The issue is it colliding *because* it is a mandatory path.
We define "/taxii" as a madatory path for TAXII 2, which means you can't use it for TAXII 1 (or anything else). So anyone who was already using "/taxii" for TAXII 1, can't implement TAXII 2 on the same host/vhost. This can be a real problem for folks with products who can not make any use of VHost tricks to work around it.
- 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: John-Mark Gurney <>
To: Jason Keirstead <>
Cc:
Date: 01/08/2018 09:30 PM
Subject: Re: [cti-taxii] TAXII 2 URLs and Mandatory Discovery URL
Jason Keirstead wrote this message on Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:15 -0400:
> Hi everyone. I raised these concerns on Slack at the tail end of 2017, but
> thought i should send to the list as everyone has probably forgotten about
> them at this point. >
> I am discovering some real implementation issues with TAXII 2 as it is
> defined today - namely around two things > > - The mandatory "/taxii" discovery root Is this an issue w/ colliding? or just that there is a mandatory path? The reason I asked, is that I voiced concern over this, and suggested that we register, and use the .well-known RFC5785[1] mechanism, and wonders if that would solve your problem? > - The fact that we do not specify if URLs can be relative, or if they must
> be absolute. Yes, this needs to be clarified, and looking at various web definitions doesn't make it clear with out we use the various terms.
> The issue is, the spec is written around the idea that someone hosting a
> TAXII 2 server > > - Knows their host name and web root > - Has full control over the root web server hosting TAXII > - The /taxii endpoint does not already exist Yes, this is a big problem w/ reverse proxies, which are common these days...
> None of these things are going to be true for a lot of implementations,
> where one is trying to add TAXII 2 support to an already existing product. > >
> For (a) and (b), these provisions make it extremely difficult to implement
> a generic TAXII 2 support library vs. a full blown server. I have run into
> this myself trying to port the MITRE Medallion service to a library. If
> the library does not know where it is running, then it can't construct the
> full URLs the spec is expecting to be present in the discovery response >
> For (c), If you have
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__my-5Fapi-5Fgateway_taxii&d=DwIBAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=9fBCbDJDV9Hq2aAJ9CHKi2xx_y0aMvVgH_msJcBjLCQ&s=S2PuT8me-kKvmULKNmsIVAP3lZ3fTaVD9prqlO5AqR8&e=
already in use on your
> system for TAXII 1, then you actually can not implement TAXII 2 unless you
> make your TAXII 2 API run on a totally different VHost... something that
> is not always possible, *especially* for systems that are not registered
> in DNS and thus can't use VHost tricks. Hmm... I thought that it was possible that you could run both at the same time as there was not a collision of names under /taxii, but I could be misremembering. [1]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5785&d=DwIBAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=k6Q07xZDujljzkKqZUfupXFUDIHGIiq-Sl_u1bw0hyA&m=9fBCbDJDV9Hq2aAJ9CHKi2xx_y0aMvVgH_msJcBjLCQ&s=Gban4ZMgCnh09viD_UllhwI1EHBvRR3R3yslO6n2apI&e=
--
John-Mark
