cti-taxii — archive

Re: [cti-taxii] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-taxii] Re: [External] [cti-taxii] New properties for TAXII 2.1

From: Mark Davidson
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:34:00 -0000

Personally I would go for a more generic policy structure. I like the concept overall, I would just push it one level of abstraction higher. Markings are just one kind of policy statement. Thank you. -Mark From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Bret Jordan <[email protected]> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:35 PM To: Jason Keirstead <[email protected]>, "Maxwell, Kyle R." <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [cti-taxii] Re: [EXT] Re: [cti-taxii] Re: [External] [cti-taxii] New properties for TAXII 2.1 That is a good option too. I do like the idea of doing some sort of client / server negotiations. Bret From: Jason Keirstead <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 6:07:37 AM To: Maxwell, Kyle R. Cc: Bret Jordan; [email protected] Subject: [EXT] Re: [cti-taxii] Re: [External] [cti-taxii] New properties for TAXII 2.1 My proposal was that it would be on the TAXII collection, not the objects. required_markings="TLP" on a collection means that every object submitted must contain a TLP marking, if it does not, it is rejected. - Jason Keirstead STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems www.ibm.com/security Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown From: "Maxwell, Kyle R." <[email protected]> To: Bret Jordan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 08/10/2017 06:29 PM Subject: [cti-taxii] Re: [External] [cti-taxii] New properties for TAXII 2.1 Sent by: <[email protected]> Is the intent that these properties live within TAXII or on the STIX objects themselves? From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Bret Jordan <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:51 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [External] [cti-taxii] New properties for TAXII 2.1 All, It has been proposed that we add some properties to collections to help identify what data markings are needed / supported in this collection. One driving aspect is with the upcoming IEP policy stuff. It has been proposed that we add something like the following two properties: supported_markings required_markings The property terms may need to be word smithed and we need to figure out how to best capture the data. But the question right now is, should we support this functionality on collections? If so, I will add them to the TAXII 2.1 working specification so that we can being work on what they will mean. Bret This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy. ______________________________________________________________________________________ www.accenture.com Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you may have received.