OASIS Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables

    Posted 12-22-2016 18:56




    One glaring thing missing from most of the windows specific objects is the concept of Windows Handle.
     

    From:
    <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    All,
     
    As we discussed on the call last week, Trey and I have been thinking over some possibilities as far as new additions for Cyber Observables in 2.1. Here’s the list that we’ve put together
    – note that this is meant to be a strawman so that we can start having the discussion about what you (the community) wants to see in 2.1 as far as Cyber Observables:
     




    Entity Type


    Entity




    New Objects


    Device
       - Mobile Device Ext.
       - Mobile Phone Ext.
       - Virtualization Ext.




    Operating System




    WHOIS




    SMS
       - MMS Ext.




    Network Share




    New Object Extensions


    Android APK (File Object Ext.)




    Apple iOS (File Object Ext.)




    EXT 3/4 (File Object Ext.)




    Document Metadata (File Object Ext.)




    HTTP Response (Network Traffic Ext.)




    Other Entities


    Actions




     
    If you have any thoughts on things you want to see in 2.1 for Cyber Observables, please bring them up – we’re very open to any suggestions and ideas.
     
    Happy Holidays!
    Ivan and Trey

    This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
    If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.





  • 2.  Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables

    Posted 12-22-2016 19:16




    That’s a good point, Paul. In CybOX 2.x we had a separate Windows Handle Object that was used by other Windows Objects. However, I’m wondering if that approach was overkill – most use cases that I’ve seen
    around handles in terms of malware analysis/IR revolve around handles opened by a particular process. Therefore, would it be enough to add the ability to characterize opened handles as part of the existing Windows Process Extension for the Process Object?
     
    Regards,
    Ivan
     

    From: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    To: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    One glaring thing missing from most of the windows specific objects is the concept of Windows Handle.
     

    From:
    <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    All,
     
    As we discussed on the call last week, Trey and I have been thinking over some possibilities as far as new additions for Cyber Observables in 2.1. Here’s the list that we’ve put together
    – note that this is meant to be a strawman so that we can start having the discussion about what you (the community) wants to see in 2.1 as far as Cyber Observables:
     




    Entity Type


    Entity




    New Objects


    Device
       - Mobile Device Ext.
       - Mobile Phone Ext.
       - Virtualization Ext.




    Operating System




    WHOIS




    SMS
       - MMS Ext.




    Network Share




    New Object Extensions


    Android APK (File Object Ext.)




    Apple iOS (File Object Ext.)




    EXT 3/4 (File Object Ext.)




    Document Metadata (File Object Ext.)




    HTTP Response (Network Traffic Ext.)




    Other Entities


    Actions




     
    If you have any thoughts on things you want to see in 2.1 for Cyber Observables, please bring them up – we’re very open to any suggestions and ideas.
     
    Happy Holidays!
    Ivan and Trey
    This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email
    (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.







  • 3.  Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables

    Posted 12-22-2016 19:50




    Ivan,
     
    Your timing is perfect as I’m in the middle of mapping OpenIOC 1.1 definitions to STIX Indicators and uncovering several things that are currently missing in STIX 2.0 that are needed to support a complete
    mapping.  The able to specify the Handles on a Process is one of the most frequent ones I’ve found.  So, I think at a minimum we’re going to need a handles-like property on windows-process-ext.  I suspect we’re going to also need something like a windows-handle
    object since it often critical for detection to specify both the name assigned to the handle and the type of the handle.
     
    Other significant items missing from the windows-pebinary-ext include:
    ·         
    Information about exports (DLL Name, number of functions, exported function names)
    ·         
    Information about imports (Modules, module name, number of imported functions, imported function names)
     
    On windows-process-ext:
    ·         
    Information about processes (Memory sections, section name, handles, handle name, handle type)
     
    On windows-service-ext:
    ·         
    Hash on the service DLL
     
    Object types that I’ve found that would needed to be include to complete the OpenIOC mapping include:
    ·         
    Windows System Restore
    ·         
    Windows Prefetch
    ·         
    DNS Record
    ·         
    EventLog (something we didn’t have in CybOX)
     
    There is a more complete list of terms at http://openioc.org/terms/Current.iocterms
     
    One other thing that I saw was that often the OpenIOC will have alternate patterns for detection; particularly that of Snort and YARA. I know we’ve talked about this as a group, but here is a concrete use
    case in the “wild” that we might want to take into consider as we talk through the ability to express alternate pattern expressions.
     
    For our internal use, I’m going to need to define extensions to address these.  But that still leaves me faced with just when we can consider transition to STIX 2 for our external customers and partners.
     
     
     
    Hope this helps!
     
     
    Paul Patrick
     
     

    From:
    <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 2:15 PM
    To: Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    That’s a good point, Paul. In CybOX 2.x we had a separate Windows Handle Object that was used by other Windows Objects. However, I’m wondering if that approach was overkill – most
    use cases that I’ve seen around handles in terms of malware analysis/IR revolve around handles opened by a particular process. Therefore, would it be enough to add the ability to characterize opened handles as part of the existing Windows Process Extension
    for the Process Object?
     
    Regards,
    Ivan
     

    From:
    Paul Patrick <Paul.Patrick@FireEye.com>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    To: Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>, "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    One glaring thing missing from most of the windows specific objects is the concept of Windows Handle.
     

    From:
    <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Ivan Kirillov <ikirillov@mitre.org>
    Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    To: "cti@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables


     

    All,
     
    As we discussed on the call last week, Trey and I have been thinking over some possibilities as far as new additions for Cyber Observables in 2.1. Here’s the list that we’ve put together
    – note that this is meant to be a strawman so that we can start having the discussion about what you (the community) wants to see in 2.1 as far as Cyber Observables:
     




    Entity Type


    Entity




    New Objects


    Device
       - Mobile Device Ext.
       - Mobile Phone Ext.
       - Virtualization Ext.




    Operating System




    WHOIS




    SMS
       - MMS Ext.




    Network Share




    New Object Extensions


    Android APK (File Object Ext.)




    Apple iOS (File Object Ext.)




    EXT 3/4 (File Object Ext.)




    Document Metadata (File Object Ext.)




    HTTP Response (Network Traffic Ext.)




    Other Entities


    Actions




     
    If you have any thoughts on things you want to see in 2.1 for Cyber Observables, please bring them up – we’re very open to any suggestions and ideas.
     
    Happy Holidays!
    Ivan and Trey
    This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or
    distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.


    This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
    If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.





  • 4.  Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables

    Posted 12-27-2016 12:38
    On 22.12.2016 19:49:46, Paul Patrick wrote: > > Your timing is perfect as I’m in the middle of mapping OpenIOC 1.1 > definitions to STIX Indicators and uncovering several things that > are currently missing in STIX 2.0 that are needed to support a > complete mapping. > Hey, Paul - Your gap analysis is most helpful. Ivan and I are keenly aware of the need to flesh out the Windows-related portions of the STIX Observable data model. We're grateful for every bit of assistance we can get! > > · DNS Record > Definitely on our hit list. ^_^ > > · EventLog (something we didn’t have in CybOX) > The question of representing log data in the Observable data model has already come up a number of times. I think we're still some distance from broad consensus as to whether mapping log data into the data model is in scope. If we do decide to target log data, we should do it in a sufficiently abstract manner as to address syslog and friends, in addition to Windows EventLog. (This is a sufficiently broad topic as to merit continuing the discussion on an independent thread.) > > One other thing that I saw was that often the OpenIOC will have > alternate patterns for detection; particularly that of Snort and > YARA. I know we’ve talked about this as a group, but here is a > concrete use case in the “wild” that we might want to take into > consider as we talk through the ability to express alternate pattern > expressions. > This falls under the rubric of the STIX Indicator. At one point alternate patterns were in the STIX 2.0 draft but were punted to a later release. (I forget the rationale.) We can definitely discuss adding this capacity back in for STIX 2.1. Again, Paul, thanks for the terrific feedback! Please keep it coming. ^_^ -- Cheers, Trey ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ Kingfisher Operations, sprl gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4 5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++ -- "No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority, you can't increase the speed of light." --RFC 1925 Attachment: signature.asc Description: Digital signature


  • 5.  Re: [cti] STIX 2.1 & Cyber Observables

    Posted 12-29-2016 20:26




    Ditto – thanks for the gap analysis, Paul. I’ve updated our table based on your input (note the new category for additions to existing objects/extensions):
     




    Entity Type


    Entity




    New Objects


    Device
      - Mobile Device Ext.
      - Mobile Phone Ext.
      - Virtualization Ext.




    Operating System




    WHOIS




    SMS
      - MMS Ext.




    Network Share




    Windows System Restore




    Windows Prefetch




    Passive DNS/DNS Record




    New Object Extensions


    Android APK (File Object Ext.)




    Apple iOS (File Object Ext.)




    EXT 3/4 (File Object Ext.)




    Document Metadata (File Object Ext.)




    Existing Object Additions


    Service DLL Hashes
      (Process Obj./windows-service-ext)




    Exports & Imports
      (File Obj./windows-pebinary-ext)




    Windows Handles & Memory Info
      (Process Obj./windows-process-ext)




    Other Entities


    Actions




     
    Regards,
    Ivan
     
    On 12/27/16, 5:37 AM, "Trey Darley" <cti@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of trey@kingfisherops.com> wrote:
     
        On 22.12.2016 19:49:46, Paul Patrick wrote:
        >
        > Your timing is perfect as I’m in the middle of mapping OpenIOC 1.1
        > definitions to STIX Indicators and uncovering several things that
        > are currently missing in STIX 2.0 that are needed to support a
        > complete mapping.
        >
       
        Hey, Paul -
       
        Your gap analysis is most helpful. Ivan and I are keenly aware of the
        need to flesh out the Windows-related portions of the STIX Observable
        data model. We're grateful for every bit of assistance we can get!
       
        
        >
        > ·         DNS Record
        >
        
        Definitely on our hit list. ^_^
       
        >
        > ·         EventLog (something we didn’t have in CybOX)
        >
        
        The question of representing log data in the Observable data model has
        already come up a number of times. I think we're still some distance
        from broad consensus as to whether mapping log data into the data
        model is in scope. If we do decide to target log data, we should do it
        in a sufficiently abstract manner as to address syslog and friends, in
        addition to Windows EventLog.
       
        (This is a sufficiently broad topic as to merit continuing the
        discussion on an independent thread.)
       
        >
        > One other thing that I saw was that often the OpenIOC will have
        > alternate patterns for detection; particularly that of Snort and
        > YARA. I know we’ve talked about this as a group, but here is a
        > concrete use case in the “wild” that we might want to take into
        > consider as we talk through the ability to express alternate pattern
        > expressions.
        >
        
        This falls under the rubric of the STIX Indicator. At one point
        alternate patterns were in the STIX 2.0 draft but were punted to a
        later release. (I forget the rationale.) We can definitely discuss
        adding this capacity back in for STIX 2.1.
       
        Again, Paul, thanks for the terrific feedback! Please keep it coming. ^_^
       
        --
        Cheers,
        Trey
        ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
        Kingfisher Operations, sprl
        gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
        ++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
        --
        "No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority, you
        can't increase the speed of light." --RFC 1925