This is an instance of a general design concern(embedded or not) throughout the spec and I look forward to Rich’s document to help our discussion.
Marlon Taylor
Technology Services Section
National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Struse, Richard J.
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:52 AM
To: Nicholas Hayden <>; Wunder, John A. <>
Cc: Patrick Maroney <>; Bret Jordan <>; Jason Keirstead <>; John-Mark Gurney <>; CTI OASIS GROUP <>; Back, Greg <>; Nathan
S. Reller <>
Subject: Re: [cti] [EXT] [cti] Location as a Top-Level SDO
I am working on a document that lays out the thinking on this and other design issues.
From:
<> on behalf of Nicholas Hayden <>
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 8:47 AM
To: "Wunder, John A." <>
Cc: Patrick Maroney <>, Bret Jordan <>, Jason Keirstead <>,
John-Mark Gurney <>, CTI OASIS GROUP <>, "Back, Greg" <>, "Nathan S. Reller"
<>
Subject: Re: [cti] [EXT] [cti] Location as a Top-Level SDO
Can we derive a "Go No GO” checklist for SDO’s? This might help us in resolving this and to John’s point future scenarios. My proposal is we clearly define what the characteristics are which “Qualifies” something that needs to be an SDO.
So for example does it requiring versioning “Yes” ok thats a +1 toward making it an SDO.
Best Regards,
Nicholas Hayden, CISSP, GICSP, CNDA, CEH, Sec+
Director of Engineering Anomali | anomali.com
808 Winslow St Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 257-0867 | Twitter: @anomali
PastedGraphic-2.tiff
On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Wunder, John A. <> wrote:
Yeah +1 to Pat…we’re a CTI org, let’s not maintain a database of geolocations.
More generally I also agree w/ Allan that this doesn’t really impact the SDO question. Either you:
-
Have the library and duplicate it in the embedded types
-
Have the library and reference it by UUID (if we generate STIX UUIDs for it)
-
Have the library and copy it into the referenced types (if we don’t generate UUIDs for it)
It would be nice to enumerate these types of scenarios and see how we can deal with each of them in each approach. I talked to Allan and I think he has the beginnings of that
document started, I’ll get with him to push it to Google docs so we can all look over it.
John
From:
<> on behalf of Patrick Maroney <>
Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 at 3:16 PM
To: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <>
Cc: "Jason Mr. Keirstead" <>, "John-Mark Mr. Gurney" <>, ""
<>, Greg Back <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [cti] [EXT] [cti] Location as a Top-Level SDO
My .02: If we're building, publishing, maintaining our own Geo-Location Data, we're doing something wrong. This is one wheel we do not need to re-invent...again just my .02.
Patrick Maroney
Principal Engineer - Data Science & Analytics
Wapack Labs LLC
(609)841-5104
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7C810C9769BD29AF
On Jun 11, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Bret Jordan <> wrote:
So if we were going to do this, we would probably need to build a library of locations by country and regions and publish them as a Committee Note and hope people just use the them for locations
at the granularity of a country or group of countries.
Bret
From:
<> on behalf of Jason Keirstead <>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 7:35:18 PM
To:
Cc: Bret Jordan;
; ;
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] [cti] Location as a Top-Level SDO
You are assuming that we don't create a repository of "standard" location SDOs for things like continent and country names - IE the things that people would want to share in
the first place. Which, I don't see why we would not do this, seeing how we're doing it for things like CAPEC.
-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown
----- Original message -----
From: John-Mark Gurney <>
Sent by: <>
To: "Back, Greg" <>
Cc: Bret Jordan <>, "Reller, Nathan S." <>, ""
<>
Subject: Re: [cti] Re: [EXT] [cti] Location as a Top-Level SDO
Date: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 8:36 PM
Back, Greg wrote this message on Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 20:18 +0000:
> If Location is an SDO, does that make it possible to “move” another object by versioning the Location object? That seems like a bad idea. Especially if you effectively “move” other, unrelated objects that also refer to the same Location. Even if we did make
Location a TLO, we would have to mandate that people update the “_ref” fields to move an SDO, not the Location itself.
>
> (I haven’t made up my mind on whether I like the Location SDO in general, just pointing out one consideration).
Interesting point. Which effectively means that if you create a
relationship to a location, that location should be one you own, not
one that was created by someone else (unless you can trust the creator
not to do what you just described)...
This means that by definition, there will be many Location SDO's for
the same location to prevent this from happeneing...
--
John-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
