CTI STIX Subcommittee

All, Please see the following pre-draft document for the initial proposal coming out of the Campaign mini-group..  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F1c05GgYaJFV1Z04B8c_T3vEE-LRQTPExF24LvOQAsk/edit#heading=h.bcqwxvu8zvzb Please add suggestions / comments to the document.   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

The Campaign mini-group also discussed two additional TLOs that the STIX SC might consider.  1) Threat Group My question is, is this really a different TLO, or should we make a property on the Threat Actor TLO that has a Group_Name property.  We could then allow Threat Actor TLOs to be related to other Threat Actor TLOs.  So Threat_Actor (A) could be a GROUP and Threat_Actor (B) and Threat_Actor (C) could be individuals that are related to the Group (Threat_Actor (A)). 2) Intrusion_Set The idea behind this TLO is that it is nearly identical to the Campaign TLO but is used for relating a collection of Campaigns.   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.   On May 11, 2016, at 17:26, Jordan, Bret < bret.jordan@BLUECOAT.COM > wrote: All, Please see the following pre-draft document for the initial proposal coming out of the Campaign mini-group..  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F1c05GgYaJFV1Z04B8c_T3vEE-LRQTPExF24LvOQAsk/edit#heading=h.bcqwxvu8zvzb Please add suggestions / comments to the document.   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

After some additional research, I think this is not how Intrusion Set is typically used in the communities where the term originated. I'd like one of the DoD folks (Gary K, maybe?) to weigh in on that part. -- Kyle Maxwell [kmaxwell@verisign.com] iDefense Senior Analyst From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org [cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Jordan, Bret [bret.jordan@bluecoat.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 20:26 To: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [cti-stix] Re: Results of the Campaign Mini-Group The Campaign mini-group also discussed two additional TLOs that the STIX SC might consider.  1) Threat Group My question is, is this really a different TLO, or should we make a property on the Threat Actor TLO that has a Group_Name property.  We could then allow Threat Actor TLOs to be related to other Threat Actor TLOs.  So Threat_Actor (A) could be a GROUP and Threat_Actor (B) and Threat_Actor (C) could be individuals that are related to the Group (Threat_Actor (A)). 2) Intrusion_Set The idea behind this TLO is that it is nearly identical to the Campaign TLO but is used for relating a collection of Campaigns.   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."