I do not think we need it to be required... But then again, I am in favor of also moving the "count" field from Observation to Sighting. For example, if I want to sight a Threat Actor or a Campaign, it does not really make sense to include an Observation that uses CybOX, since CybOX can not describe a "person" or an abstract concept like a Campaign.
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 Jun 29, 2016, at 13:01, Wunder, John A. <> wrote:
One other question: right now, the Sighting TLO requires at least one Observation, so you can’t have a sighting without an Observation (observation doesn’t require CybOX, however). Is that what we want? As a reminder, the use cases were:
1. “I saw this Indicator”
2. “I saw this Indicator 12 times between X time and Y time”
3. “I saw this Indicator and here’s the specific observation of what I saw”
4. “I saw this Campaign”
5. (#2 and #3 for campaign)
In theory #1 doesn’t require the observation, but I suppose maybe it should be required for consistency?
John
From: <> on behalf of "Wunder, John A." <>Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:25 AMTo: "" <>Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Containers in STIX
All,
We talked about this topic again on the working call and there seemed to be general agreement there as well that the embedded approach was preferred. Given that, and the fact that discussion has died down, I move that we open a ballot to confirm the approach to representing CybOX inside an observation as well as the current definitions of Observation and Sighting.
Before opening the ballot, though, can everyone please review the current sections in the Google Docs? I’d like to avoid the problem we’re having with Object Markings, where we get a lot of very good comments after the ballot has opened. I’d rather work through as much as possible before the ballot. I would call this priority one on STIX right now…if you only have 15 minutes this week to spend on STIX, please spend it reviewing the Observation and Sighting sections of the STIX TLOs document.
Observation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F1c05GgYaJFV1Z04B8c_T3vEE-LRQTPExF24LvOQAsk/edit#heading=h.b2frlbuolfj
Sighting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F1c05GgYaJFV1Z04B8c_T3vEE-LRQTPExF24LvOQAsk/edit#heading=h.k017w16zutw
Note that everything in the “cybox” key will be defined by the CybOX specification. In CybOX, that type is currently defined here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSGv6Uvo3YyrK354cH0cvdn7gGedbhYJkgNVzwW9E6A/edit#heading=h.2p8taumnmgqi
John
From: Allan Thomson <>Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:16 AMTo: "Jordan, Bret" <>, Jason Keirstead <>Cc: Trey Darley <>, John-Mark Gurney <>, "Wunder, John A." <>, "" <>Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Containers in STIX
+1
From: "" <> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret" <>Date: Friday, June 24, 2016 at 5:41 AMTo: Jason Keirstead <>Cc: Trey Darley <>, John-Mark Gurney <>, "Wunder, John" <>, "" <>Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Containers in STIX
They can do that be referencing the Observations or other TLOs in STIX if they so desire.
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 Jun 24, 2016, at 06:38, Jason Keirstead <> wrote:
I believe what DFAX's desire here is to be able to reference content previously defined *in STIX* and have valid cross-references to CybOX using the GUIDs.-Jason KeirsteadSTSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systemswww.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.comWithout data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown <graycol.gif>"Jordan, Bret" ---06/24/2016 09:30:33 AM---We understand the problem so much more now than we did back in DC. And the in looking at the structFrom: "Jordan, Bret" <>To: Trey Darley <>Cc: John-Mark Gurney <>, "Wunder, John A." <>, "" <>Date: 06/24/2016 09:30 AMSubject: Re: [cti] CybOX Containers in STIXSent by: <>
We understand the problem so much more now than we did back in DC. And the in looking at the structure it really does not makes sense to have a STIX TLO called cybox-container. In DC it was all a bunch of hand-waving, we never actually spelled out the contents of the container. But now that we have put pen to paper, it really does not fit or work. Further, if other standards want to use CybOX they can use it the same way that STIX and MAEC are going to use it. MAEC for example is not going to use STIX objects to use CybOX data. That just does not make sense. Thanks,BretBret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTOBlue Coat SystemsPGP 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 Jun 24, 2016, at 03:15, Trey Darley <> wrote:On 23.06.2016 14:28:33, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
I will say that part of the reason that #2 was chosen at the F2F wasthat there are use cases for other standards, like DFAX, where theywant to be able to reference the CybOX object directly. With #2, theCybOX container now has a unique GUID that can be addressed, but aswas pointed out, this still doesn't prevent referncing the CybOXdata, as an implementation can refer to the GUID of the ObservationTLO.
This was the infamous Arglebargle discussion, which was both heatedand long. Option #2 was a hard-won compromise to support the needs ofDFAX as expressed by Eoghan Casey et al.Personally, I'm happy to go with option #1 for all the reasonselucidated by John and Allan but in consideration of the many hours ofdebate that went into the option #2 compromise, we should reenter thatdiscussion with sensitivity.From a technical perspective it is not clear to me why DFAX couldn'tdefine its own container for CybOX, much as STIX and MAEC are doing.If I recall correctly (and please weigh in here, good people of DC3!)the primary motivation behind having a container object living inCybOX land was DC3's desire to reuse CybOX observables^Wwhatever we'recalling them now across STIX, DFAX, and MAEC.It's probably worth devoting the next TC working call to this topic,since it's a critical question for STIX Indicators, Observations,Sightings, not to mention the ongoing work of the CybOX SC and ourfriends over at DC3.-- Cheers,Trey++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++Kingfisher Operations, sprlgpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4 5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++--"It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving theproblem to a different part of the overall network architecture) thanit is to solve it." --RFC 1925
[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
