cti message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
- From: "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:14:54 -0400
What I see missing from this proposal is
how we are going to avoid the proliferation of thousands / millions of
duplicate entries for static, factual objects such as IPs, URLs, Hosts,
and file hashes in the CTI ecosystem if we go down this path.
How many instances of "8.8.8.8"
or will there be in the wild that a CTI repository will have to store to
maintain this graph? Tens of thousands? Millions? Every time a new data
source wants to link an observation to an IP they will have a new UUID..
its not like they will very often be able to refer to an existing one,
as there is no "global repository of STIX objects" that exists
anywhere.
We will have so, so much duplication.
The number of top level objects that have to be tracked among all third
parties will explode exponentially.
I am fully aware that internally some
software has to do some things like this anyway for certain analytical
use cases - our own teams do this. That is not the point. The purpose of
STIX is not to emulate a graph database. If it was, we could all just switch
to Gremlin.
-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
who hustle." - Unknown
From:
Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
To:
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:
"cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Date:
10/30/2018 02:38 PM
Subject:
Re: [cti] Working
call agenda 10/30/28
Sent by:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
I would realistically and truthfully argue
that âthe proposal as submitted does
not contain a very large number of significant breaking changes to the
spec.â
There are 5 substantive changes.- Observables keep their same type
structure but are now TLOs
- Semantically the same thing (a file is
still a file, a domain-name is still a domain-name, etc)
- Observed-data.objects now contains
references to the observable objects rather than defining them inline
- Semantically the same thing (observations
still specify the observables they observed)
- Observed-data.objects can now contain
references to relationships
- Semantically the same thing (the relationships
were already there as properties on the observable objects)
- Inter-Observable relationships
currently expressed as properties on source object are broken out into
Relationships
- Semantically the same thing
- Is needed anyway for numerous reasons
- Extensions are possible on all
STIX objects
- NO change in overall semantics (each type
of object still represents the same thing) just in how they are structured
- NO substantive change to any STIX Objects
other than observed-data
- NO substantive changes to any Observable
Object types except breaking out relationship properties that should be
relationships
I would argue that
this is nowhere close to âan order of magnitude larger than the total
combined changes we have done thus far in 2.1 specâ.
I used the term FUD in its literal sense
âfear, uncertainty and doubtâ. During the F2F, you expressed your fear,
uncertainty and doubt by making the assertion that Option1 would require
âmassiveâ change to the specifications and that the months of effort
it would take to do that made it a non-starter to even consider Option1.
This was not âsimply stating the factsâ. This was an assertion of an
opinion without any factual evidence in support. I was doubtful of this
assertion but did not feel it would be appropriate to argue strongly against
it without having actual evidence rather than just words to throw around.
That is why I took the time to review and revise the STIX specs for Option1.
In the end, I believe the referenced modded specifications demonstrate
that Option1 does NOT represent âmassiveâ change to the specifications
(in fact it proved out to be even much less than I anticipated) and did
NOT take months to do (I did it alone in a few days time).
This concrete evidence-based approach is
also the approach we all agreed to take in evaluating the technical issues
involved in supporting requisite STIX use cases.
I would assert that the evidence presented
at the technical level also clearly demonstrates the need for change and
that Option1 is the only option on the table that supports the needed change.
Obviously, we can disagree on what is a
minor vs major release.
I would suggest that the limited and localized
nature of substantive changes represented in this proposal clearly would
be allowable in a 2.1 or 2.2 release.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:32 PM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>,
"Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
Sean - I don't think anyone could realistically
argue that the proposal as submitted does not contain a very large number
of significant breaking changes to the spec. Said changes are an order
of magnitude larger than the total combined changes we have done thus far
in 2.1 spec... I would hardly call it "FUD", it is simply stating
the facts.
One thing that has yet to be discussed in the TC is the scope to which
a changeset can even be considered for a minor vs. a major release.
I would argue that this changeset and the breakages within are substantial
enough that it should only be being discussed in the scope of a major change
(STIX 3.0).
-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM.Security
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
who hustle." - Unknown
From: Sean
Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
To: "Kelley,
Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 10/30/2018
12:33 PM
Subject: Re:
[cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
All,
At the F2F there was a lot of conversation around WHY Option1 may be needed,
identifying and discussing numerous use case scenarios and leading to a
fairly strong majority consensus (9-5 of attendees I believe) in favor.
To further demonstrate what was discussed in a fact-based manner and to
help other TC members who did not attend the F2F, it was decided to list
out a list of some use case scenarios for use cases that STIX should/must
(some would argue should while some would argue must) support and then
provide actual JSON examples of how that Use Case would be supported with
Option1 and how it would be supported with Option7 (which is mostly status
quo with a couple very minor changes). It was recognized by all that the
list would not be complete but would at least give us something concrete
to think about and discuss.
That list is located here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit#
It contains links to some submitted Option1 and Option7 examples that claim
to demonstrate support for the use cases.
As very strong proponents of Option1 (proven out operationally across FireEye
every day), FireEye submitted Option1 examples for almost all of the use
cases on the list. The 3 out of 20 that we did not provide examples for
were due to ambiguities in the use case characterizations rather than any
inability of Option1 to cover them.
In addition, we are in the process of writing up a brief rationale/justification
for Option1 but it is not yet ready to share prior to todayâs call.
Beyond the question of which option is needed technically there was also
discussion of FUD around what level of change/impact would be required
on the STIX specifications with at least one party expressing worry that
the change could be massive and take months to do.
In an attempt to determine if the FUD about massive specification change
was justified or not we also performed a quick review/revision pass through
all 5 parts of the STIX 2.1 working draft specs making appropriate modifications
to implement Option1. There still is some editorial cleanup required beyond
our suggested changes but we believe our suggested changes fully cover
the substantive changes required for Option1. We were pleasantly surprised
at the minimal level of impact and the fact that I was able to complete
the review and suggested revision in only a few days time.
You can find a very brief summarization of the proposal and the changes
it involves at a high-level and at a spec level as well as links to the
modified specs here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j0gXMp3MFLzHCrudfbDn5NeZSUeBCc8EBsvPsP1epOg/edit?usp=sharing
That link should give you all permissions to not only read but also provide
any comments you feel are relevant.
We are hopeful that this in addition to the forthcoming rationale writeup
will be helpful for everyone to understand the reality of the issues involved
and the reality of spec change impact.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Kelley, Sarah
E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Working call agenda 10/30/28
All,
Today on the working call weâll be discussing the 1` option that discussed
at the F2F in NYC. For those not in attendance, there was a proposal to
redesign the STIX data model and make observables top level objects (known
as option 1`). A second proposal was made to just modify observed data
and use that instead (option 7). The two options have been modeled here:
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puPuKVWNSelrWH05yu9It99OuqQGdYo_Et0nmZKAZz8/edit)
for various use cases.
Please join us to make this conversation productive and successful.
Thanks,
Sarah Kelley
Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2
Defensive Operations
The MITRE Corporation
703-983-6242
skelley@mitre.org
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.
[attachment "image001.jpg" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]
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]