Re: [cti] Looking for Example Shell

["Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>]

Take a look here for the working definition of a package: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YcEtyUGdFkJIPdDZ7K-mHbvjFt-5pOL2EIw_ZJuqNpM/edit#heading=h.c9oxowopqs2

As you can probably see, it’s essentially your former suggestion. We’ve had discussions about it though and I’ve argued the latter, mainly for ease of use. Bottom line is that we haven’t really decided, and have gone with the 1.x approach for the time being.



Also, Paul Patrick from iSight has provided this notional example: http://taxii2-demo.soltra.com/taxii/mygroup/collections/mycollection/packages/package--3b3441de-8bf2-409e-a7e8-8f296f385057

In terms of validation…because of our `type` keyword it’s actually pretty easy to validate. The challenge is on understanding the validation message, because what you’ll get back is: you didn’t provide an attack pattern OR a malware OR an indicator OR a threat actor, etc. and it’s up to you to figure out which you actually wanted.

John

On 3/21/16, 2:55 PM, "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/DCCI" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Jeffrey.Mates@dc3.mil> wrote:

>I have been trying to make sure I'm up to date on what a STIX 2.0 document
>will look like, and while there is a great deal of information about
>particular object types and common attributes I haven't had much luck
>finding an example of what the shell of a document will look like.  Does
>anyone know if we have a generally agreed upon sample of this somewhere?
>
>So far I have heard two different visions of STIX 2.0 the first more aligns
>to STIX 1.X and roughly maps to a json format of:
>{
>Header: [],
>Observables: [],
>Indicators: [], ...
>Relationships: []
>}
>
>The second moves to a node link model along the lines of:
>
>{
>Header: [],
>Objects: [],
>Relationships: []
>}
>
>I think that the second model makes lookups simpler when resolving
>relationships while also making adding new object types easier, but also may
>introduce additional challenges when attempting to validate the JSON's
>schema.
>
>I haven't found confirmation on what has been generally agreed upon or if a
>consensus has been reached.
>
>Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/DCCI
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Computer Scientist
>Defense Cyber Crime Institute
>jeffrey.mates@dc3.mil
>410-694-4335
>
>