Jeff,
While I agree getting consensus on a full definition would be extremely difficult, I think what youâve pulled together is rather good.
Had two comments I wanted to check with you:
I didnât 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:
<> on behalf of "Mates, Jeffrey CIV DC3/TSD" <>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2020 at 3:45 PM
To: 'Rich Piazza' <>, "" <>
Subject: [cti] RE: Adding an Incident SDO stub to 2.1
While Iâm 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.
//SIGNED//
Jeffrey Mates, Civ DC3/TSD
Computer Scientist
Technical Solutions Development
410-694-4335
From: <>
On Behalf Of Rich Piazza
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 2:16 PM
To:
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 âstubâ for Incident. This âstubâ 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 â 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 weekâs call.
Rich P.
--
Rich Piazza
Lead Cyber Security Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
781-271-3760
