This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
I’m in agreement with what both Jane and Sarah has stated. When I speak with my analysts, they think of these as different things and find both concepts useful.
So I’m definitely in favor of keeping them separate.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of "Wunder, John A." <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:27 AM
To: Dave Cridland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: Nicholas Hayden <email@example.com>, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion
I agree w/ you that the same capabilities are possible in both approaches. The question is less the functionality and more a combination of what we want to encourage
(treating intel notes and comments separately, or treating them the same) and which is easier to describe and understand. The two-object proposal requires you to develop support for two objects that each have a distinct set of required and optional fields.
The one-object proposal uses normative text to achieve the same thing. Apparently, there are different opinions about which is easier and more natural.
The two ways we can resolve this are either a simple ballot to approve whichever approach has the most informal votes or the people who back the one with fewer
informal votes (*looks at self*) can agree that we’re close to consensus and let us approve it by unanimous consent on a TC call. Although it didn’t go the way I wanted, I’m OK saying that a single object is doable and won’t object to unanimous consent.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of Dave Cridland <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:05 AM
To: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: Nicholas Hayden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, John Wunder <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Intel note and opinion
FWIW, I'm still utterly bewildered why this makes a difference.
1) [Object] <-- [Opinion + Note] // Obviously nice and clear; the note is an explanation of the opinion.
2) [Object] <-- [Opinion] // Opinion without explanation.
3) [Object] <-- [Opinion] <-- [Note] // Same as (1)
4) [Note] --> [Object] <-- [Opinion] // Independent note and opinion.
5) [Object] <-- [Note] <-- [Opinion] // Opinion about a note.
6) [Object] <-- [Note] <-- [Opinion + Note] // Messaging over STIX, giant can of worms.
Which pattern is ruled out by which option, and which patterns are problematic? Are there patterns which are missing that are important?
On 12 April 2017 at 19:40, Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> wrote:
As of right now, I hope I have captured people's views correctly, here is the summary that I seen from email (the current majority is 6 to 4 for "Against 2 objects":
Nicholas Hayden - Anomali
Pat Maroney - Wapack Labs
Allan Thompson - Looking Class
If you have not spoken up, please do so.
I also agree with Jason, having two separate objects will muddy the water for implementation.
Nicholas Hayden, CISSP, GICSP, CNDA, CEH, Sec+
808 Winslow St Redwood City, CA 94063
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
From: "Wunder, John A." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/10/2017 05:30 PM
Subject: [cti] 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:
- 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 objects.
Participate | Collaborate | Innovate
Surevine Limited, registered in England and Wales with number 06726289. Mailing Address : PO Box 1136, Guildford GU1 9ND
If you think you have received this message in error, please notify us.