Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[RFC] Threat intelligence #986

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 15, 2020
Merged

[RFC] Threat intelligence #986

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5d56bfb
0000-threat-intel.md
shimonmodi Sep 28, 2020
e548fb1
Update rfcs/0000-threat-intel.md
shimonmodi Oct 14, 2020
6313ef9
Update 0000-threat-intel.md
shimonmodi Oct 14, 2020
0a31e63
assigning rfc number and advancement date
ebeahan Oct 15, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
119 changes: 119 additions & 0 deletions rfcs/text/0008-threat-intel.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
# 0008: Cyber Threat Intelligence Fields
<!-- Leave this ID at 0000. The ECS team will assign a unique, contiguous RFC number upon merging the initial stage of this RFC. -->

- Stage: **0 (strawperson)** <!-- Update to reflect target stage. See https://elastic.github.io/ecs/stages.html -->
- Date: **2020-10-15** <!-- The ECS team sets this date at merge time. This is the date of the latest stage advancement. -->

Elastic Security Solution will be adding the capability to ingest, process and utilize threat intelligence information for increasing detection coverage and helping analysts making quicker investigation decisions. Threat intelligence can be collected from a number of sources with a variety of structured and semi-structured data representations. This makes threat intelligence an ideal candidate for ECS mappings. Threat intelligence data will require ECS mappings to normalize it and make it usable in our security solution. This RFC is focused on identifying new field sets and values that need to be created for threat intelligence data. Existing ECS field reuse will be prioritized where possible. If new fields are required we will utilize [STIX Cyber Observable data model](https://docs.oasis-open.org/cti/stix/v2.1/cs01/stix-v2.1-cs01.html#_mlbmudhl16lr) as guidance.

<!--
As you work on your RFC, use the "Stage N" comments to guide you in what you should focus on, for the stage you're targeting.
Feel free to remove these comments as you go along.
-->

<!--
Stage 0: Provide a high level summary of the premise of these changes. Briefly describe the nature, purpose, and impact of the changes. ~2-5 sentences.
-->

## Fields

<!--
Stage 1: Describe at a high level how this change affects fields. Which fieldsets will be impacted? How many fields overall? Are we primarily adding fields, removing fields, or changing existing fields? The goal here is to understand the fundamental technical implications and likely extent of these changes. ~2-5 sentences.
-->

<!--
Stage 2: Include new or updated yml field definitions for all of the essential fields in this draft. While not exhaustive, the fields documented here should be comprehensive enough to deeply evaluate the technical considerations of this change. The goal here is to validate the technical details for all essential fields and to provide a basis for adding experimental field definitions to the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting.
-->

<!--
Stage 3: Add or update all remaining field definitions. The list should now be exhaustive. The goal here is to validate the technical details of all remaining fields and to provide a basis for releasing these field definitions as beta in the schema. Use GitHub code blocks with yml syntax formatting.
-->

## Usage

<!--
Stage 1: Describe at a high-level how these field changes will be used in practice. Real world examples are encouraged. The goal here is to understand how people would leverage these fields to gain insights or solve problems. ~1-3 paragraphs.
-->

## Source data

<!--
Stage 1: Provide a high-level description of example sources of data. This does not yet need to be a concrete example of a source document, but instead can simply describe a potential source (e.g. nginx access log). This will ultimately be fleshed out to include literal source examples in a future stage. The goal here is to identify practical sources for these fields in the real world. ~1-3 sentences or unordered list.
-->

<!--
Stage 2: Included a real world example source document. Ideally this example comes from the source(s) identified in stage 1. If not, it should replace them. The goal here is to validate the utility of these field changes in the context of a real world example. Format with the source name as a ### header and the example document in a GitHub code block with json formatting.
-->

<!--
Stage 3: Add more real world example source documents so we have at least 2 total, but ideally 3. Format as described in stage 2.
-->

## Scope of impact

<!--
Stage 2: Identifies scope of impact of changes. Are breaking changes required? Should deprecation strategies be adopted? Will significant refactoring be involved? Break the impact down into:
* Ingestion mechanisms (e.g. beats/logstash)
* Usage mechanisms (e.g. Kibana applications, detections)
* ECS project (e.g. docs, tooling)
The goal here is to research and understand the impact of these changes on users in the community and development teams across Elastic. 2-5 sentences each.
-->

## Concerns

<!--
Stage 1: Identify potential concerns, implementation challenges, or complexity. Spend some time on this. Play devil's advocate. Try to identify the sort of non-obvious challenges that tend to surface later. The goal here is to surface risks early, allow everyone the time to work through them, and ultimately document resolution for posterity's sake.
-->

<!--
Stage 2: Document new concerns or resolutions to previously listed concerns. It's not critical that all concerns have resolutions at this point, but it would be helpful if resolutions were taking shape for the most significant concerns.
-->

<!--
Stage 3: Document resolutions for all existing concerns. Any new concerns should be documented along with their resolution. The goal here is to eliminate the risk of churn and instability by resolving outstanding concerns.
-->

<!--
Stage 4: Document any new concerns and their resolution. The goal here is to eliminate risk of churn and instability by ensuring all concerns have been addressed.
-->

## Real-world implementations

<!--
Stage 4: Identify at least one real-world, production-ready implementation that uses these updated field definitions. An example of this might be a GA feature in an Elastic application in Kibana.
-->

## People

The following are the people that consulted on the contents of this RFC.

@Shimon | author

<!--
Who will be or has consulted on the contents of this RFC? Identify authorship and sponsorship, and optionally identify the nature of involvement of others. Link to GitHub aliases where possible. This list will likely change or grow stage after stage.

e.g.:

* @Yasmina | author
* @Monique | sponsor
* @EunJung | subject matter expert
* @JaneDoe | grammar, spelling, prose
* @Mariana
-->


## References

[Threat Intel Field Set Draft](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hS3tF-sGmwnKb7uUGLo3Rng_q6EFgwo6UCae8Sp4E-g/edit?usp=sharing)
<!-- Insert any links appropriate to this RFC in this section. -->

### RFC Pull Requests

<!-- An RFC should link to the PRs for each of it stage advancements. -->

* Stage 0: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/986

<!--
* Stage 1: https://github.com/elastic/ecs/pull/NNN
...
-->