e.g. CybOX, MAEC, or CVE, CAPEC, CIQ...) into JSON schemas?
There needs to be one and only one on-the-wire serialization for the default
case which is probably 90+% maybe as high as 95+% of the market. There will
also need to be an option for an additional on-the-wire serialization to
support super high bandwidth conditions where something like Protobuf or
Cap-n-Proto would be the logical choice. If we do NOT have a default
serialization that everyone can just use and it just works (think DLNA for
security tools) then all of this is for not and we might as well go back to
our day jobs.
To be clear:
1) We need a high level format like UML to represent the data model. I
personally like UML as it is something that data modelers can live with and
developers / implementers can still use and understand. It also does not
require massively expensive modeling tools to look at or understand.
2) We need a very expressive and yet intuitive data model that is easy to
understand but allows rich documentation of threats, their relationships,
and sightings.
3) I personally do not believe we need a strict serialization binding from
the model to the on-the-wire format. A binding between UML and
JSON+JSONSchema is where we need to go.
4) My proposal is and has been: UML Data Model with JSON+JSONSchema
serialization with the option of Protobuf/Cap-n-Proto as a secondary
serialization.
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can
not be unscrambled is an egg."
I'm confused then. If the community is perfectly happy with an RDF/OWL w/UML
data model then that is all that is needed to use the RDF serializations. It
seems then the argument is creating additional JSON / JSONSchema on the wire
format in addition to the RDF serializations? Or is the community saying we
are ok with having an RDF/OWL w/ UML data model but you will prohibit the
community from using any of the existing RDF serializations designed to be
used with the data model?
I haven’t seen anybody suggest not having an abstract data model (either
via RDF, UML, or something else). Bret in particular has been careful to
maintain that we will base any serialization on a high-level model.
The question we’re tackling now is whether the on-the-wire MTI format
should be something tied directly to RDF, like JSON-LD, or something that's
indirectly tied to the high-level model via a binding specification, like
JSON with JSONSchema. Both approaches allow for an RDF-based analysis, it’s
just a question of whether an RDF-based serialization format is the best
approach for sharing data between tools when not all of them will want to do
RDF.
FWIW I’m waiting to see what Cory’s examples look like.
John
I just don't see why some here are moving away from the original plan of
moving from XML to an abstract data model like RDF. We had face to face
discussions on the topic and it's been discussed repeatedly since STIX
launched. The whole reason some have been promoting STIX internationally and
across the community was because this was the future direction. I certainly
don't want to throw away the last 4 years of work on CTI in RDF and the
significant advancement in analytic tradecraft it brings. I don’t see why
this should be positioned as an either-or decision. The desires of those
wanting simple JSON serializations should be fully possible within an
RDF-based modeling approach while still enabling us to support moving
forward the state of the practice for cyber threat analysts. Please help me
understand why after more than 4 years of discussing this transition from
XML to an RDF-based modeling approach that we now have people pushing to
move the CTI effort in another direction?
wrote:
Note that the JSON they provide is JSON-LD.
And they provide a _javascript_ example of accessing the JSON-LD:
Good resource. Thanks for sharing.
- Jasen.
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was:
MTI Binding)
I wanted to share a link (below) to a blog which talks about RDF
serialization formats and while this isn't STIX specific it does use real
for Communities and Local Government's official Linked Open Data website. As
I'm sure everyone is aware both the USA and UK governments have been
champions of RDF for several years now and continue to push for open data to
made available in RDF.
is from 2012 before the JSON-LD development but it should help those looking
for more RDF data then the US Government's 7000+ RDF open data sets.