Re: [cti-stix] Two Minor 2.1 STIX Proposals

[Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>]

Hey, Jason -

I think your suggestions are entirely sensible. They add semantic
value, are trivial to implement, and don't break anything in the
specs. Unless someone voices a substantive suggestion, I move that we
incorporate your suggestions in the next STIX CSD.

Cheers,
Trey

On 28.09.2018 20:48:34, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> I would like to submit the following two minor proposals for 2.1...
> 
> - The addition of a "software_ref" property to the "Process" cyber 
> observable object. This would allow one to encode what piece of software a 
> given process is for (which you can then tie to CPE and do many things 
> with)
> 
> - A defined relationship type of "vulnerable_to" to be added from 
> observed_data to vulnerability. This would allow you to say that a given 
> process, system, or software was vulnerable to a certain vulnerability.
> 
> -
> Jason Keirstead
> Lead Architect - IBM.Security
> www.ibm.com/security
> 
> "Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who 
> hustle." - Unknown 
> 
> 

-- 
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Director of Standards Development, New Context
gpg fingerprint: 3918 9D7E 50F5 088F 823F  018A 831A 270A 6C4F C338
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy." --Helmuth
Graf von Moltke

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature