| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:53:04 -0500
I agree with Jason and Bret on this as
U.S. Bank - Information Security Services
Threat Intelligence & Automation
612.973.7185 - Office
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>,
"Wunder, John A." <email@example.com>
04/11/2017 11:54 AM
[cti] Re: [EXT]
Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion
I completely agree with Jason here. This
is two ways of doing the same thing. If we keep these as two objects,
we are going to utterly confuse people to no end. Further, when you
start writing a UI for this, and having people play with it, you begin
to see the problem very quickly. They ask questions like, "which
do I use?" "They both contain the same thing, but the "Opinion"
object lets me express an my view of it, but my 'note' is also my assertion
that I agree with it, so which do I use?".
Notes either back up and confirm someones
point of view or they show that the point of view is wrong. Which
is the SAME thing that we are doing with the Opinion object. The Opinion
object makes this explicit and the Note you would have to figure out from
reading the text.
We promised ourselves that we would not
go back to STIX 1.x ways of doing things and have two ways of doing the
same thing. Lets us please not start. A note is really just
an Opinion with no explicit opinion stated.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:38:02 AM
To: Wunder, John A.
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion
I have a very strong opinion either
#2 or #3 must be done, and that #1 is not workable.
In order to fully understand why, you have to consider the entire life-cycle
of the objects - from production in one piece of software, to consumption
and storage/display in another. You also have to understand that, at their
core, both of these objects are objects are things that originate from
humans, and carry human-entered facts about an object (either as human-entered
text, or as "opinion", or other). Finally, you have to understand
that the folks writing STIX software do not normally expose the data model
to the operators/analysts.... operators and analysts should not be seeing
"note", or "opinion", or any other names of objects
in most software that deals with STIX, it should be totally abstracted
away. The analysts should not know or care about this.
In any piece of software dealing with creating CTI by humans, one can imagine
you will have to have some UI where one would enter these "things",
and in any piece of software dealing with displaying CTI to humans, one
can imagine you will have to have some UI where one will display these
"things". If we have two different objects, then you can immediately
see how this presents a problem for the software creators
- Consider the producer software When someone wants to simply enter text
- which object do I encode it as in STIX? Since both can convey the information,
it is totally ambiguous which to use - out of the gate, we are now at "two
ways to do one thing", something we said we are trying to get away
from in STIX 2. What if they enter text, it gets encoded as a "note",
and then later on the same user goes in and and add an "opinion"
flag? Should I revoke the "note" object and add an "opinion"
object? Leave it and issue an "opinion" and duplicate all the
text? Again, totally ambiguous. This points to the fact that these two
things are different ideas - voting and commenting - and should be kept
fully separate (#2)
- Consider now the consumer software. Any piece of consumer software who
is going to display notes and opinions to a user is going to want
to have some kind of comment-trail.. some type of timeline. It will simply
not be possible to construct this comment trail without unionizing these
two objects and treating them as one... as viewing a timeline of "note"
without including "opinion", or vice-versa, will have the potential
to leave a large number of human-created comments dropped on the floor.
I can't reasonably see any valid use case to have software where
one shows a set of "opinion" without including "note",
or vice-versa. This again points to the fact that you need a single source
of truth for a comment timeline... either option #2, or option #3 alternatively.
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
John A." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Intel note and opinion
Sent by: <email@example.com>
After a lot of conversation on intel note and opinion, we’ve narrowed
down a lot of the questions on these two objects but have one big one remaining.
Specifically, with both intel note and opinion existing as separate objects
a few people (notably Jason and Bret) have noted that there may be overlap
and in fact the objects should be merged into one. The thinking is that
giving an opinion is essentially the same as giving extra analysis about
something (or is at least handled the same way most of the time) and having
two separate objects will be confusing for people. So, here’s how I would
outline the questions:
1. Should opinion and intel note remain separate objects?
a. Merging them would provide a single object to provide
a simple opinion on a scale (agree/disagree), an opinion on a scale with
a text explanation (agree and here’s why), and added analysis w/ no opinion
scale (here’s extra info about this object).
b. Separating them would distinguish providing an
opinion (agree/disagree) from providing extra analysis
2. If we go with option b and we have two separate
objects, should opinion have an optional description field?
a. Having a description on opinion keeps all information
about the opinion in a single object.
b. Not having a description on opinion would mean
that opinions are just the agree/disagree statements. People would use
the intel note object to capture their explanation and therefore all text
commentary would be provided by intel note.
It seems like the key thing people are wrestling with is whether there’s
a distinction between giving extra analysis or context to something and
giving an opinion about something. I.e., when people are doing shared analysis
is it important to distinguish me providing an opinion on your object (agree/disagree/neutral)
from me adding extra context (human-readable notes) to your data?
So, combining those questions, we have three options:
1. Opinion and intel note are separate objects, and
opinion has a description. To have a text explanation of an opinion, you
would use the description field on the opinion object.
2. Opinion and intel note are separate objects, and
opinion does not have a description. To have a text explanation of an opinion,
you would use an intel note and link it to the opinion.
3. Opinion and intel note are merged (likely calling
it intel note, since not all of them would be opinions) and you would use
that object to describe opinions, opinions w/ descriptions, and added analysis
People can reply with their reasoning and pros/cons, but I’m particularly
interested in hearing people who have not chimed in yet. What is your preferred
option? Any thoughts on the reasoning?
FYI, here are the latest working versions of intel note and opinion, in
Google Docs. These are roughly option #1, based on the recent working call
and a poll in Slack.
- Intel note: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qD9KBQcVcY4FlG9n_VGhqacaeiLlNcQ7zVEjc8I3b4/edit#heading=h.74spnst8naxc
- Opinion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qD9KBQcVcY4FlG9n_VGhqacaeiLlNcQ7zVEjc8I3b4/edit#heading=h.haeazu2sh3sq
My own opinion (sorry I know this pun is getting old) is that giving an
opinion is distinct from adding analyst notes or extra context and therefore
I prefer #1. My second choice would be #2, because I think #3 results in
an ambiguous object that does too many things and can have completely orthogonal
sets of fields, which to me is an indication that it really should be two
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]