[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation
>> As much as I would like fields to just be the value, I agree that we probably need this layer of indirection to support these extra properties.
I was also hoping for Observations/Objects to just hold the value, but some of these fields do seem to be necessary. I think the only other way to do this would be via relationships, but then you’d have to assign an ID to each field, and that would just
get messy quickly without any real benefit.
>> We’ll need to decide what that means for patterning, if anything, by the way.
Yup, agreed. My initial thinking is that these properties don’t (or shouldn’t) have any significance for patterning.
>>Given that we’re talking about actual observations here (instances), is “appears_random” appropriate? That seems to be a statement about a pattern of behavior over several observations rather than a single observation.
I’ve wondered the same – this does seem to be an assertion that one wouldn’t typically make based on a single data point. Also, it seems like you’d want to be able to specify some level of confidence and perhaps other properties with this as well, so I’m
also wondering if this belongs here or perhaps in some separate structure (which could also be used for related observations such as entropy, etc.)?
>>Can we combine the “obfuscation” fields into some single “obfuscation_algorithm”, representing a URI or something? Then if the field is there, it’s obfuscated using that. If it’s not, then it’s not obfuscated.
Yeah, that makes good sense to me. I think having the “is_defanged” boolean isn’t strictly necessary, as you can infer that something is obfuscated if the corresponding “obfuscation_algorithm” field is populated. Having a URI in there seems reasonable.
>> Given that we’re now talking about machine-to-machine transmissions, is defanging still important? Can’t the raw data be exchanged as it is and then let tools to present it to users defanged however they want? It seems weird to me to transmit it defanged
if it’s M2M (vs. a PDF that people might accidentally click).
I had the same question when we were first implementing defanging/fanging; it does seem like something that should be done at the data ingest/GUI layer rather than at the data specification layer. It’s definitely odd to support it if there is no expectation
that humans will actually look at the data.
>> If we do need to include it, can we similarly collapse these attributes into one “defanging_algorithm” URI? They seem very redundant right now.
I’m also onboard with this. So we’d get something like:
Regards,
Ivan
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of John Wunder <jwunder@mitre.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 1:56 PM To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation As much as I would like fields to just be the value, I agree that we probably need this layer of indirection to support these extra properties. We’ll need to decide what that means for patterning, if anything, by the way.
On the attributes you listed, I just have a few questions:
John
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:21 PM To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation Sending this to the broader CTI since it’s part of the STIX/CybOX Indicator tranche.
Given that we’ll be splitting out embedded patterning from CybOX, there are changes that we need to make to the base datatypes used currently for specifying properties in CybOX Objects. At a high level, this involves the following:
More details on these proposed changes can be found here: https://github.com/CybOXProject/schemas/issues/416#issuecomment-181916815
Accordingly, this would result in CybOX instance content that looks like the following; each property is an Object (so that it can specify metadata about refanging/defanging/etc) and thus the “value” field MUST be included in every property to capture
its actual value.
{ "size": {"value": 23134}, "file-system-properties" : {"file_name": {"value":"test.dll", "observed_encoding":"utf-8"}} } Some open questions:
Regards,
Ivan
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]