CTI STIX Subcommittee

I took a hard look at the relationships we have defined so far, and really tried to question each one.  I made a lot of comments in the docs for us to review.  I focused on what is the relationship trying to say, and does it make since in both directions.  What I came up with is that in some cases it does make since in both directions, however, what you are trying to say is actually different.   I guess it all comes down to what you are starting with, and what you are trying to say about that which you started with.  Take the example of an Indicator linking to a Campaign.   1) If you start with the Campaign, you might say that that This Campaign is [detectable-by] this Indicator 2) If you start with the Indicator, you might say, that This Indicator [can-detect] this Campaign or This Indicator [indicates] the presence of this Campaign .   So it really depends on what you have to start with, and what you are trying to say.  So for some of these, we may actually need to define the relationships both ways.  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.   Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

So what you're describing is basically the importance of Semantics, and the Triples concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web That is explained, for example, in this paper (pointed out by Shawn Riley) http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/papers/781.pdf PS: you, hopefully, would understand the frustration of those who identified and understood this issue/point 1+ year ago, and where advocating for an Ontology/Semantic direction (like with JSON-LD) of CTI just to make our life easier and to save time and effort for the success and quality of the work of this group. I hope that we did not waste the past 8+ months for realizing that "semantic matters" Best regards On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> wrote: > I took a hard look at the relationships we have defined so far, and really > tried to question each one. I made a lot of comments in the docs for us to > review. I focused on what is the relationship trying to say, and does it > make since in both directions. What I came up with is that in some cases it > does make since in both directions, however, what you are trying to say is > actually different. > > I guess it all comes down to what you are starting with, and what you are > trying to say about that which you started with. Take the example of an > Indicator linking to a Campaign. > > 1) If you start with the Campaign, you might say that that "This Campaign is > [detectable-by] this Indicator" > > 2) If you start with the Indicator, you might say, that "This Indicator > [can-detect] this Campaign" or "This Indicator [indicates] the presence of > this Campaign". > > So it really depends on what you have to start with, and what you are trying > to say. So for some of these, we may actually need to define the > relationships both ways. > > > 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." >