More questions about tracking objects in collections

The way filtering is defined right now
 - it can apply to any endpoint. IE, you apply your filter to the GET on
 /collections/<id>/objects.  So the way I read the spec... this
 "return the latest version" is true throughout all endpoints,
 right now.
We actually don't have any endpoint
 that would allow something like a "global search" right now anyway,
 so the /collections/<id>/objects endpoints are the only places filters
 even really make sense.
Tackling this "global query"
 problem is part of the proposal Terry and I created...
- Jason Keirstead STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
 who hustle." - Unknown
From:
    Allan Thomson <>
To:
    Jason Keirstead <>
Cc:
    "Bret Jordan (CS)"
 <>, ""
 <>, "John-Mark Gurney" <>,
 Terry MacDonald <>
Date:
    01/25/2018 11:45 AM
Subject:
      Re: [cti-taxii]
 More questions about tracking objects in collections
Sent by:
      <>
Jason – Agree but I believe that’s done
 in the context of object query for a specific object where it makes sense
 that it returns the latest one only.

I was referring to a collection and pulling
 a collection down by timestamp.

In that case, everything that has been
 posted to the collection should be returned including prior versions of
 the object.

In this sense, I consider the collection
 a ‘queue’ and not a db per se.

Allan Thomson,
CTO,
Lookingglass
 Cyber Solutions
This electronic message transmission
 contains information from LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. which may
 be attorney-client privileged, proprietary and/or confidential. The information
 in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it
 is addressed.  If you believe that you have received this message
 in error, please contact the sender, delete this message, and be aware
 that any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents
 contained within is strictly prohibited
From:  Jason Keirstead <>
Date:  Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:42 AM
To:  Allan Thomson <>
Cc:  "Bret Jordan (CS)" <>,
 "" <>,
 John-Mark Gurney <>, Terry MacDonald <>
Subject:  Re: [cti-taxii] More questions about tracking objects in collections

The spec quite clearly says right now that
 the default behavior is that only the latest version of any individual
 object is returned, *unless* the client passes "version=all".
- Jason Keirstead STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security
"Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those
 who hustle." - Unknown
From:          Allan
 Thomson <>
To:          Terry MacDonald
 <>, John-Mark Gurney <>
Cc:          "Bret
 Jordan (CS)" <>, ""
 <>
Date:          01/25/2018
 11:29 AM
Subject:          Re:
 [cti-taxii] More questions about tracking objects in collections
Sent by:          <>
You’re assuming the TAXII server * is * the database that holds all
 records including all history. This should not be assumed.
The TAXII server collections are simply queues where data get posted and
 data get pulled. Therefore it should not have any logic or assumed logic
 that it keeps historical record of all object versions. That is introducing
 a lot more impact on what the TAXII server is doing and I think goes beyond
 what the current spec says it does.
I suggest the TAXII server should not just return the latest version. It
 should return all data that has been pushed to it.
This is necessary for clients that want to receive objects that they missed
 since the last time they sync-d.
Allan
From:  <> on behalf of Terry MacDonald
 <>
Date:  Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 5:45 PM
To:  John-Mark Gurney <>
Cc:  "Bret Jordan (CS)" <>,
 "" <>
Subject:  Re: [cti-taxii] More questions about tracking objects in collections
I agree. Only the latest version of a STIX object should be returned, and
 there should be a way for the client to explicitly ask for all versions
 if the client desires.
Cheers Terry MacDonald Cosive
On 25/01/2018 14:28, "John-Mark Gurney" <

>
 wrote: Bret Jordan wrote this message on Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:07 +0000:
> I have brought up a tangential question a bit ago, but I am still
 struggling with how to best address this.  I think the conclusion
 that we came do a few weeks back might in fact be wrong.....   I will
 do my best to try an explain the problem, at least the way I see it. > >
> 1) A TAXII Server will probably want to have a repository / database
 of STIX content >
> 2) A TAXII Collection will have some subset of the total objects in
 its collection >
> 3) A STIX object can be in multiple collections >
> 4) An object in a collection probably means all versions of that object.
 Meaning, you would probably not want to individually track all versions
 of an options in each collection. Which also means, if you update an object
 you probably want the update to be available in every collection that it
 is found in.  You can see the problem at scale, take 1 billion objects,
 1000 collections with 20% overlap of data. > >
> Now lets look at the following small data set (yes the ID is not a
 valid UUIDv4 and the ver is not a timestamp, but this is done to illustrate
 things): > >
> STIX Object Repo >
> indicator--1 ver 1, date_added 1999 >
> indicator--1 ver 2, date_added 2000 >
> indicator--1 ver 3, date_added 2001 >
> indicator--1 ver 4, date_added 2002 >
> indicator--1 ver 5, date_added 2003 >
> indicator--1 ver 6, date_added 2004 >
> indicator--1 ver 7, date_added 2005 >
> indicator--1 ver 8, date_added 2006 >
> indicator--1 ver 9, date_added 2007 >
> indicator--1 ver 10, date_added 2008 >
> indicator--1 ver 11, date_added 2009 >
> indicator--1 ver 12, date_added 2010 >
> indicator--2 ver 1, date_added 2011 >
> indicator--3 ver 1, date_added 2012 >
> indicator--4 ver 1, date_added 2013 >
> indicator--5 ver 1, date_added 2014 >
> indicator--6 ver 1, date_added 2015 >
> indicator--7 ver 1, date_added 2016 > >
> Collection 1 Repo >
> indicator--1, date_added 1999 >
> indicator--2, date_added 2011 >
> indicator--3, date_added 2012 >
> indicator--4, date_added 2013 >
> indicator--5, date_added 2014 >
> indicator--6, date_added 2015 >
> indicator--7, date_added 2016 > >
> 5) Now lets assume that the TAXII server is set to only send 5 objects.
 (this is done for illustration purposes) >
> 6) When the client makes its first request with an added_after URL
 of 1998 the client will get the records indicator--1 ver 1 through indicator--1
 ver 5 and the X-Headers will both be 1999. >
> 7) The second request will get weird, if you add for the added_after
 value of 1999 you will get the same records again or you will skip the
 remaining versions of indicator--1. > >
> You can obviously try and record the version (modified timestamp)
 in the collection table as well, but that will be an enormous amount of
 book keeping at scale and prone to error and problem.  The only way
 i can really see to solve this is to track the date_added by the time the
 object comes in to the collection, not the time it was actually added to
 the collection. > >
> So while we talked a few weeks ago about changing the text to say
 when an object was added to a collection, I think that might be in error.
  Otherwise it gets ugly. > >
> From a scale standpoint, think of collections with 100 million records
 or more and where some objects may be revisioned a 10,000 times.  I would say part of the problem is that multiple versions are returned. IMO, unless you set a special flag, only the latest version of an object should be returned.  That is an interesting point that if there are a large number of versions, that you can end up skipping them, and this is an issue.

--
John-Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php