OASIS Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  CybOX Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion

    Posted 06-18-2015 20:39
    CTI-TC: One suggestion was made to merge CybOX with the STIX Sub-Committee, but it was pointed out that a separate CybOX Sub-Committee is part of the Charter. Please add comments, nominations on CybOX on this thread. Jane Ginn CTIN


  • 2.  RE: [cti] CybOX Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion

    Posted 06-19-2015 00:20
    Hi!, Not sure if anyone else has commented on this thread/discussion, but I think it would be worthwhile to have Cybox sub-committee separate from the STIX sub-committee. There is development that we could do with CyBox objects which is totally independent from STIX, so I am not sure that in the efforts of being able to progress both at a rapid pace, that having them together would be beneficial. Having said that, I think it is important that all the sub-committees especially STIX/TAXII/CyBox are interwoven in some manner, to ensure they do not go off track and cause compatibility problems, however this is something that I am sure the overall membership would be watching out for, after all we all have a common interest in wanting to make this work. Regards, Dean
    Original Message


  • 3.  Re: [cti] CybOX Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion

    Posted 06-19-2015 15:31
    HI Dean,  One note on your caveat - typically, each SC reports back on its work and progress to the monthly meetings of the overall TC. That is one way to keep track of its progress and direction.  Second, the SC can only approve presenting its work back to the TC as a whole. It is the full TC that ultimately votes to approve the work, so if an SC did go off on a crazy tangent, the TC could send send it back and say "Please go back and try again" or something like that.  /chet  On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Thompson, Dean < Dean.Thompson@anz.com > wrote: Hi!, Not sure if anyone else has commented on this thread/discussion, but I think it would be worthwhile to have Cybox sub-committee separate from the STIX sub-committee.  There is development that we could do with CyBox objects which is totally independent from STIX, so I am not sure that in the efforts of being able to progress both at a rapid pace, that having them together would be beneficial. Having said that, I think it is important that all the sub-committees especially STIX/TAXII/CyBox are interwoven in some manner, to ensure they do not go off track and cause compatibility problems, however this is something that I am sure the overall membership would be watching out for, after all we all have a common interest in wanting to make this work. Regards, Dean
    Original Message


  • 4.  Re: [cti] CybOX Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion

    Posted 06-22-2015 11:39
    Whole-heartedly agree, Dean. The primary reason behind my earlier suggestion to merge the two standards under one committee was a fear that human politics being what it is, putting two standards under separate subcommittees would result in diverging/redundant/uncoordinated standards. In light of Chet's clarification regarding the roles and responsibilities of the subcommittees vis-a-vis the parent TC, I respectfully rescind my earlier proposal to merge them under one subcommittee and trust in the OASIS process. If elected to the CybOX subcommittee, my two primary concerns will be: 0) Balancing future CybOX development between the needs of the community (including, to a lessor extent, non-OASIS standards like MAEC) and the strategies adopted by the STIX subcommittee. 1) Ferreting out redundancies between the two standards and resisting the proliferation of needless complexities in CybOX as a data format.   Cheers, Trey -- Trey Darley Senior Security Engineer Soltra An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company www.soltra.com From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 17:31 To: Thompson, Dean Cc: cti@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti] CybOX Sub-Committee Nominations/Discussion   HI Dean,  One note on your caveat - typically, each SC reports back on its work and progress to the monthly meetings of the overall TC. That is one way to keep track of its progress and direction.  Second, the SC can only approve presenting its work back to the TC as a whole. It is the full TC that ultimately votes to approve the work, so if an SC did go off on a crazy tangent, the TC could send send it back and say "Please go back and try again" or something like that.  /chet  On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Thompson, Dean < Dean.Thompson@anz.com > wrote: Hi!, Not sure if anyone else has commented on this thread/discussion, but I think it would be worthwhile to have Cybox sub-committee separate from the STIX sub-committee.  There is development that we could do with CyBox objects which is totally independent from STIX, so I am not sure that in the efforts of being able to progress both at a rapid pace, that having them together would be beneficial. Having said that, I think it is important that all the sub-committees especially STIX/TAXII/CyBox are interwoven in some manner, to ensure they do not go off track and cause compatibility problems, however this is something that I am sure the overall membership would be watching out for, after all we all have a common interest in wanting to make this work. Regards, Dean
    Original Message


Related Content