Re: [cti-users] Re: [EXT] [cti-users] trying to understand the "Sighting" object

[Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>]

Hi Bret,

It depends on the features and functionality in the user requirements. If you are supporting the automation of the scientific method or intelligence community methodologies like activity-based intelligence that require deductive inference then you'd need a knowledge model that supports not only the storage and retrieval of information but deductive inference as well. Same way, increased automated reasoning capabilities (discovery, intelligence, question-answering, etc) requires increased metadata and semantics in the knowledge model.ÂÂ

If you think about the user (the person using threat intelligence) they apply inductive and deductive inference during the scientific method to make sense of the information. If we want to augment or automate the sense-making and decision-making process to be able to infer predictions and deductions into the investigation we need to support automated inference and that means having knowledge models that support storage, retrieval, and inference.Â

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-sources-knowledge-shawn-riley/Â <--short article on inductive inference, deductive inference, and communication (information sharing) might be helpful.

I think it's a bit to complex topic to discuss via email. If you're out at Integrated Cyber in a few weeks it might be better to discuss in person.Â

Shawn

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:01 PM Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:

Shawn,

Please help the community understand what would be needed and whyÂfor this to work more easily.Â

Bret

---

From: Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:49:11 PM
To: Bret Jordan
Cc: Forrest.B.Hare@saic.com; CTI-Stix-User
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Re: [EXT] [cti-users] trying to understand the "Sighting" object

Â

Forrest,

It's worth keeping in mind that STIX graphs are just simple property graphs due to the JSON/JSON Schema (Dictionary) design. If you're used to working with the other intelligence areas in the DoD/IC that have already transitioned to integrated intelligence using knowledge engineering and object-based production to create knowledge graphs, STIX won't have the metadata or that level detail. This sometimes trips people up if they are used to the more detailed conceptual models and description logic used in integrated intelligence (objects, attributes, associations, and activities).Â

Best,

ShawnÂ

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:

Forrest,

Let me give a concrete examples... Say company example.com created and sharedÂan indicator that identifies beaconing traffic for Malware sample X. That indicators identifies 50 URLs and IPs that the Malware is known to talk to.ÂÂ

You get that indicator and use it in your system / infrastructure. At some point that indicator fires and you get a hit.. You could tell example.com:

1) You saw the indicator but not tell them what you saw or where you saw it. This would be a one-armed SightingÂrelationship that point to the Indicator and nothing else.Â

2) You saw the indicator and the URLs you saw were badstuff.com and badactor.com. This would be a Sighting relationship that points to the Indicator and some Observed Data (the cyber observables).

3) You saw the indicator and the URLs you saw were badstuff.com and bactor.com. You also saw this in the health sector in France. This would be a Sighting relationship that points to the Indicator, some Observed Data (URLs), an Identity object (health sector), and a Location object (France).Â

If we were to do item 3 with the general purpose Relationship object, then you would need to send 3 JSON objects. But the Sighting relationship object allows you do include all three edges in a single JSON object.Â

Does that help?

Bret

---

From: Hare, Forrest B. <Forrest.B.Hare@saic.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 10:52:26 AM
To: Bret Jordan; cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [EXT] [cti-users] trying to understand the "Sighting" object

Â

Ok, so to avoid creating an additional SDO for what is theoretically the same indicator (I caveat that because there could be a false positive observance), you are creating a new relationship object for what are essentially additional properties of the previous indicator SDO relating to different observances of the indicator at a different location (âwas also seen by meâ, âwhen,â âwhere,â. Etc).

Â

Then it is up to the analyst how to process that data (e.g., the example you provided below). I think I understand.Â

Â

Iâm not sure the graphic on the Walk-Thru depicts your explanation, however Iâm not sure how to improve on it to do so. Maybe just the additional âsighting ofâ edge and drop the âsightingâ node?Â

Â

Thanks!

Forrest

Â

Forrest B. Hare, PhD

Solutions Architect

Cyberspace Operations
571-419-0084 | forrest.b.hare@SAIC.com

saic.comÂ|@SAICinc

Redefining IngenuityÂ^â

Â

For Cyber Support Requests, please go to:

https://saicito.service-now.com/kpc?id=kpc_cat_item&sys_id=3b4a1343139f7600f6f4b53a6144b01b

Â

From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Hare, Forrest B. <Forrest.B.Hare@saic.com>; cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] [cti-users] trying to understand the "Sighting" object

Â

Forrest,

Â

Thank you for the question. A Sighting object in STIX is just a relationship (edge in the graph). The reason we did not use the general purpose Relationship object is we wantedÂsome operational efficiencies for transport. So the STIX Sighting relationshipÂobject has the ability to do the following:

Â

1) Say the indicator is good or more specially "was seen" but without any context. Some organizations can not share other details other than "thumbs up" this indicator is good and I saw it.Â

Â

2) Say the indicator was seen and here are the exact things I saw. Indicator -> Sighting -> Observed Data

Â

3) Say the indicator was seen and this is where it was seen. Indicator -> Sighting ->ÂIdentity / Location

Â

This means you can also sayÂwhat was seen and where it was seen in a single payload. Thus multiple edges in a single JSON object. This is why the Sighting relationship object is "special".ÂÂ

Â

One of the big problems is in the way we talk about Sighting. We talk about it as if it was a Domain Object. This is because it can sort of act like that in the use case #1 above, effectively a one-armed edge (an edge that is only connected on one side).Â

Â

I would expect a system that consumes a STIX Sighting relationship object to decompose it to the various edges that it contains and represent them individually in their graph. We also need to remember that STIX is a transport serialization for sharing CTI.Â

Â

Does this help? What other questions do you have ?

Â

Thanks

Bret

Â

---

From: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Hare, Forrest B. <Forrest.B.Hare@saic.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:27:15 AM
To: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [EXT] [cti-users] trying to understand the "Sighting" object

Â

I apologize if this is an uninformed question, but why is âsightingâ an SRO and not just a new instance of an âindicatorâ SDO?

Â

If it is truly an SRO, what two SDOs does it link (which I understand an SRO to do)? The example provided in the Walk-through at https://oasis-open.github.io/cti-documentation/stix/walkthrough

is a bit confusing to me because it represents âsightingâ as a node and âsighting ofâ as an edge. This suggests there are two different objects, but the Object List at: https://oasis-open.github.io/cti-documentation/stix/intro

Â

only lists âsightingâ under the SRO section. âRelationshipâ is also listed there, but the graphic on the Walk Through page does not depict a ârelationshipâ object, just the âindicatesâ edge. Hopefully, you can see where I am getting confused by trying to reconcile the diagram and terminology.

Â

Thank you,

Forrest

Â

Â

Forrest B. Hare, PhD

Solutions Architect

Cyberspace Operations
571-419-0084 | forrest.b.hare@SAIC.com

saic.comÂ|@SAICinc

Redefining IngenuityÂ^â

Â

For Cyber Support Requests, please go to:

https://saicito.service-now.com/kpc?id=kpc_cat_item&sys_id=3b4a1343139f7600f6f4b53a6144b01b

Â

Â

---

This communication (including any attachments) may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that further dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who received this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete it from his or her computer.

---

This communication (including any attachments) may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that further dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who received this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete it from his or her computer.