[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
Hey Jason,
I appreciate your point, but I believe that is a relatively rare use-case that we’d be optimizing for which would end up hurting the more general use case. In order to use the Identify object we would need to add created_by_ref to all of the objects, which would provide unnecessary bloat in 99% of the use cases where a producer would be using a single ID generation method for all or a majority of the bundle’s objects. Yes this would add additional properties in the implementation of the edge case you listed, but you could also just send two bundles instead of one if you were really worried about the additional properties being added to each object. Options A or B would be a cleaner solution for the majority of the use cases.
-Gary
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>, "drew.varner@ninefx.com" <drew.varner@ninefx.com>,
"Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
"Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
I
prefer adding it to the identity object.
A bundle will very often - I would argue almost normally - contain many
objects from many different tools and producers.
If I have 5000 objects from one tool in the portfolio, and 5000 from another
tool in the portfolio, and these use two different ID methods, I would
prefer to define those methods twice (one in each producer identity) -
not 5000 times each. Tacking it on a bundle doesn't solve for this problem
- identity does.
-
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: Allan
Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
To: Bret
Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
"drew.varner@ninefx.com" <drew.varner@ninefx.com>
Cc: "Piazza,
Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>,
"cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 05/17/2019
12:01 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
Sent by: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Thanks Bret.
I would be fine with any of the suggested options a) bundle changes b) taxii envelope changes c) identity properties where that identity is associated with creation of the object.
My preference would lie primarily with either a) or b). With a slight preference for a) because a bundle is and can be used to provide a wrapper of STIX content outside of TAXII transport whereas making the change for a TAXII transport only fixes TAXII not all cases on how STIX is exchanged.
The challenge with c) is that it would still require a property on every SCO to point to the identity creating the SCO and that somewhat defeats the purposes of a SCO (given that they are meant for re-use across any vendor that uses the same deterministic id).
allan
From:
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 at 7:41 AM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>, "drew.varner@ninefx.com"
<drew.varner@ninefx.com>, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "Kelley,
Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
All,
I would like to step back and focus this discussion a bit, since we seem
to be all over the place. First a bit of background to bring everyone up
to speed.
1) Back at the DC3 F2F the main objection to having SCOs be TLOs was the
explosion of objects with the same data (e.g.. ip address 1.2.3.4). At
that point, many said we could use deterministic IDs, but also at that
point NO ONE has produced a solid proposal for how that could or should
be done. Thanks to Allan's works, we now have a solution that solves
that problem.
2) Some people will want to use deterministic IDs to try and figure out
of content is the same or not. On the flip side, some people will
not care at all, and will just treat every IDs as unique. We can not force
people to pay attention to the IDs.
3) It is super critical that we do not have un-intended collisions on IDs.
The importances of this is carved in stone. Our whole versioning
model and graph design hinges on this.
4) Drew is correct, we removed the spec_version from Bundle because we
realized that using a spec_version on bundle to describe the spec version
of the content in side the bundle was wrong.
5) A bundle in STIX or an envelope in TAXII can contain meta data about
the data it transmits. This is perfectly valid.
6) There has been significant concerned raised many times over about bloat
on SCOs. We also need to remember as Allan reminds us, that STIX
is about "TRANSPORT" it is not about how your local system stores
or uses data locally. It is an "interchange" format. As
such, we should constantly remind ourselves of that. Yes, even I
need to be reminded of this from time to time.
My _personal_ proposal:
We no longer look at "id_method" and "id_method_details"
as common properties. We do, however, add them to the STIX Bundle
and we may consider adding them to the TAXII envelope and or TAXII http
headers. But these properties would no longer be an option on SCOs themselves.
I would also be open to adding these properties to an identity object as
well. This way if someone wanted to say that they "ALWAYS"
generate their IDs in this method, they can just do it via the identity
object.
Producers SHOULD tell consumers about how their IDs were created. But
they are not required to do so. What they are required to do is guarantee
that non-SCO ID's are globally unique and do not un-intentionally collide
with someone else's IDs. Meaning, they SHOULD be UUIDv4 or the likes.
If they want to use UUIDv5 then it is up to them to figure out a
namespace and such that makes sure they do not collide.
For consumers that want to know and track the information about how the
IDs were created, they can. If they do not care, they do not care.
For organizations that want to track how the IDs were created so they can
re-share that information back out, then they can do so, how ever they
want in their datastore. But these fields will not be used as part
of any future digital signatures as they are purely meta-data that may
be learned outside of STIX.
I would also suggest that we add the spec_version back to Bundle and say
that it represents the spec version of the Bundle container. This
way we can add extra meta data "things" to the bundle at a later
time if needed.
Bret
From:Sean
Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 9:50:28 AM
To: drew.varner@ninefx.com; Allan Thomson
Cc: Piazza, Rich; Kelley, Sarah E.; Bret Jordan; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
> Bundles are a way to package STIX objects. They are not “the” way to package them. TAXII 2.1 packages them in an Envelope without a Bundle.
Sure, but this proposal does not require anyone to use Bundle.
If a producer/sharer wanted to exchange objects via TAXII without a Bundle (which I do not necessarily recommend) they would need to assert the properties on each object.
This proposal is simply providing a mechanism for producers/sharers who choose to use Bundle to convey their content in a vastly more efficient way that makes it practical/possible to use.
This does not preclude anyone’s choices on how they wish to share. It simply provides a viable option for a portion of the community to be able to use STIX to share.
The alternative of forcing the properties onto ALL SCOs would basically double the size of most commonly shared high volume SCOs (IP addresses, URLs, DomainNames, etc). Bloat like that would make STIX impractical for many users and the Bundle approach proposal at hand offers a simple and effective solution.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
E: sean.barnum@fireeye.com
From:
"drew.varner@ninefx.com" <drew.varner@ninefx.com>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:23 AM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Cc: "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "Kelley,
Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
We
removed it in 2.1 because we realized that a bundle could contain objects
of multiple versions. STIX objects have a spec_version property so they
are now-self-describing.
Bundles are a way to package STIX objects. They are not “the” way to
package them. TAXII 2.1 packages them in an Envelope without a Bundle.
On May 16, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
wrote:
It was one example. There are other properties on bundle and my point remains.
If I remember rightly the reason we moved it (?) was because TAXII request/response took the version instead to make sure the bundle contained the right set of objects for the exchange. So instead of the bundle the TAXII req/response contained the version information.
That’s just another way of doing the same thing.
That is -> a parameter applied to a group of objects within a wrapper (in this case it would be TAXII req/resp).
I still think it’s a valid thing to do.
Allan
From:
"Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:48 AM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>,
"Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>,
Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
The spec_version property has been removed from Bundle in 2.1.
Whether or not this was the right decision…
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:30 AM
To: "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>,
Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
Rich Piazza <rpiazza@mitre.org>,
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
Just because it is non-persistent does *not* mean that it can not convey meaning and value to the recipient on how to model/capture the objects within the bundle once they ingest those objects.
Just as the bundle conveys version information (stating that this bundle has objects with version X) then an additional property on the bundle for other aspects that apply to the objects in the bundle is really not that different.
STIX2 should focus on how to efficient and effectively transmit information between 2 or more systems.
It does not represent a database.
So I think the proposal does not break or undermine the current definition of Bundle and does allow consumers to read those properties and apply any logic on conversion to their internal database schema…etc. appropriately quite easily just as much as the version property on a bundle is used.
Allan
From:
"cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of "Kelley, Sarah E." <skelley@mitre.org>
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:40 AM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>,
"Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>,
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
Aren’t bundles designed to be thrown away? So if the information is only kept at the bundle level for how the identifier is generated, you would lose that information as soon as the bundle drops on the floor. You could never retransmit with that information (in the use case that you were passing along data you didn’t create), and the consumer wouldn’t be able to go back and reference it in the future.
Am I missing something?
Sarah Kelley
Lead Cybersecurity Engineer, T8B2
Defensive Operations
The MITRE Corporation
703-983-6242
From:cti@lists.oasis-open.org<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Sean Barnum
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 5:15 PM
To: Piazza, Rich <rpiazza@mitre.org>;
Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
I see two options.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of "Piazza, Rich" <rpiazza@mitre.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 PM
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>,
Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@FireEye.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
How do we handle bundles that contain SCOs with different methods of creating the UUID?
For instance - I’m just passing on various SCOs I received from different producers, who used different methods…
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 3:50 PM
To: Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@fireeye.com>
Cc: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti] Working Call Recap
After talking with Sean on the phone about this, even though this is very late in the game, I think this really makes a lot of sense. I think if we would have thought about this during the Mini-Group we probably would have done this from the get go.
Basically, to be really clear, what he is proposing is that we move the id_method and id_method_details from individual SCOs to the Bundle.
The pros I see are:
1) less bloat on the wire
2) simplify some of the indicator text
We can talk about this in next week’s working call.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 128D
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
On May 15, 2019, at 8:33 PM, Sean Barnum <sean.barnum@fireeye.com>
wrote:
I have reviewed the changes highlighted below and added various comments in the doc.
I see that Bret has already accepted many of them.
There is one very major issue we have with a proposed change that would require id_method and id_method_details on EVERY SCO for a producer using a non-default approach for deterministic id generation.
This proposed change would require MASSIVE unnecessary bloat in STIX content as the same exact ~7 lines of JSON would need to be added to every SCO produced. Given the fact that we (and I am sure others) deal with SCOs on the scale of billions this proposed change would make STIX untenable as an option for us.
I would like to propose an alternate approach that I think achieves the intended purpose in a MUCH more efficient and unbloated fashion.
I propose that the id_method and id_method_details properties be added to the Bundle object and would assert the deterministic id method used for content within the bundle.
Sean Barnum
Principal Architect
FireEye
M: 703.473.8262
From:
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 5:56 PM
To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org"
<cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] Working Call Recap
All,
We had a good call today and were able to resolve some of the last few
issues that were holding up the release of Working Draft 04.
Summary:
1) After editorial review we noticed that the language for identifiers
would not allow two organizations to write code and produce the same deterministic
ID. So we needed to tighten down the language and define what an
OASIS STIX 2 deterministic ID actually is. Prior to the call I worked with
Allan, Trey, Rich P, and the MISP folks on an acceptable solution. We reviewed
the changes on the working call and the changes are now in section 2.9.
Please review.
2) On the Malware Analysis object we had a property called "analysis_environment"
that was a dictionary that used a three value vocabulary. This design
no longer works since we do not have the cyber observable container anymore.
So we had to make a change. The consensus on the call was to use
properties on the malware analysis object itself and remove the vocabulary.
Those changes have been made in suggestion mode in section 4.11.
Please review.
3) We also accepted small changes to the following sections;
a) 2.7 Hashes
b) 3.2 Spec Version
c) 10.13 Infrastructure Type Vocabulary
d) 4.3 Course of Action os_execution_envs
e) 4.13 Observed Data
f) 4.18 Vulnerability Relationships
Action Items:
i) Please make a final in depth review of COA and provide any description
text changes you feel appropriate.
ii) Review the changes to Malware Analysis
iii) Review the changes to the identifier
iv) Start making your top down full review of the documents
Schedule:
On the call we said we would give the TC one more week to review the changes
to Malware Analysis and the identifier. So depending on how next
week's working call goes, we might be able to release Working Draft 04
next week.
Thanks
Bret
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.
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]