[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review
From: | "Bret Jordan" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com> |
To: | "Jason Keirstead" <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>, "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org> |
Cc: | "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <Alexandre.Dulaunoy@circl.lu>, cti@lists.oasis-open.org, "Patrick Maroney" <pmaroney@darklight.ai>, "Sean Barnum" <sean.barnum@FireEye.com> |
Date: | Mon, Apr 29, 2019 6:31 PM |
Subject: | Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review |
This TC has an enormous amount of baggage around a few topics like IDs and Timestamps. These topics have caused significant debate over the years and in most case have even resulted in ballots. We have never had unanimity on these issues, but have achieved consensus and even achieved super majority ballot status [1].
Just because a few people are now suggesting and wanting once again that we go back and make radical changes does not invalidate the ballots that were done previously. We balloted on these concepts and ideas.
Further, I have yet to see anyone bring up an issue that was not previously discussed and debated. All of these issues are not new and the TC made a conscious choice on some of these issues.
We tried to relax the STIX ID a bit, to address some significant issues that were brought up. However, to go back completely on formal consensus and a TC ballot would require at least another ballot that probably archives the same level of pass rate.
These topics come up over and over and over again. We will always have someone that does not like the way something is done. I really worry that if we re-open this debate at this time, that STIX 2.1 will never ship. But it is obviously a TC issue and the TC can decide to once again reopen this debate. But I would strongly encourage us to be careful.
It would also be imprudent to make significant changes without going back through and address the hundreds or thousands of emails and tens of thousands of slack message and issues that were discussed previously. There is a reason why the TC made these decisions.
So my recommendation is, if you want to continue to push this issue and reopen the debate, please address all previously identified issues and concerns from the 6+ months long debate we had. Further, you will need to get a ballot opened and achieve a majority or the TC may say you need to achieve the same level of pass rate we had before.
[1] - https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cti/ballot.php?id=2932
Bret
How about:
The UUID portion SHOULD be generated according to the algorithm(s) defined in RFC 4122, section 4.4 (Version 4 UUID) or section 4.3 (Version 5 UUID) but any algorithm defined in section 4 MAY be used. [RFC4122]
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:44 PM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Cc: Alexandre Dulaunoy <Alexandre.Dulaunoy@circl.lu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, Patrick Maroney <pmaroney@darklight.ai>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review
I agree with this text.
Then we can publish a separate work product for the recommended OASIS CTI namespace UUID(s) and the accompanying name generation algorithm(s) for said versions.
Having it separate makes it easier to evolve and amend.
-
Jason Keirstead
Lead Architect - IBM Security Connect
www.ibm.com/security
"Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure."
- Thomas J. Watson
From: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
To: Patrick Maroney <pmaroney@darklight.ai>, Alexandre Dulaunoy <Alexandre.Dulaunoy@circl.lu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 04/29/2019 02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
+1
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Patrick Maroney <pmaroney@darklight.ai>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:58 AM
To: Alexandre Dulaunoy <Alexandre.Dulaunoy@circl.lu>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review
Here’s a little word crafting for Alexandre’s suggestion:
All identifiers, excluding those used in the deprecated cyber observable container, MUST follow the form object-type--UUID, where object-typeis the exact value (all type names are lowercase strings, by definition) from the typeproperty of the object being identified or referenced and where the UUIDis an RFC 4122-compliant UUID. The UUID MUST be generated according to the algorithm(s) defined in RFC 4122, [RFC4122].
Patrick Maroney
DarkLight
Mobile: (609)841-5104
Email: patrick.maroney@darklight.ai
From:
"cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Alexandre Dulaunoy <Alexandre.Dulaunoy@circl.lu>
Organization: CIRCL - Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg
Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Items Ready for TC Wide Final Review
On 25/04/2019 22:12, Bret Jordan wrote:
All,
The following sections are ready for TC final review. Some of these are in different Google Documents so I have included direct links for you. Please have all suggestions and changes in the
documents by end-of-day Friday May 10th (2 weeks from today):
Introduction and Overview: Section 1.6 - 1.8
Thank you for the work.
But the UUID description is still not solving the issue already mentioned in https://github.com/oasis-tcs/cti-stix2/issues/133.
The current proposal in the draft:
"All identifiers, excluding those used in the deprecated cyber observable container, MUST follow the form object-type--UUID, where object-type is the exact value (all type names are lowercase strings,
by definition) from the type property of the object being identified or referenced and where the UUID is either an RFC 4122-compliant Version 4 UUID or Version 5 UUID. The UUID portion MUST be
generated according to the algorithm(s) defined in RFC 4122, section 4.4 (Version 4 UUID) or section 4.3 (Version 5 UUID) [RFC4122]."
Could this be updated in the following way:
"All identifiers, excluding those used in the deprecated cyber observable container, MUST follow the form object-type--UUID, where object-type is the exact value (all type names are lowercase strings,
by definition) from the type property of the object being identified or referenced and where the UUID is either an RFC 4122-compliant UUID. The UUID portion MUST be generated according to the
algorithm(s) defined in RFC 4122, section 4 [RFC4122]."
We have an ongoing fork for the CTI STIX2 implementation and this change could solve a host of issues reported by several vendors / implementers that we are in contact with.
Could we count on the TC for ensuring this is passing in STIX 2.1? Because this is a major blocker and I would be very disappointed to keep having to maintain our fork of the STIX 2 libraries,
especially considering the rather steep effort required to keep it in line.
Thank you very much.
--
Alexandre Dulaunoy
CIRCL - Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg
16, bd d'Avranches L-1160 Luxembourg
info@circl.lu- www.circl.lu- (+352) 247 88444
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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]