendors signed up to participage. This change would break all of those implementations, and send people back to the drawing board. We need to stop with the "we need to write code" arguments... there is a lot of code already written. Just because one entity is having problems adapting an internal model, does not mean there is a fundamental problem with the specification. The problem can just as easily be with their own model. STIX isn't going to seamlessly adapt to every single data model in existence.

Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems

"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Unknown

From:        Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
To:        John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com>
Cc:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Katz, Gary CTR DC3DCCI" <Gary.Katz.ctr@dc3.mil>, JG on CTI-TC <jg@ctin.us>
Date:        11/14/2017 11:35 PM
Subject:        Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] RE: [Non-DoD Source] [cti-stix] Eight Arguments for an Infrastructure SDO for STIX 2.1
Sent by:        <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>

We should probably get people together to talk about and discuss.  This will help us know for sure if a change is needed and to what extent that change is needed.  

What we really need is people that have started writing code for this.  This discussion is not about theory, or perceived goodness or badness, but what have people seen in working code.


Sent from my Commodore 128D

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

On Nov 15, 2017, at 7:51 AM, John-Mark Gurney <
jmg@newcontext.com> wrote:

Jason Keirstead wrote this message on Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 16:48 +0000:
I have yet to see someone present a concrete use case for why we should
make cyber observables a TLO. It has been proposed multiple times in the
past and debated to death - it is perhaps the second-most debated subject
in the TC (after timestamps).  I am all for the idea of "fixing what is
broken" in STIX, as Brett says, but to me if we are going to re-open
topics that have been extensively debated and yet voted on in another
direction, there is a significant burden on the proposer as to why it
should be re-opened. I don't see that burden being met here.

What are the specific modeling problem(s) that would be solved by making
cyber observables top level objects, that can not be solved in any other

I agree.  There is lots of talk, but little documentation on why the
change should be done, what it will look like, how it will be used, etc.

Yes, people have bits and pieces throughout emails, but there is not a
document that even a majority of the proponets of the concept even agree
upon things should look like.


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