[IntelMQ-users] Classification of malware itself in IntelMQ

[Sebastian Wagner]

Hi,

Thanks Filip for sharing your opinion.

As there were no further comments on this topic, I'll implement option 2.

Sebastian

On 2/24/21 10:32 AM, Filip Pokorny wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
>> I'm currently in favor of option 2), as we can keep the meaning of "Malicious Code" in sync with the RSIT and still support the use-case sufficiently. But my opinion could change during the discussion :)
> I agree. This combined with "malware.name", "malware.version" and
> "malware.hash" seems good enough to describe malware for the IntelMQ
> use-case.
>
> Best Regards,
> Filip
>
>
> On 2/22/21 11:24 AM, Sebastian Wagner wrote:
>> Dear IntelMQ community,
>>
>> sorry for cross-posting, but I think this topic should be discussed in a
>> wider group.
>>
>> IntelMQ always followed the Reference Security Incident Taxonomy (short:
>> RSIT)[0] and its predecessor for its 'classification.taxonomy/type'
>> fields. The Classification column in the RSIT corresponds to our
>> "classification.taxonomy" field, and the RSIT's second column (currently
>> called Incident examples) corresponds to our "classification.type"
>> field. "classification.identifier" is an optional third level free-text
>> field to give more specific context.[1]
>>
>> Due to historical reasons and changes on both sides - IntelMQ as well as
>> the RSIT -, IntelMQ's classification scheme deviated a bit from the RSIT
>> over time. I'm working on aligning them again for 3.0, which works
>> straightforward in most cases. But for one case, I need your input.
>>
>> The predecessor of the RSIT (the eCSIRT.net taxonomy)[2] used the
>> malicious code taxonomy differently: To classify malware itself into
>> categories, like virus, worm, trojan, etc. The RSIT never did that, as
>> classifying malware is never unambiguous and there are plenty of
>> existing classification scheme out there, which do this already. Also,
>> the focus of the RSIT is different, as it classifies the
>> incidents/events, not malware samples.
>>
>> And for this reason, IntelMQ had (until < 3.0.0) the classification.type
>> "malware" in IntelMQ. Most of the usages were wrong anyway, and should
>> have been infected-device, malware-distribution or something else
>> anyway. There is only one usage in IntelMQ, which can not be changed.
>> And that one is really about malware itself (or: the hashes of samples)
>> as used in the GitHub Feed parser[3] and the FireEye Parser[4]. But the
>> issue is more generic, as we need to decide anyway, how we want to deal
>> with such malware-IoCs.
>>
>> A malware (hash) does not fit into the RSIT. It's neither an Infected
>> System, a C2 Server, Malware Distribution nor Malware Configuration.
>> It's just a malware (hash). I see four options:
>>
>> 1) Deviate from the RSIT and just use 'classification.taxonomy' =
>> 'Malicious Code' and 'classification.type' = 'malware'
>> 2) Deviate slightly less from the RSIT and use 'classification.taxonomy'
>> = 'other' and 'classification.type' = 'malware'
>> 3) Adhere strictly to the RSIT and use 'classification.taxonomy' =
>> 'other' and 'classification.type' = 'other' and
>> "classification.identifier" = 'malware'
>> 4) IntelMQ does not support this use case
>>
>> In cases 1) and 2) "classification.identifier" could be used to specify
>> what the event is about, e.g. "hash", or the malware family.
>>
>> I'm currently in favor of option 2), as we can keep the meaning of
>> "Malicious Code" in sync with the RSIT and still support the use-case
>> sufficiently. But my opinion could change during the discussion :)
>>
>> Do you see any more options than I listed above? What do you favor?
>>
>> best regards
>> Sebastian
>>
>> [0]:
>> https://github.com/enisaeu/Reference-Security-Incident-Taxonomy-Task-Force/blob/5479e71/working_copy/humanv1.md
>> [1]:
>> https://intelmq.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dev/data-harmonization.html#classification
>> [2]: https://www.trusted-introducer.org/Incident-Classification-Taxonomy.pdf
>> [3]:
>> https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/blob/f7507ca2643fe8ddb3817c9be1209504ef8cc1f9/intelmq/bots/parsers/github_feed/parser.py
>> [4]: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/pull/1745
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> // Sebastian Wagner <wagner at cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7201
>> // CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/
>> // Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/
>> // Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IntelMQ-dev mailing list
>> IntelMQ-dev at lists.cert.at
>> https://lists.cert.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/intelmq-dev
>>
-- 
// Sebastian Wagner <wagner at cert.at> - T: +43 1 5056416 7201
// CERT Austria - https://www.cert.at/
// Eine Initiative der nic.at GmbH - https://www.nic.at/
// Firmenbuchnummer 172568b, LG Salzburg


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.cert.at/pipermail/intelmq-users/attachments/20210308/347e34db/attachment.sig>