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] Playing the "simpleton's advocate": how much complexity can we throw overboard?


A great big +1 from me.
:-)

sean

From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>
Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 11:41 AM
To: Bernd Grobauer <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com>, Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Playing the "simpleton's advocate": how much complexity can we throw overboard?

I will (again) argue for:

(1) STIX Profiles

  (1.1) human and machine readable

  (1.2) Adding declaritive 'simple' form: enumeration of 

     (1.2.1) these are the 'things' I can consume/produce

     (1.2.3) these are the conventions for "types of things": e.g. Kill Chain

(2) Community consensus on a core set of standard STIX Profiles (e.g: top 10 use cases)

Note that this is not an arguement against things like elimination multiple description options, etc.   It is an argument however for avoiding endless debates on which "things" are important as I posit we will never reach consensus given the diverse set of world views and use cases CTI needs to embrace.

Editorial Note: Although we do indeed argue for M2M inter-exchange as the core functional requirement, eventually the data is likely presented to a human where things like Description provide/context value in the end state models/databases/ticketing systems/etc.

Patrick Maroney
President
Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.
Desk: (856)983-0001
Cell: (609)841-5104
Email: pmaroney@specere.org




On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM -0700, "Jerome Athias" <athiasjerome@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

first for initiating this discussion.
While I will comment inline below, (because everything was added, at some point, for a reason or another) without wanting to be the devil's advocate vs KISS; I wonder if we should consider an approach at an higher level.
Putting some food on the table:

- Should we provide guidance documents (e.g. The preferred Kill_Chain is LM, or It is highly recommended to use the LM Kill Chain, etc.)?
or/and
- Should we define what is mandatory or optional (in order to reach compliance/compatibility level A, B, C)?
or/and
- Should we have "2 versions": Minimum required fields (for compliance level A/STIX-basic), Additional advanced fields (for compliance level B/STIX-Gold) (with full support, level C/STIX-Platinum)?


2015-09-21 17:04 GMT+03:00 Grobauer, Bernd <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com>:

- negate:
  Remove -- the use case is mostly academic, but if the
  flag is there, it completely changes the semantics of how
  the indicator is to be handled and is a real pain for implementation,
  even though it is hardly ever used
 
  (Note: as shall be explained below, the 'negate' will not be needed anymore
   for building logical expressions of indicators, because we shall throw those
   out, too).
JA>  I would agree
 
- Title:
  Make the field mandatory, but it may be empty.
JA>  +1 
 
- Type:
  Remove, if there isn't someone who can come up with a
  convincing case in which the field is really useful and where
  the intended semantics could not be communicated with
  a reference to a COA.
JA>  Disagree for now (until we review the Controlled Vocabularies)
 
 
- Alternative_ID:
  Unsure, probably keep.
JA>  keep (advanced) for mapping with internal/proprietary IDs (same as CVE - MS-KB link for VM)
 
 
- Description:
  - There should be exactly 1 description field (which may be empty).
 
    Yes, this precludes fancy schemes of having different descriptions
    for different audiences/access levels, but those should amount
    to less than 0.1% of all indicator objects ever to be
    produced and thus do not warrant substantial complication of
    the standard.
JA>  Sensitive regarding internationalization (meantime now it's a 0..n or 1..n, that could be a 1..1 + another OtherDescriptions field for 0..n)
 
 
  - There should be exactly one text representation, and that should *NOT*
    be html on account of security issues with rendering HTML in the
    browser. Chose Markdown, RestructuredText or whatever.
JA>  not sure for now for the format, need to investigate further
 
 
- Short_Description:
 
  Remove: I am tired of receiving indicator objects in which
  two or three out of three of the fields "title",
  "description", "short_description"
  are empty -- one description field should be plenty.
 
  (Besides: everybody keeps telling me that STIX is for
  machine-2-machine rather than *-2-human communication, so
  why the big fuss about description fields?)
JA>  Not for remove, but Potentially could be replaced by Description (as 1..1) + DescriptionOthers as 0..n
 
 
 
- Valid_Time_Proposition:
 
  Timing info for indicators is badly needed, but I have yet to encounter usage
  of it. Can we come up with sensible guidelines of how to use the field?
  It should only be kept if we can...
JA>  Guidance documents... :-) Some could argue we just need that for an Exercise/Test, or/and I personally hate CTI feeds with tons of old/useless IOCs
JA>  But could be just an Advanced Field
 
 
- IndicatorExpression
 
  In the present specification, this field can either
  contain what is essentially a logical formula (codified as a tree)
  of indicators or an observable composition.
 
  - Remove logical operations: allow only to reference a list
    of indicators that constitute the present indicator.
 
  - If you want to do complicated and/or/not-reasoning about
    observable stuff: that is essentially a signature,
    so find a signature-language of your choice (including
    and/or/not-combinations of CybOX observables, if that
    is what works best) and formulate the signature
    as a test mechanism.
 
  - For everything else: find a way to encode observable
    patterns as simple key-value pairs and include/reference a list
    of them here. Should work fine for the majority of
    current use-cases. At most, allow a structured list that
    groups basic observable patterns (key-value) pairs with
    respect to a cybox observable to which they belong.   
JA>  Investigate further
 
 
- Indicated_TTP:
 
  Use yet-to-be-designed relationship mechanism.
 
- Kill_Chain_Phases:
 
  Define *ONE* standard STIX kill chain and work with that.
  Being able to include alternative models is nice, but
  complicates tooling quite a bit ... and, remember, this
  is an exchange format, so one common kill-chain model
  understood in the same way by everybody will work best.
JA>  Guidance (preferred one), Optional/Advanced
 
 
- Test Mechanisms
 
  Make this a stand-alone entity/object rather than part
  of the Indicator object. As mentioned above: use this also
  to communicate more complicate observable patterns expressed in CybOX.
JA>  potentially ok
 
 
- Likely_Impact.
 
  Remove: I have never encountered it being used and have
  a hard time coming up with a convincing use case.
JA>  I see interest there for high level/strategy/business point of view (Risk Management: Impact * Likelihood)
 
 
- Suggested_COAs:
 
  Use yet-to-be-designed relationship mechanism.
 
- Handling:
 
  Replace with some new mechanism for marking stuff with
  handling information.
 
- Confidence
 
  Keep: we need a simple way to distinguish high-confidence
  from low-confidence indicators.
 
- Sightings:
 
  Find some other way to do sightings (cf. the discussion on
  the mailing list)
JA>  Still unresolved I agree
 
 
- Related_*: Use yet-to-be-designed relationship mechanism.
 
- Producer:
 
  Either simplify drastically or better yet, leave away
  and consider for the next but one major release.
JA>  not sure for the moment
 


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