I think that this higher level approach is the way to go. It is very much in line with where I had planned to take the stix supporters concept in a future iteration.
As was suggested in an earlier email in this thread, I think we should encourage producers and consumers to provide this higher level information while also drafting a profile that describes their stix/cybox usage. The profile would not initially be about
interoperability. Instead it would be a tool to allow for detailed communication of the supported stix/cybox structures.
Jon
============================================
Jonathan O. Baker
J83D - Cyber Security Partnerships, Sharing, and Automation
The MITRE Corporation
Email:
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jordan, Bret
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:37 PM
To: Jason Keirstead
Cc:
Subject: Re: [cti] CTI TC Adoption and Interoperability SCs
Okay, now I think we are getting out of the weeds and moving forward, so what about this, with the changes from Jason and Eric.
For STIX:
Does your product support:
S1) Data marking / handing
S2) Information source integrity
S3) The required fields from the following STIX Idioms
a) Indicators
b) Incidents
c) Threat Actors
d) Campaigns
e) TTPs
f) Course of Actions
g) Exploit Targets
h) Observables
S4) The required fields from the following CybOX objects
i) TBD
S5) Do you support STIX Profile processing for the following profiles
a) TBD
b) TBD
Optional Extras You Might Support (this is meant to give extra color / context to differentiate products)
SA) Do you have a UI for STIX generation
For TAXII:
Does your product support:
T1) Discovery Services
T2) Collection Services
T3) Subscription Services
T4) Poll Services
T5) Inbox Services
T6) Data Feeds
T7) Data Collections
T8) Delete Requests
Optional Extras You Might Support
TA) Authentication
TB) Two-factor Authentication
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:27, Jason Keirstead <> wrote:
RE STIX 3.h, I would also like to see included in the profile a list of the CybOX objects supported.
RE TAXII 8,9 I am not sure how authentication types can be included in the profile when they are not part of the TAXII protocol.
-
Jason Keirstead
Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security |
www.securityintelligence.com
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
