cti-taxii — archive

[John-Mark Gurney]

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://my_api_gateway/taxii 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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785 -- John-Mark