Jeff, I think you hit on a really important point that we need to all remember. STIX is a serialization format for COMPUTERS. What you display in the UI is independent. So proposal 2 really seems like a better solution for our design principles.
Bret
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:41:04 AM
To: Terry MacDonald; Sean Barnum
Cc: Bret Jordan; Wunder, John A.; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
I’m strongly in favor of having a single named field for this (proposal 2). The primary purpose that was being discussed for this was to allow display information to be sent using STIX for specific products. As a programmer it’s a lot easier for me to know that every object type will have the same field that I should query for if I want this value rather than having to fill in a special configuration entry for each and every STIX object type.
That way when a STIX viewer application reads an entry it knows it always needs to look at 2 fields to determine what icon to display.
1. Look at tags and see if any match my icon rules. If one does use it, if more than one does decide which to use.
2. Look at the TLO and use the default icon for this type. If it is an unknown TLO use a fallback icon.
If we go with options that make more sense to a human then it ends up requiring an additional lookup step:
1. Lookup the key for tag names and see what field or fields to use.
3. If a tag name exists for this type see if any match my icon rules. If one does use it, if more than one does decide which to use.
2. Look at the TLO and use the default icon for this type. If it is an unknown TLO use a fallback icon.
Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/DCCI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer Scientist
Defense Cyber Crime Institute
jeffrey.mates@dc3.mil
410-694-4335
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Terry MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 2:11 AM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@fireeye.com>
Cc: Bret Jordan <bret_jordan@symantec.com>; Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
I also strongly support #1, but with the caveat that we don't always user _types if another word makes more sense e.g. roles for the Identity object. I like the list that Jason posted in the issue comments, with a slight tweak as suggested by Sean:
Identity: roles
Indicator: indicator_types
Malware: malware_types
Report: report_types
Threat Actor: threat_actor_types
Tool: tool_types
Cheers
Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer
On 25 April 2018 at 10:11, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@fireeye.com> wrote:
I strongly support #1 as it meets what is needed and is by far the most intuitively clear on what it means. I would suggest the large majority of people would understand what it means.
I would strongly disagree with #2. I would suggest that it would be found almost universally to be confusing and unclear on what labels are, what tags are and what the difference is. “Labels” is far too general to convey the specific meaning of a specific type of something (malware, threat actor, indicator, etc).
Get Outlook for iOS
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 5:32:01 PM
To: Wunder, John A.; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
I like #2, this is what we had originally in STIX 2.0 before we merged them.
Bret
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:31:06 PM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
Hey all,
We discussed this on the working call and had a quick straw poll. The options we discussed were:
- *_types (indicator_types, malware_types, threat_actor_types, etc.): 5 votes
- Keep these values from the vocab in labels (as they are now), add a new property called tags to capture the user-defined tagging: 4 votes
- Something else: 0 votes
- Abstain: 5
If you haven’t weighed in on this topic yet, can you please shoot a message to the list to help us decide? It can be just a quick “I like #3”, or it can be something with a longer description, or it can be a new suggestion to consider. You can also comment on github: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37.
We need to resolve this issue before we can finish CSD01 so any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks,
John
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 5:13 PM
To: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, John Wunder <jwunder@mitre.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
Agree with Bret’s issues. I posted my comment to the github repo and suggested an alternative.
Allan Thomson
CTO (+1-408-331-6646)
From: "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 1:57 PM
To: "Wunder, John" <jwunder@mitre.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti-stix] Re: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 2:34:58 PM
To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] [cti-stix] New property names for previous label properties
Hey all,
Per Issue 37 (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37), the TC has decided to stop using the labels property for the default vocabularies we have on some object types that generally categorizes the object. Given that change, we need to name the new properties on each of the objects that the change applies to.
After hearing from Jason on Slack, I captured some potential names in the last comment on that github issue (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/37#issuecomment-379361610). Can you please take a moment and review those suggestions? If you agree, please +1 my comment or respond over e-mail. If you disagree and have a different suggestion, please comment in Github or respond over e-mail. I’d like to get at least a few people to positively agree to these decisions…especially if you were a proponent of making the change called out in the issue.
You can find the vocabs themselves in Part 1 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShNq4c3e1CkfANmD9O--mdZ5H0O_GLnjN28a_yrEaco/edit) and the definitions for how they’re used in the objects in Part 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkMmU1PxlwlAwjrMmyWV147rvLcRs2x62FicHbpH2gU/edit). Just search for the object name.
Many of the suggestions are “_type”…just note that there’s already a “type” property on the objects, so it would lead to both a required “type” property and a required “indicator_type” property on Indicator, for example. That may be fine, it was just pointed out already in Slack so I wanted to bring it up here.
Thanks!
John
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.