That is a good point. These should probably just have a single value.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Wunder, John A. <> wrote:
An important consideration here is that the current field, “name”, has only one value. “labels”, on the other hand, supports multiple values. Should relationships be allowed to have more
than one label (e.g., Threat Actor A is [“related-to”, “member-of”] Threat Actor B) or just a single label/name?
I can see it working both ways, just wanted to point out that this is about more than just name vs. label.
John
From:
<> on behalf of Patrick Maroney <>
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 5:38 PM
To: Bret Jordan <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [cti] Relationship object - name property
We should be consistent across all TLOs. Relationships are a "special" TLO class (the "Edges" of the "Vertices") so there may be a basis for a different data model. However, can't readily think of one and
barring suggestion of same, would argue for consistency.
Patrick Maroney
President
Integrated Networking Technologies, Inc.
Desk: (856)983-0001
Cell: (609)841-5104
Email:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:21 AM -0400, "Jordan, Bret" <> wrote:
All,
In STIX 2.0 we are using the labels property of the object to capture the "object type" data. For example, in STIX 1.x we had "indicator type", in STIX 2.0 we are putting that same data in the "labels" field on the Indicator object instead
of having a property called "indicator_type". We can not use "type" as it is already being used in the model.
So the following objects all have these vocabularies that represent the type of object it is:
Threat Actor Type == Threat Actor Label Vocab == Threat Actor Object -> labels property
Malware Type == Malware Labels Vocab == Malware Object -> labels property
Tool Type == Tool Labels Vocab == Tool Object -> labels property
COA Type ...
Incident Type ...
Report Type ...
Indicator Type ...
So in all of these cases we are using this pattern of putting the "object type" in the labels fields. There is one exception to this rule though... For the Relationship Object we are putting the "relationship type" (or the relationship
verb) in the "name" property. I just wanted to shed some light on this and see what the community thinks of this.
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."
