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-stix] Re: [cti] [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]

Yes, exactly.

The purpose of the larger range is simply to accommodate more possible scales than a single 1-5  scale. Nothing more or less.

Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.

Andras Iklody --- Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti] [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September] ---

From:"Andras Iklody" <andras.iklody@gmail.com>
To:"Joep Gommers" <joep@eclecticiq.com>
Cc:"Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org, "Marko Dragoljevic" <marko@eclecticiq.com>, cti@lists.oasis-open.org, "Dave Cridland" <dave.cridland@surevine.com>, "JE" <je@cybersecurityscout.eu>, "Terry MacDonald" <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>, "Patrick Maroney" <Pmaroney@specere.org>, "Mark Clancy" <mclancy@soltra.com>
Date:Tue, Sep 13, 2016 3:52 AM
Subject:Re: [cti-stix] Re: [cti] [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]

The idea is definitely to use descriptive language and convert to a unified scale. A 5 step scale limits the conversion of 4 and 3 step scales, 0-100 simply accommodates more toes of descriptive language.

On Sep 13, 2016 8:18 AM, "Joep Gommers" <joep@eclecticiq.com> wrote:

For what its worth, reflecting on intelligence tradecraft, I’m fully supportive of a 1-5 scale (or similar order magnitude) so that you can build clear analytic constructs and constraints around each scale. 1-100 for an analytic judgement is not just overkill, it breaks the ability for an analyst to apply such analytic tradecraft. That said, having a 1-100 score if this is mostly created by machines, for machines, with a known algorithm makes all the sense – but don’t think we are intended to create that. Or have both *ducks*…


From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Mark Clancy <mclancy@soltra.com>
Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:43 PM
To: Marko Dragoljevic <marko@eclecticiq.com>, Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Cc: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>, Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>, JE <je@cybersecurityscout.eu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]


We are trying to add a level of precision to information that generally lacks reproducible precision when two parties review the exact same set of facts.  That leads you to wanting a scheme that does not create the illusion of precision where none exists. We don’t need two significant digits of precision for confidence so I think the 0-100 scheme is over kill.  Yes it exists today in Stix1.0, but has anybody actually analyzed how many unique precision values have been used in CTI data to date?






From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Marko Dragoljevic <marko@eclecticiq.com>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2016 at 4:37 AM
To: Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Cc: Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>, Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>, JE <je@cybersecurityscout.eu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]


Hi all


+1 for all comments from Terry


Few extra thoughts:

- Reliability of Source and other similar evaluation methods used across types of Intelligence are not meant to provide "specific quantification" but rather to “inform” with certain degree of error margin. Then, it’s up to analysts, consumers (human, products) or policy makers (stakeholders) to “interpret” this and eventually make decisions or informed actions.

- It should be up to specific Technology Products to implement how mapping of this and other evaluation methods or scores into specific numbers actually works when and if needed. I can imagine that end users would want to be able to fine tune this “formulas” based on specific use cases.



Marko Dragoljevic
VP Technology, Chief Architect
+31 643 919 496

Intelligence Powered Defense


On 09 Sep 2016, at 01:16, Terry MacDonald <terry.macdonald@cosive.com> wrote:


I would disagree with using a numbering scheme (and especially one with a range of 0-100), as it makes it much more complex than it needs to be.


Is something that is confidence level 82 really that worse than confidence 83? How is a user going to understand the difference at those small levels of difference? Will they care about the difference at all? Do people really want 6 different levels of difference rather than 100?


If we use an existing methodology that has been used for many years in the intelligence community such as the Admiralty Code then it is something that is understandable and useable by humans. 


I believe they will be able to comprehend the difference between 'Reliability of Source - B - Usually reliable' and 'Reliability of Source - D - Not usually reliable' a lot easier than looking at 'Reliability of Source - 79' and 'Reliability of Source - 48'.




Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer








On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

I very much like the idea of adding support for the MISP taxonomies, but I still think that confidence should be a numerical value.

I would like to see a way that the admiralty scale taxonomy can be mapped to a numerical equivalent. That way if someone wants to use a different taxonomy because the admiralty scale is either too broad or too narrow, they are free to do so, because we are not directly mandating it be used.

Jason Keirstead
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>Patrick Maroney ---09/08/2016 01:29:55 PM---Good discussion folks. In support of the concepts expressed here, I'd like to raise the topic of su

From: Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org>
To: Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>, JE <je@cybersecurityscout.eu>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Terry MacDonald" <terry.macdonald@cosive.com>
Date: 09/08/2016 01:29 PM
Subject: [cti-stix] MISP Taxonomies [Was: CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September]
Sent by: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>

Good discussion folks. In support of the concepts expressed here, I'd like to raise the topic of supporting the MISP Taxonomy format and the public repository of Taxonomies and format for consideration.


Alexandre Dulaunoy has cleared up concerns raised regarding licensing, so we can assess on the technical merits.


Patrick Maroney
Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.
Desk: (856)983-0001
Cell: (609)841-5104

From:cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>
Thursday, September 8, 2016 4:13:31 AM
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org; cti@lists.oasis-open.org; Terry MacDonald
RE: [cti] CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September


There's two approaches, both already existing, which can help with this. Firstly, a common, shared policy (and just as important, commonly understood semantics). The FIRST IEP work is along these lines.


Secondly, real security label/classification/policy systems allow one policy to be translated to another, as long as the semantics can be mapped. These systems exist already, and are specified in a slew of documents include SDN.801(c), X.841, and so on.


Obviously these two are complementary - if there are lots of common semantics in organisation's policies, it makes it easy to express handling requirements, and the existing label specs allow each organization to have their own policy which they can develop independently.


But all this is already handled by STIX - it's just payload data to STIX and TAXII.



On 8 Sep 2016 09:29, "JE" <je@cybersecurityscout.eu> wrote:

Hi Terry,


Sorry I was not clear enough in my suggestion and putting it into context… we’re on the same page, there are currently discussions going on in some communities to extend TLP scheme (proprietary) by validation information and within some schemes used in intel (usually not public / publicly known) this is already existing as part of their schemes. Unfortunately proprietary approaches have their issues when trying to make it work outside the origin.


To enable a true policy-based management, enforcement, priority handling etc. it’s vital to have a standard on assigning & processing level of confidence, trust in source and possibly validation by analyst as well. Some of the European ISACs I know handle this by reserving some classification levels for members and assign trust-by-default but of course this does not scale beyond limited community nor is it a feasible way to apply it on granular objects.


Cheers from Brussels,


From:cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Terry MacDonald
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 21:11
JE <
cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org; cti@lists.oasis-open.org; Thompson, Dean <Dean.Thompson@anz.com>
RE: [cti] CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September


Hi Joerg,

I wasn't meaning information handling or policy management at all, as this is already supported via the object level data marking or granular date marking in STIX 2.0.

I was definitely meaning a way of describing confidence that the threat intelligence is correct, and confidence that the person who told you the threat intelligence gets it right. We had that functionality in STIX 1.x series, and we've lost it in STIX 2.0.

We need to add it back on as part of STIX 2.1.

Terry MacDonald


On 7/09/2016 10:25 PM, "JE" <je@cybersecurityscout.eu> wrote:

Dear All,


I fully support this – having built some ISACs in industry as well as GOV classification/labeling is usually a “top 5 “ issue … if not at the time of initial set-up than usually later when information from different sources is to be shared and utilized. This might not be a primary issue from vendor side (although it should be as most TI is not under monolithic policy/license rights but compiled) it is definitely an issue from user perspective to handle, distribute and leverage TI properly,


Some of the commercially available systems on the market implement labeling/label-based-handling in a proprietary way as current information models/standards do not foresee this. If you e.g. look at OTRS (not a STIX/TAXI implementation but wide used for Service + Incident Mgt), actually an open source system but during the evolution also included labeling and handling according to this. No matter if e.g. TLP or other schemes are applied I strongly suggest to at least include the option to label objects and though enable/apply/enforce policy-based information exchange and handling.


Sunny greetings from Berlin & looking forward meeting you guys f2f on later Wednesday evening in Brussels,


From:cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Dean
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 03:06
'Terry MacDonald' <
terry.macdonald@cosive.com>; 'cti@lists.oasis-open.org' <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>; 'cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org' <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org>
RE: [cti] CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September





Can I add my voice in here as well and say that “Confidence” and also having an “Opinion” about Threat Intelligence is very important and is a concept that we use quite heavily when we are exchanging threat intelligence with other financial organisations and dealing with threat data that comes in via 3rd parties and intelligence sources.


Can we please ensure that this is included in the agenda and discussed at the meeting ?






From:cti@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Terry MacDonald
Wednesday, 7 September 2016 8:18 AM
cti@lists.oasis-open.org; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org
Re: [cti] CTI Brussels F2F Meeting...RSVP deadline 5 September


Please say that we are including confidence and opinion object in STIX 2.1 candidate smackdown agenda item at the F2F.


We just can't treat everything that people send out as the absolute truth as we do in STIX 2.0. There is a reason things like the admiralty code were developed.... and that's because threat intelligence is always someone's opinion.We need a way for the consumer to understand how confident the producer is in the threat intelligence they are sending. It's up to the consumer to determine if they believe that its the truth, and they need various ways to determine this. That's a ton easier if the person who sent the threat intelligence to you tells you how much they trust the intelligence and trust the source of the intelligence with some form of confidence field.....


I really, really believe this is critical for STIX to work properly, and it was something that made it possible for STIX to automatically be pushed out to the different security tools within an organization (e.g. high confidence DNS to the DNS RPZ block, low confidence to the alerting on the passive DNS).


These are so easy to add to STIX, we would be remiss to skip it.




Terry MacDonald | Chief Product Officer




M:+64 211 918 814







On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Jane Harnad <jharnad@oasis-open.org> wrote:

Dear CTI Members,

The CTI TC F2F meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 7 September at the
Thon EU Hotel, Germany Room. Lunch and refreshments will be provided by OASIS. A headcount is needed ASAP. Below is a list of individuals that replied to the last RSVP request. If you don't see your name and do plan to participate in either the F2F meeting or group dinner, please send your RSVP no later than 5 September.

Remote access
is available to TC members unable to attend in person.

Login details are:


You can also dial in using your phone.
United States (Toll-free):
1 866 899 4679

United States +1 (646) 749-3117

Access Code: 978-573-765

Proposed agenda
is attached.

Details on group dinner option: CTI members are invited to sign up to attend a group dinner on Wednesday evening after the F2F. Family members and/or guests traveling along with you are also invited to join us. This is not a hosted dinner, so each participant (and their guests) will be responsible for covering the costs associated with their dinner. Please be sure to confirm the number of guests.


Thanks so much and we look forward to seeing you all in Brussels!
Regards, Jane


**F2F/Dinner Attendees










































































Bret Jordan


Alexandre Dulaunoy


Raymon van der Velde


Ryusuke Masuoka


Kazuo Noguchi


Jason Keirstead


Jerome Athias


Allan Thomson


Daniel Riedel


John-Mark Gurney


Carol Geyer


Richard Struse


Joerg Eschweiler


Trey Darley


Marko Dragoljevic


Sergey Polzunov


Aukjan van Belkum


Wouter Bolsterlee


Andras Iklody


Mark Davidson


Masato Terada



Jane Harnad

Manager, Events

OASIS | Advancing open standards for the information society
+1.781.425.5073 x214 (Office)

Join OASIS at:
Borderless Cyber Europe8-9 Sept | Brussels

Borderless Cyber Asia1-2 Nov | Tokyo

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:



This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication.





















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