[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Finalizing the STIX 2.1 Malware Object
That seems reasonable to me – I’ll bring it up on the working call. Thanks! -Ivan From: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com> Yes, that is basically what I am proposing. Something along the lines of:
where
av-result-general-ov is something like “malicious”, “suspicious”, “benign”, “unknown”, “error” Sean Barnum Principal Architect FireEye M: 703.473.8262 E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com From: "Kirillov, Ivan A." <ikirillov@mitre.org> Thanks Sean - no worries about the delayed reply. So as far as 2), are you suggesting that we make “results” required and that it can capture either the actual result or something more generic (e.g., malicious/benign/etc.) that could come
from a vocabulary? I do agree with you that the current language around “results” being not required if there is no result is rather confusing and I would also rather make it required in all cases. Regards, Ivan From: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com> Sorry for the delayed response, Ivan. This week I am actually in the midst of working through some significant evolution on our Malware object and its use. I plan to attend today’s working call but am not sure what level of definitive opinions I will be ready to offer by then on very specific details. If not on today’s call we still should hopefully be able to offer some constructive input
this week. On your two items that started this thread I can offer the following though:
Sean Barnum Principal Architect FireEye M: 703.473.8262 E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> I will try and review this change this week. Bret From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kirillov, Ivan A. <ikirillov@mitre.org> Are there any other thoughts on these topics? It would be great to close them out so we can finish up CSD01 of STIX 2.1. Regards, Ivan From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> Sorry, that should read “Conversely, parsing the SDO
may become more difficult because…” Regards, Ivan From: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org> Hi Allan, This approach doesn’t fundamentally change how we capture static/dynamic analysis data, but rather where and how the Cyber Observable Objects that correspond to that data are stored. If you have multiple
observables from different analyses, you’ll just reference their corresponding objects that are stored in the “observable_objects” dictionary (which may or may not be the same objects across different analyses).
Regards, Ivan From: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> Ivan – regarding 1. What if I have multiple observables for the same malware from different analysis (i.e. static + dynamic results). Would consolidating them into a single place really make it easier? You would still want to indicate that you have a list of observables and indicate where those were ‘observed’ from either static or dynamic
or other. So I’m not sure consolidating it makes it easier but so long as the same things are possible with the consolidated design then I don’t have a strong preference either way. Allan Thomson CTO (+1-408-331-6646) From: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Kirillov, Ivan" <ikirillov@mitre.org> All, As we’re wrapping up work on STIX 2.1 CSD01, we need to finalize what we have for the updated Malware SDO. Accordingly, I have two topics I’d like to bring up in this regard:
Instead of having these observable object dictionaries all over the place, I believe it would make more sense to have a single property at the top level of the object (let’s call
it “observable_objects”), where any Cyber Observable Objects associated with the SDO (samples, analysis results, etc.) could be captured, via references. There are a number of advantages to this: a simpler data model (less embedded observable object dicts
everywhere), the ability to re-use objects (e.g., if static and dynamic analysis find the same objects, you can create one object and just reference it accordingly), and a more compact serialization. See the attached JSON example for what this looks like in
practice – this is a modified version of the “Malware Instance with Analysis Data” example currently in the 2.1 spec.
Let me know what you think – if we can get these final things wrapped up, we’re that much closer to getting STIX 2.1 out the door. Regards, Ivan 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.
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.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]