Senior STIX Subject Matter Expert
SOLTRA | An FS-ISAC and DTCC Company
+61 (407) 203 206 |
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
On Behalf Of Kirillov, Ivan A.
Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2016 12:30 AM
To: Mark Davidson <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Jordan, Bret <email@example.com>; Wunder, John A. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Some additional thoughts on combining STIX and CybOX
I like this as well. I’ve always thought that the key asset of CybOX was its definitions of cyber observables, especially in the way of CybOX Objects. Having a
CybOX that is centered around an Object registry will enable us to better focus on updating, maintaining, and adding these core components.
I also concur with Mark that defining the process for how Objects are managed as part of such a registry is a key piece of this puzzle. If the community feels that
this proposal makes sense, we’ll work towards defining this process in the CybOX SC.
I like this idea. A few comments:
Can we talk through this on the upcoming Tuesday working session? This will help us identify a shared vision of what our MVP deliverables are, which we need. I
think it would make sense for John to present this, then have a discussion period. Does anyone else think that would be valuable? (We shouldn’t do it if I’m the only one who thinks so)
I’d like to see a notional implementation of the “CybOX compatibility interface”. This can be defined/discussed later, but it’s an open question for me.
For me, a key process that we need to define is how CybOX objects are managed. If we move toward this proposal, perhaps the CybOX SC can propose a process? I think
that the process is going to be as important as the initial set of CybOX 3.0 objects.
It is clear you have thought through these issues in great detail. Thanks for doing that. I love the proposal and would be in favor of following your lead in doing
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
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."
I'm probably one of those people Sean is referring to who suggested that STIX and CybOX be merged…I’ve certainly thrown it around before in my head and in a few
sidebar conversations. I’m a strong believer in keeping an open mind and making sure to consider all options, even those that seem crazy at first glance.
That said, at this point I agree that STIX and CybOX
should not be merged, for all the reasons pointed out below.
On the other hand, as Jason said, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we need CTI Common as a separate thing. My current opinion is that much of what’s in CTI Common
actually belongs in STIX, and that the reason we can’t do that now is our conception of what goes in STIX vs. CybOX is wrong.
I attached a .ppt with a more complete discussion, but the bottom line is that what I’m proposing is that we refocus STIX and CybOX on their core missions:
- CybOX is a registry of definitions for cyber observables (IP, File, E-mail, etc.)
- STIX is the way to represent and share cyber threat intelligence.
The big change here is that “Observation”, previously defined in CybOX, would move to STIX. This would mean that CTI Core and associated fields/capabilities can
also move into STIX, since CybOX no longer needs to deal with versioning, marking, etc. outside of STIX. That greatly mitigates the need for having CTI Common, as very little outside of CTI Core was really shared (just ID, timestamp format, and maybe some
miscellaneous other things).
Obviously there are more details here, in particular because CybOX currently requires relationships to represent some types of observations. The attached powerpoint
talks more about this and how we could solve it. Overall though, this separation of concerns makes much more sense to me personally and seems to lead to a cleaner structure that lets other specifications (e.g. MAEC) use CybOX without being required to pull
in things like versioning, data markings, and CTI Core.
I’m sorry to rush this proposal out, but the CTI Common ballot closes Monday and I wanted to give everyone at least a couple business days to think this proposal
over first. I’m happy to talk about it on Slack or on the phone if anyone is interested.
I just want to throw it out there that having separate working documents does not necessarily mean we have to have separate work products. Also, having separate
work products and/or working documents, does not necessarily mean we either have to (or conversely, can not) have separate subcommittees that are maintaining those working documents and/or work products.
Tl;DR - People are confusing working documents, work products, and subcommittees too much in this thread. Lets be clear on what we're talking about.
I also agree Cybox should be a separate work product, because it has lots of usefulness outside of STIX (including the potential to create a common cyber-threat correlation language).
I am not in agreement however that CTI Common should be a separate work product (as on the ballot).
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
<graycol.gif>Paul Patrick ---03/17/2016 01:43:42 PM---+1 on the comments both by Sean and Jeff. Paul Patrick
Paul Patrick <email@example.com>
03/17/2016 01:43 PM
Re: [cti] RE: Some additional thoughts on combining STIX and CybOX
+1 on the comments both by Sean and Jeff.
On 3/17/16, 10:58 AM, "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI" <firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of
>I'm strongly in favor of keeping the two separate. Having separate documents makes it easier to deal with when switching between writing tools that deal with threat actor attribution instead of crimes that merely happen to involve computers.
>Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/DCCI
>Defense Cyber Crime Institute
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Barnum, Sean D.
>Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:52 AM
>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti] Some additional thoughts on combining STIX and CybOX
>Several people have suggested that it would be more convenient to combine STIX and Cybox, characterizing it as a documentation issue where it would be easier to read a single document.
>Several people have explicitly stated that it is important technically that CybOX remain a separate standard to support diverse domain standards like STIX, MAEC, DFAX, etc in a focused and unbiased manner. They have also pointed out that it is a standards
issue (different development groups/opinions, different conformance and different referencing) not simply a documentation issue.
>There are a lot of technical details that have been provided by numerous members of the community why STIX and CybOX should not be combined. I will not restate those here. Rather, I would just add to those details a simple statement on our responsibilities
as a standards body.
>As a TC that took on responsibility for the maintenance and ongoing development of CybOX as an independent standards effort (specifically called out as such in the TC charter) we have a responsibility to continue to respect the purpose for CybOX and the
community of efforts and players (including several within the TC) that depend on it as a separate standard focused on the facts of cyber observables.
>Does the TC technically have the authority to ignore the needs of this community of players and efforts and change CybOX into whatever it feels like? Yes.
>Is that a responsible or appropriate course of action? In my opinion, definitely not.
>In my opinion, it is not an appropriate standards decision to place personal opinions of convenience in form factor over directly expressed technical needs of the community.
>Thank you for considering my opinions.
<graycol.gif><CTI Doc Organization Proposal.pptx>
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: