OASIS Collaborative Automated Course of Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Secu

 View Only
  • 1.  Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 12:44
    All,
    I was asked to forward the following email to the CACAO TC
    Bret
    ###BEGIN

     

    I've cc'd our TC's mail list here for broader visibility of your message.

     

    We have recently been working on an OpenC2 Extension for CACAO spec, which is substantially complete and will be up for a CSD vote at next week's OpenC2 TC meeting. As it has developed I've realized it's more of a profile than an actual extension: it extends a couple of CACAO -OVs, proposes an "openc2" action step in place of "openc2-http", and calls for CACAO agents to handle OpenC2 message transfer and certain specific CACAO variables to convey info to the agents. We would certainly welcome review and feedback on our specification from the CACAO community. I was planning to wait until the CSD was published before calling it to your attention but there's no particular reason to do that.

     

    Options to access the content:

     

    For the CACAO community: 

     

    OpenC2 is a suite of specifications that enables command and control of cyber defense systems and components. OpenC2 typically uses a request-response paradigm where a Command is encoded by a Producer (managing application) and transferred to a Consumer (managed device or virtualized function) using a secure transfer protocol, and the Consumer can respond with status and any requested information.

     

    OpenC2 allows the application producing the commands to discover the set of capabilities supported by the managed devices. These capabilities permit the managing application to adjust its behavior to take advantage of the features exposed by the managed device. The capability definitions can be easily extended in a noncentralized manner, allowing standard and non-standard capabilities to be defined with semantic and syntactic rigor.

     

    The OpenC2 language is described in the Language Specification using an abstract information model that does not specify any particular message encoding form (i.e., serialization). The most common encoding of OpenC2 messages is in JSON and the OpenC2 family of specifications presents examples in JSON format. Other encodings are permitted and are defined in their respective documents (e.g., a transfer specification). Similarly, OpenC2 messages can be conveyed using a variety of transfer mechanisms, using both point-to-point (e.g., HTTPS) and publish/subscribe (e.g., MQTT) communication models. The selection of message content encoding is determined by a combination of the environment where OpenC2 is being applied and the capabilities and limitations of the chosen transfer specification.

     

    General information about OpenC2 can be found at OpenC2.org and our TC operations GH repo, as well as our TC's page at OASIS.  I recommend reading the OpenC2 Architecture Specification for a thorough overview.

     

    As for the process beyond sharing this content, I'll leave that to the TCs' chairs to work out

     

    Dave

    __________________

    David Lemire

    OpenC2 TC Secretary


    ###END



  • 2.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 15:32
    Bret et al - shouldn't we (cacao tc) agree on a working call to the details of this new extension before the openc2 tc approve a csd?

    Seems like getting any feedback to them before a formal csd vote would cut down the time involved in csd approval and any necessary subsequent updates?

    Also - isnt a cacao extension not the responsibility of the cacao tc to craft and approve?

    I'm not that much of a stickler for formal process but an openc2 group approving a cacao extension seems incorrect.

    Allan

    On Aug 21, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Bret Jordan via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:

    
    All,I was asked to forward the following email to the CACAO TCBret###BEGIN I've cc'd our TC's mail list here for broader visibility of your...





  • 3.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 15:41

    I thought extensions could be done by anyone (ie doesn't need CACAO TC approval).

    Note OpenC2 has informed CACAO TC of this work in the past (and all we got back was crickets).

    Note OpenC2 is not sending out for public comment. The main reason it was made into  a CSD was so CACAO TC would have a reasonably complete draft to comment on (and it might prod people to actually look at it). It's just a draft (ie CSD not CS) and can easily change if it needs changing.

     

    -- 

    Duncan Sparrell

    sFractal Consulting

    iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

    I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

     

     






  • 4.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 15:58

    PS

    Wrt "an openc2 group approving a cacao extension seems incorrect"

    How is OpenC2 TC doing the OpenC2 actions extension for a CACAO playbook any different than:

    • OCA IoB doing CTI extensions,
    • DAD-CDM doing CTI extensions,
    • CACAO TC doing extension for CTI course of action field?

    If CTI wants to take it over and do it, fine – as long as it actually gets done. The root problem is it "how to use OpenC2 in CACAO?" or "how can CACAO use OpenC2?". Either way takes expertise in both. Since the OpenC2 in the current CACAO spec is incompatible with OpenC2, OpenC2 thought to correct it. Once the draft works for both groups, it doesn't really matter which group approves as a separate standalone. If you want to include it in 'base' CACAO, then obviously that belongs in CACAO TC. But in any case, it first requires base text and that is what the CSD is attempting to be.

     

    -- 

    Duncan Sparrell

    sFractal Consulting

    iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

    I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

     

     






  • 5.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 16:26
    Darrell - It seems like your response is somewhat annoyed by my points. 

    See my other email regarding collaboration for the *benefit* of both standards in the marketplace. I'm focused on a good product/outcome for the products that may use the standards.

    But it can't be one group or the other that does this. It's a combined thing and therefore *both* parties need to agree on it otherwise the work is DOA.

    Allan

    On Aug 21, 2024, at 12:57 PM, Duncan Sparrell via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:

    PS Wrt "an openc2 group approving a cacao extension seems incorrect" How is OpenC2 TC doing the OpenC2 actions extension for a CACAO playbook...






  • 6.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 17:46

    It's Duncan, not Darrell.

     

    Yes I'm probably snippy because I thought we were following what experts who were members of both groups and attended the many meetings said was the best way to proceed – and then the way we proceeded seems to get trashed by your comment.

     

    An issue was opened in the CACAO TC noting the CACAO OpenC2 actions needed correction/updating. The response (including yours if I recall correctly) was that the OpenC2 experts needed to say what was needed. So we did. The OpenC2 TC can't make CACAO TC docs. It can only make OpenC2 TC docs. So it's an OpenC2 doc. We did it knowing we weren't the CACAO experts - although many CACAO experts did participate when it was reviewed over two CASP meetings dedicated specifically for CACAO and OpenC2 working together. The plan was to get a draft by OpenC2, get it reviewed by CACAO, and then figure out what to do with it. I may have misread your comments as CACAO TC should have 'approved' before OpenC2 could draft – and that did annoy me.

     

    So forget how we got here. The OpenC2 experts seem to think the OpenC2 part of the draft is correct. If the CACAO experts could look at draft and see if the CACAO part is correct. Then we can decide what to do with it.

     

    -- 

    Duncan Sparrell

    sFractal Consulting

    iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

    I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

     

     






  • 7.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 18:10
    Duncan - no one "trashed" anything. To suggest so is just incorrect. 

    I suggest we focus on the points about getting the proposal reviewed and agreed by both TCs.

    We have an upcoming cacao working call. Getting the spec reviewed on that next call or appropriate call would be a good outcome.

    Allan

    On Aug 21, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Duncan Sparrell via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:

    
    It's Duncan, not Darrell. Yes I'm probably snippy because I thought we were following what experts who were members of both groups and...





  • 8.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 15:59
    What I am more interested in, is folding these ideas into the 2.1 release of CACAO. I understand the need, at times, to produce an extension and there are good use cases for them. But a core feature like this, is not one of them, IMHO. I am grateful that OpenC2 has worked on these ideas. But what I would like is a session between OpenC2 and CACAO to make sure CACAO is using OpenC2 correctly.  I have tried unsuccessfully for a LONG time to get people that know each sides to come together and talk through how to make this work. 

    Bret

    On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:40 PM Duncan Sparrell via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:
    I thought extensions could be done by anyone (ie doesn't need CACAO TC approval). Note OpenC2 has informed CACAO TC of this work in the past ...

    OASIS Collaborative Automated Course of Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Secu

    Post New Message
    Re: Email from Dave Lemire
    Reply to Group Reply to Sender via Email
    Aug 21, 2024 3:41 PM
    Duncan Sparrell

    I thought extensions could be done by anyone (ie doesn't need CACAO TC approval).

    Note OpenC2 has informed CACAO TC of this work in the past (and all we got back was crickets).

    Note OpenC2 is not sending out for public comment. The main reason it was made into  a CSD was so CACAO TC would have a reasonably complete draft to comment on (and it might prod people to actually look at it). It's just a draft (ie CSD not CS) and can easily change if it needs changing.

     

    -- 

    Duncan Sparrell

    sFractal Consulting

    iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

    I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

     

     



      Reply to Group via Email   Reply to Sender via Email   View Thread   Recommend   Forward  




     
    You are subscribed to "OASIS Collaborative Automated Course of Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Secu" as bret.jordan.sdo@gmail.com. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.



    Original Message:
    Sent: 8/21/2024 3:41:00 PM
    From: Duncan Sparrell
    Subject: RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    I thought extensions could be done by anyone (ie doesn't need CACAO TC approval).

    Note OpenC2 has informed CACAO TC of this work in the past (and all we got back was crickets).

    Note OpenC2 is not sending out for public comment. The main reason it was made into  a CSD was so CACAO TC would have a reasonably complete draft to comment on (and it might prod people to actually look at it). It's just a draft (ie CSD not CS) and can easily change if it needs changing.

     

    -- 

    Duncan Sparrell

    sFractal Consulting

    iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

    I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

     

     




    Original Message:
    Sent: 8/21/2024 3:32:00 PM
    From: Allan Thomson
    Subject: RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Bret et al - shouldn't we (cacao tc) agree on a working call to the details of this new extension before the openc2 tc approve a csd?

    Seems like getting any feedback to them before a formal csd vote would cut down the time involved in csd approval and any necessary subsequent updates?

    Also - isnt a cacao extension not the responsibility of the cacao tc to craft and approve?

    I'm not that much of a stickler for formal process but an openc2 group approving a cacao extension seems incorrect.

    Allan

    On Aug 21, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Bret Jordan via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:

    
    All,I was asked to forward the following email to the CACAO TCBret###BEGIN I've cc'd our TC's mail list here for broader visibility of your...




  • 9.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 08-21-2024 16:24
    Extension's can be defined but shouldn't both the TC and the extension creator's *want* to ensure they all agree on its definition? 

    I don't care about the rules here (so much) but more about pragmatic/practical best practices that most multi-team development organizations/cross- organizations do as part of making sure that what is designed *actually* makes sense and is good for all.

    If OpenC2 community want to design something for CACAO standard/extension (or not) then kudos for initiating the work. But that does *not* mean that both communities should just accept that work as-is or that It makes sense. 

    We should work together to make a solution that is the result of the best minds from both communities.

    Both TC's are OASIS groups. We should be collaborating not acting like we're ships in the night. That is *especially* true for something that crosses both standards.

    Allan

    On Aug 21, 2024, at 12:59 PM, Bret Jordan via OASIS <Mail@mail.groups.oasis-open.org> wrote:







  • 10.  RE: Email from Dave Lemire

    Posted 09-03-2024 14:56

    Having newly joined the CACAO TC, I can now join this conversation directly. Unfortunately I will not be able to participate in any related discussions during the 17 September meeting due to a previously planned family trip.

    I'll start with a "bottom line" request: please read the draft (links are in the first message Bret forwarded). 

    Regardless of how its content is eventually published I believe that having participants on both sides review the draft extension provides the best foundation for productive and substantive discussions about improving the integration of OpenC2 and CACAO. One possible path would to be to incorporate the draft's specific changes to -OVs and object structure into a v2.x CACAO specification and repurpose other content into an appendix as an OpenC2 integration example.

    Other responses in more detail (My thanks to Dave Kemp for his inputs to this material):

    Allan said:

    ·         Isn't a CACAO extension not the responsibility of the CACAO TC to craft and approve?

    Maybe, maybe not.  OpenC2 calls them "profiles" rather than "extensions", based on the philosophy that communities of interest may develop their own, publish them as open source or keep them as proprietary, and optionally register their existence with the OpenC2 TC.  The CACAO TC sets the rules for its own work products, of course.

     

    Bret said:

    ·         What I am more interested in, is folding these ideas into the 2.1 release of CACAO. I understand the need, at times, to produce an extension and there are good use cases for them. But a core feature like this, is not one of them, IMHO.

    We agree that everyone working on CACAO and OpenC2 should understand both to ensure that their interactions are designed correctly.  Dave Lemire's original message has a great introduction to OpenC2 for the CACAO community. Some additional points about abstraction:

    ·         OpenC2 is defined as an information model that does not specify any particular message encoding form

    ·         OpenC2 messages can be conveyed using a variety of transfer mechanisms

    plus:

    ·         OpenC2 defines atomic actions separately from the existence of messages/protocols.  Command, response, or event content can exist in a document such as a playbook independently of whether or how it was or may be communicated.

    The OpenC2 TC believe that at this point a review of the draft extension by the CACAO community will provide the best basis for meaningful technical discussion regarding how to better integrate our two efforts (Bret's stated goal, which we support). We do need discussion to reach agreement, and the agreement needs to result in "words on paper".  A discussion informed by draft "words on paper" seems more efficient, especially given that they already exist. One outcome of the discussion can be a plan for how best to proceed, including both technical improvements and whether the material evolves into CACAO v2.1 content or remains separate.  We will still have to work out the procedural issues associated with a joint meeting, as Duncan has previously noted.

    I would add that members of our TC have invested considerable effort since the start of CY2025 in understanding the CACAO v2.0 Specification, and engaging with it and the CACAO Roaster project. This has resulted in us providing feedback to both CACAO and Roaster via GitHub issue postings. We have also used Roaster to develop a CACAO playbook to illustrate our OpenC2 / Kestrel integration for the April 2024 CASP event and to aid in developing examples in the draft specification. This isn't a claim to be CACAO experts but to note that the draft we have developed wasn't created in a vacuum and we believe is very much in the spirit of the CACAO v2.0 Specification.



    ------------------------------
    David Lemire, CISSP
    HII / National Security Agency
    OpenC2 TC Secretary
    david.lemire@hii-tsd.com
    ------------------------------