| One other thing.
The reason why we have both Option 1 and Option 2 in the standard is *because* we feel that its a choice for orgs to decide which method they prefer. Thereâs also reasons why both should exist.
So the debate over which one is better or not, is academic. The standard will support and we should just provide clear documentation on both and why one over the other should be used.
We (the TC) will never agree that only 1 of them should be done. I also think we *should* have both.
Thanks to Paul Patrick for sending me the attachments directly.
Chris - I reviewed your work and hereâs my feedback.
Option 1 - is sub-component extension and is the suggested best practice. There is no need to list the extension properties in this case as the expectation is that a JSON schema would define the extension including all properties.
To answer Richâs question why extension_properties is only for top-level extension. Its primarily to allow system that already have the schema for the STIX2.1 SO standard built-in to know what properties are added to the schema without having to parse a 2nd schema. Whereas with a sub-component extension the expectation is that the org defining the extension would publish the complete schema for the extension.
Whether the TC thinks this is a worthwhile reason needs to be agreed. I prefer not duplicating JSON schema if we can. Hence why its currently defined the way it is.
Option 2 - is top-level extension.
I didnât bother reviewing Option 3.
As you assessed both Option 1 and Option 2 could work but Option 1 has multiple benefits over Option 2 particularly when it comes to name-collisions, modularityâetc.
As you state consuming Option 1 or Option 2 are equivalent. I disagree with this assessment. The reason is that in object modeling terms if you are a vendor that defines a table for standard STIX objects then the columns in that table (if you assume a relational model) will be defined for the standard properties only. Any additional properties need to be modeled as either a) a separate table of objects that are then joined to the primary table b) a separate set of columns that are added for all extensions that you support on those standard objects.
In my opinion the better approach to modeling this would be an object-model where you have the primary objects being the STIX standard object definitions and any related sub-components be modeled as objects themselves and connected in a join (if relational db) or via a relationship (in an object db).
Iâm sure there are other ways to solve this but we need to think beyond the simple act of parsing the JSON. Hence the sub-component extension mechanism was designed with ingest to a db/data-store more easily.
Maybe remove me from your ban list? ð Chris I never received Chrisâs original email. Checking spam folder also didnât yield it. Can someone resend or forward me the attachments? Chris - thank you for sharing the examples. Once I get them I can provide feedback if you would like some.
Thanks Chris. This is great!! I think that the ability for you to quickly put this together shows that going from custom properties representation to extension properties representation is relatively trivial. Here is my comments on your experiment, based on my understanding of the Extension proposal. - The extension object you have for Option 1 contains the property "extension_properties". The spec currently says that you only use that property for top level property extensions. Iâm not sure why that is. We should probably put in some text into the spec explaining âwhyâ.
- Top-level property extensions are there for backward compatibility. The spec indicates that the other type of property extensions is preferred. I know you mention that Option 2 makes your RESTful API more straightforward, but I think you could probably do the processing you did in the client code as a subroutine that the RESTful API calls â making the use of either extension property method invisible. Of course, I donât know what your API looks like ð
- I donât see any advantage to Option 3, but maybe others will
Lead Cyber Security Engineer On todayâs TC call, Rich asked folks who are using custom STIX extensions to kick the tires on the new extension proposal. We (FS-ISAC) use custom properties on the STIX2.1 Vulnerability SDO, in order to make some custom vulnerability reporting available via a TAXII2.1 feed. The intent is for the content to be STIX/TAXII-compliant (since itâs being published to our TAXII server), yet still easy for non-STIX/TAXII applications (such as a vulnerability management system that has no idea what STIX and TAXII are) to be able to ingest it as a RESTful API.
Iâve attached 4 JSON files: - stix21-orig.json: This is an example of what we are currently publishing. Note that all of the âx-ctix-*â properties are custom top-level properties.
- stix21-option1.json: This is my attempt to convert stix21-orig.json to the âOption 1â proposal (Adding properties to an existing STIX object instance)
- stix21-option2.json: This is my attempt to convert stix21-orig.json to the âOption 2â proposal for adding custom properties to an existing STIX object (Adding properties at the top-level to an existing STIX object instance).
- stix21-option3.json: This was just me taking a stab at what it would look like if there was an option to define the extensions in-line, rather than in a separate object. Obviously it would create additional, duplicative data, but I thought I would toss it out there for consideration, since it would likely be easier for a STIX client to consume.
- Publishing: It appears that we could publish our current custom vulnerability feed using either Option 1 and Option 2 (or Option 3).
- Consuming:
- For STIX/TAXII consumers, Option 1 and Option 2 seem equivalent to me. As long as the STIX client properly understands the spec, either should work. The one advantage I see to option 1 is that it allows you to overload the same custom property name in the same SDO defined in different extensions (example, it seems that I could have an âFS-ISACâ risk property, and an âIT-ISACâ risk property in the same SDO, both named âriskâ. Iâm not sure why you would want that, though).
- For NON-STIX/TAXII consumers (example - REST clients which are STIX unaware), Option 2 seems far superior. The REST client could treat all top-level properties the same, rather than having to understand that some top-level properties are native STIX properties, while others are custom STIX properties that are embedded under the âextensionsâ property.
Also attached is a chicken-scratch python code (process_vulns-json.txt) to illustrate what Iâm talking about. The original JSON and the Option 2 JSON can be processed without any knowledge of STIX or understanding of STIX extensions. However, Option 1 requires an understanding of STIX extensions, and some hand-waving to unpack the custom properties. Hope this makes sense. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything. Sr. Tech Engineer, FS-ISAC
|