[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation
|From:||"Foley, Alexander - GIS" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|To:||"Crawford, David" <David.Crawford@aetna.com>, "'Patrick Maroney'" <Pmaroney@Specere.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Jordan, Bret'" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Fri, Mar 4, 2016 11:25 AM|
|Subject:||RE: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation|
I’m sorry all, I haven’t opened the ballot yet because I haven’t heard a second on Pat’s motion that we also include an option on base64 encoding in addition to the yes / no options for “should we allow for defanging.” Is there a second for the explicit option that the “yes” option for defanging should insist on base64 encoding as the one way of defanging?
Which of the Cybox objects are you recommending be Base64 encoded, just those that may contain binaries?
In addition to the up or down motion to pass "truth on the wire", I make a motion to add (2) Base64 encoding of STIX/Cybox content "on the wire" as a "Must" requirement for low impact/high effectiveness method to minimize impacts of handling "Live Ammo" within STIX Packahes as they are passed between systems, applications, APIs, etc..
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:22 PM -0800, "Foley, Alexander - GIS" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I second the motion and will open the ballot today.
The co-chairs and Rich discussed this issue and issues like it at length this morning. The conclusion we came up with is that it appears that there is general consensus. However, to be sure, we are going to propose that when issues like this get this muddy, that we just open a simple vote to see if we have official consensus so we can just move on, and stop having circular discussions.
Alex, I therefor motion that we open a ballot on this issue. Namely "Should STIX and CybOX support the ability to capture content in a defanged form and thus also include the ability to track that yes it was defanged and how it was defanged"
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Mar 3, 2016, at 13:40, Terry MacDonald <email@example.com> wrote:
That seems a reasonable summary to me. I think there is enough consensus to at least park it until after the first release of CybOX 3.CheersTerry MacDonald
It seems to me there is a rough concensus that we *should not* be supporting the de-fanging of data within STIX, with several people bringing up many strong arguments for why it is a bad idea to transmit on the wire and/or store data in a de-fanged fashion.
At a minimum, it seems to me that there is certainly a rough concensus that the supporting of de-fanging of data within STIX is not an MVP requirement.
Any chance we can proceed with this concensus, table this issue until after the release, where it can be raised again if it is later found to be a requirement? Anyone opposed to that?
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
<graycol.gif>Joep Gommers ---03/03/2016 05:05:26 AM---To support this statement based on our implementation of exactly this; At rest any information is st
From: Joep Gommers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Chris Ricard <email@example.com>, Mark Clancy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/03/2016 05:05 AM
Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Datatype Refactoring/Deprecation
Sent by: <email@example.com>
To support this statement based on our implementation of exactly this;
At rest any information is stored as close to its original as possible. Defanging information is fanged back to ensure the ability to correlate, compare, cluster, etc. Depending on the use-case of the information, information is defanged on consumption by humans or when presenting on systems (e.g. a browser app for example) that could potentially generate action outside of the users control. E.g. Our UI ensures that things are defanged.
E.g. When exported:
E.g when you need to be able to compare mentally
e.g when you risk clicking it:
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna