OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

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

Subject: Re: [cti] CTI-Outreach Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion

#1 Just a note regarding the vendors perspective, why "STIX/TAXII in their current incarnation do NOT work very well"?
Why all big vendors are still not here? (do they think they have better patented proprietary solutions than CTI? do they have no interest of collaborating on interoperability? do they just wait we do the specification job for them before to jump in?). Vendor perspective feedback welcome here.

#2 Regarding the user perspective (and implicitly the vendor one), we would have to clearly demonstrate why CTI is important and what would be the benefits for an organisation to invest into it.
How does it operationally help a CSIRT/SOC to be more effective; save time and money, or do more, faster.

Few months ago, I commented about the STIX Course of Action specification.
From a strategic perspective, I think it could be useful, in the future (2.0 ?...), to take some time trying to develop the business element.
Without too much details for now, because the -Cost- element is specified; a little extension (money/time/quality in mind), e.g.:
The 'Time' property characterizes the estimated time for applying a Course of Action to achieve its targeted objective, ...
e.g.: it would take X days/hours for digital forensics of 1 workstation with Chain of Custody

The idea would be helping adoption and obtaining budget for CTI-related activities, services or technologies... by showing the business value.

And this kind of points of extensions (that would have first to remain optional to avoid complexity) or support of other 'standards' like TLP, CVRF, etc. AND documentation/guidance referring to standards/frameworks/policies/compliance (mapping to CSF, SP 800-53 Families, ISO 27k, Incident Response, Business Continuity, etc. - in short, how to map bottom-up with top-down approaches (Ref. conceptual models & co. topic)) and how CTI fits in would help, imho, if not answering to #2, at least to create interest, and demonstrate the need, from the user/vendor perspective.

2015-06-24 20:11 GMT+03:00 Peter Allor <pallor@us.ibm.com>:

I think I will push back a bit here, especially on your 'certification' and 'compliance' aspects.


We need to be "voluntarily" adopting this 'standard'.

While I can see Tony's comments about talking with EC bodies, the real adoption and use for CTI is in two communities, which by their nature are international.

They are the CSIRT Community, specifically National CSIRTs but also Critical Infrastructure CSIRTs and Enterprise CSIRTs (I will not delve into the Big, Medium, Small discussion).   There is a whole lot going on in CSIRT Services Framework and Education Development where this can be included and is updating materials from CERT/CC-SEI that are now 20 years old.

Then there is the 'vendor' community, which has not been really engaged here.   I know some will say they are part of that community, but then also tout how they are international.   So we need the large IT Vendors and we need the broad IT Security Vendors as part of this process.   That would be for all FOUR Sub-Committee's.    Much of the indicators and expressions will need their input and adoption to actually gain traction for many and to enable the CSIRT Community (yes, the vendors are part of that community as well).     Just to be clear, I am talking about Intel/McAfee, Symantec, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco/SourceFire, FireEye/Mandiant, and a slew of others.

Pushing mandatory compliance and certification does not work globally (think Common Criteria / NIAP, I could go on on that alone) and in security venues globally it is a check box with little use.    Now I know that vendors are looking to be part of this, but the sentiment here in the discussions does not reflect that.    I say that from a vendor and incident response community perspective.

So lets focus on how we get their perspectives to be included, as I know as vendors, we see that STIX/TAXII in their current incarnation do NOT work very well and that exchanging threat data today is severely challenged.   The goal for CTI is to make that easier and simple for users and that means we as designers need to have the implementers involved and participating, not corralled and shamed.   If you take CVRF as an example, you can see that vendors do want a system and are willing to put it into operations and such, but the customer and the vendor need to have value out of it, not just another checkbox.



Peter Allor  
Senior Security Strategist, Project Manager, Disclosures
Product Management and Strategy
IBM Security
6303 Barfield Rd NE
Atlanta, GA 30328-4233
Mobile: +1-404-643-9638    
Fax:       +1-845-491-4204  

Inactive hide details for Joep Gommers ---06/24/2015 11:15:54 AM---Hi Patrick, Great point. I think part would be an effort of Joep Gommers ---06/24/2015 11:15:54 AM---Hi Patrick, Great point. I think part would be an effort of mapping the landscape on

From: Joep Gommers <joep@intelworks.com>
To: Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>, Mark Clancy <mclancy@soltra.com>, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>, "tony@yaanatech.com" <tony@yaanatech.com>, Rich Struse <richard.struse@dhs.gov>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 06/24/2015 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [cti] CTI-Outreach Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>

Hi Patrick,

Great point. I think part would be an effort of mapping the landscape on
the one side, ensuring the tooling required to enable people to be
compatible (in addition to the standards and corresponding libraries) and
part certification to solidify and ensure compliancy. Especially the
latter option combined with hall of fame/shame (in a nice way :)) could
drive some tangible KPIs.. ?

Best regards,

On 6/24/15, 4:29 PM, "Patrick Maroney" <Pmaroney@Specere.org> wrote:

>I would agree with the position that Engagement subsumes Outreach.
>One open question is where Interoperability (as a tangible deliverable)
>fits into our stratgegy.
>Patrick Maroney
>Office: (856)983-0001
>Cell: (609)841-5104
>From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of
>Mark Clancy <mclancy@soltra.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:17:23 AM
>To: Peter F Brown; tony@yaanatech.com; Rich Struse
>Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [cti] CTI-Outreach Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion
>I agree with need this SC and am happy to help. I have been doing a lot
>this as part of my role as  DTCC's CISO in addition to my Soltra role.  I
>have been presenting/meeting in the US, Europe and Asia. I spend a lot of
>time with legislators, policy makers, and global financial regulators on
>information sharing and why automation is a key part of capablity needs.
>By the same token most of the challenges in the global context are not
>purely technical but national and regualtory impediments.  Not to say the
>technical things we are doing in CTI commitee in Oasis isn't also
>critical as it certianly is, but that if we only address the technical
>side of this problem we won't achieve the risk mitigation benefits we all
>So at some level what do we think "engagement" means vs. "outreach"?
>Mark Clancy
>Chief Executive Officer
>SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
>+1.813.470.2400 office | +1.610.659.6671 US mobile |​  +44 7823 626 535
>UK mobile
>mclancy@soltra.com | soltra.com
>One organization's incident becomes everyone's defense.
>From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of
>Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 6:37 PM
>To: tony@yaanatech.com; Rich Struse
>Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [cti] CTI-Outreach Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion
>Also agree with comment in an earlier thread that this SC ought to have
>engagement as a core focus rather than outreach - and that ought to be
>reflected in the name of any proposed SC.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org [
mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On
>Behalf Of Tony Rutkowski
>Sent: 22 June, 2015 13:08
>To: Rich Struse
>Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [cti] CTI-Outreach Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion
>Hi Rich,
>There is a great symmetry occurring here on a global scale.
>The first day of the annual cybersecurity workshop was held this
>afternoon here in Sophia Antipolis in France's approximation of Silicon
>Valley in the hills of Valbonne, France.  There are people here from
>around the world, but this afternoon was somewhat Euro centric with key
>officials describing what was essential to regional and national
>cybersecurity.  Perhaps not by coincidence, cyber threat intelligence
>sharing was at the top of their lists - along with security assurance.
>The four people who were engaged at this session were:
>o Florent Frederix who heads the key Network Information Security
>(NIS) initiative of the the European Commission and has some
>responsibilities at the Directorate level similar to Rich Struse's as the
>execution arm of the EU cybersecurity strategy - the analog of the White
>House's framework initiatives.
>o Chris Ensor who heads up cybersecurity work in the UK's CESG
>organization - also similar to Rich's responsibilities.
>o Marc Henauer of Switzerland's MELANI organization that is similar the
>principal Swiss threat intelligence sharing body.
>o Edri an Belmonte, who plays the lead role in this area in ENISA
>All of the presentations except Cris Ensor's are available at:
>In the discussion session following the presentations, speaking at the
>ETSI TC CYBER threat intelligence sharing rapporteur, I had the
>opportunity to explain the creation of the new TC CTI committee and how
>the platforms being pursued in CTI were proven best-of-breed models and
>structured information sharing specifications that provided an ideal
>match to each of their objectives.
>It was quite amazing how each of the parties - even in Europe - was
>rather independently pursuing similar objectives.
>We also discussed how the work of TC CYBER was to survey the global
>cybersecurity ecosystem and make use of the most successful existing
>standards and not pursue duplicative work.  Everyone seemed in agreement,
>and going forward, there seems like an excellent basis for convergence
>with the CTI work now getting underway.
>There will be further discussion at the workshop over the next two days
>as well as definitive actions at the TC CYBER meeting on Thursday and
>Friday.  It was a good beginning that was continued usefully over local
>provence wine and hors d'oeuves this evening (and setting a useful
>precedent for future TC CTI physical gatherings).
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:


[attachment "CTI Standards Adoption.docx" deleted by Peter Allor/Atlanta/IBM]
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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