-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 120
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.
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
WD 05 SCO #285
WD 05 SCO #285
Conversation
Is there a reason why the process observable's ID is specified as:
instead of
|
No reason, that's just a relic of an old way I used to separate the Process SCO from the other SCOs when it came time to creating a deterministic ID (since Process doesn't use deterministic IDs). I've added the spec_version back in. Thanks for catching that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some common properties we need to add to all SCOs: spec_version, object_marking_refs, granular_markings, defanged.
EmailMessage is missing the message_id
property.
Also, in 2.1 *_ref[s] properties now contain identifiers rather than object-refs. So for example instead of "resolves_to_refs": ["1"]
it would be "resolves_to_refs": ["ipv4-addr--<uuid>"]
.
…nd more fixes coming soon
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## stix2.1 #285 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 99.01% 98.09% -0.92%
===========================================
Files 121 123 +2
Lines 12924 13409 +485
===========================================
+ Hits 12797 13154 +357
- Misses 127 255 +128
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @khdesai!
No description provided.