I think this works fairly well, overall. I would agree with Allan that object-specific common properties (e.g., id for SCOs) would need to be specified in another way to avoid confusion. Also, Iâm not sure if âusedâ is the best word describing
these properties in relation to an object â maybe âsupportedâ would work better? E.g., âSupported Common Propertiesâ vs. âUnsupported Common Propertiesâ.
Regards,
Ivan
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 3:07 PM
To: Rich Piazza <rpiazza@mitre.org>, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Proposed Editing Changes to Common Properties in STIX 2.1 CSD 02
Email can also make a mess of these. So here are links to where they are all at in the documents.
List of all common properties that may exist on a STIX Object
Language-Content Example:
Attack Pattern SDO Example:
Artifact Object SCO Example:
From: Piazza, Rich <rpiazza@mitre.org>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 2:59:40 PM
To: Allan Thomson; Bret Jordan
Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Proposed Editing Changes to Common Properties in STIX 2.1 CSD 02
Thanks Bret for including better examples.
I was realizing as I put the email together that Language Content wasnât the best exampleâ
From: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 4:38 PM
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: Rich Piazza <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Proposed Editing Changes to Common Properties in STIX 2.1 CSD 02
That was not clear at all from the email Rich sent.
Was completely confused to say the least.
So you are saying that there will be 4 (FOUR) common property sections for each object type where each table will call out what is required vs optional for that specific object type.
Correct?
Allan
From: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 1:37 PM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Proposed Editing Changes to Common Properties in STIX 2.1 CSD 02
Allan,
This is an example for language content and we can do an example of this for SCOs.
The point is, that we will call out what is used, required, and optional on each object. So modified and such right now, today, are not required for SCOs. The table properties will reflect that.
Sent from my Commodore 128D
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
Rich â SCO does not have a requirement for modified.
Secondly the id definition for a SCO is substantially different when using deterministic ids.
Suggesting that these are âcommonâ with such modified language will confuse more than help in my opinion.
Also most of the common properties defined in this table are not defined for a SCO at all.
This is substantially changing the definition of a SCO and I strongly object to this.
Allan
All,
Bret and I noticed that because we have four different types of STIX Objects (SDOs, SROs, SCOs and STIX Meta Objects) that there is much redundancy in the specification documents describing the common properties.
Up until now, we have had almost the same text in four different places. It is easy to get confused.
We are proposing the following changes. Please review them and give us your feedback in email, Slack or within the document itself.
We have merged all of the common property sections into one (see section 3.2 of the Master Document). Whether a property is optional or required is no longer specified in the new table. The description
should contain the text of any differences that were found in the four source descriptions of each property.
This change has minor consequences for the object property tables. Here is an example of how the Language Content property table might look (see section 7.1.1 of the Master Document):
- The common properties used
and not used are called out in the top of the table
- The properties that are used are split into two lists: the required and optional properties
- If a common property has some difference that is specific to the object type (the grey rows), they remain explicitly in the table
- Object type specific properties are listed as before (not shown here).
Common Properties Used
|
Required:
type,
spec_version,
id,
created,
modified
Optional:
created_by_ref,
revoked,
labels,
confidence,
external_references,
object_marking_refs,
granular_markings
|
Common Properties Not Used or Not Defined
|
lang,
id_method,
id_method_details,
is_defanged,
extensions
|
Property Name
|
Type
|
Description
|
type (required)
|
string
|
The
type property identifies the type of object. The value of this property
MUST be language-content.
|
We hope you find these changes an improvement to the specification.
Rich and Bret
Your Humble Editors
--
Rich Piazza
The MITRE Corporation
781-271-3760
|