OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [cti] RE: Adding an Incident SDO stub to 2.1

I was originally thinking that the Infrastructure would tie to a location, but you're right that might that might end just resulting in an unnecessary layer of indirection and force nearly empty Infrastructure objects to be generated.  I think switching it to element_ref would be a lot cleaner.​

From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Paul Patrick <ppatrick@darklight.ai>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 5:24 PM
To: Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD; 'Rich Piazza'; cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [cti] RE: Adding an Incident SDO stub to 2.1



While I agree getting consensus on a full definition would be extremely difficult, I think what you’ve pulled together is rather good.


Had two comments I wanted to check with you:


  • I didn’t see, through example, a way to reference the location of activity.  Although it would be easy to do with a relationship to a location object
  • I would suggest that the infrastructure_ref property of the impact_element object might better be served if it was an object_ref so that things other than infrastructure objects could be specified. 



Paul Patrick



From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <Jeffrey.Mates@dc3.mil>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2020 at 3:45 PM
To: 'Rich Piazza' <rpiazza@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [cti] RE: Adding an Incident SDO stub to 2.1


While I’m very much in favor of creating an Incident object, I am concerned that generating a stub and having everyone put different things to do it may do us more harm than good as I imagine we are all looking at structuring it very differently.


I have attached a draft that I have been working on along with samples of it in use to illustrate just how divergent thoughts on this may be.  I know that working through what I have now has certainly run into challenges as balancing current and future needs across multiple systems is extremely challenging which is why I have not put forward much so far on this.


While I am certainly happy to discuss the stub proposal and various potential incidents proposals on the working call I expect that reaching consensus is going to be a challenge.




Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/TSD

Computer Scientist

Technical Solutions Development




From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Rich Piazza
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 2:16 PM
To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti] Adding an Incident SDO stub to 2.1


The editors would like to propose an addition to the specification, suggested by Paul Patrick.


Many in the community have commented about the lack of an Incident SDO in STIX 2.1.  This has caused them to define their own, as a custom object.  With the inclusion of the STIX extension facility into the specification, it has been suggested that the 2.1 spec includes a “stub” for Incident.  This “stub” would act as a placeholder, from which the members of the community could base the extensions for their Incident content.  The text added to the specification to define the Incident SDO would be minimal – similar to the stub for the Course of Action. 


Please respond if you feel this addition to the specification should not happen.  If there is any objections, we can discuss them on the next week’s call.


                Rich P.



Rich Piazza

Lead Cyber Security Engineer

The MITRE Corporation








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]