The Incident Detection Message Exchange Format version 2 (IDMEFv2)
draft-lehmann-idmefv2-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gilles Lehmann , Thomas Andrejak , Francois Poirotte | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-lehmann-idmefv2-00
Network Working Group G. Lehmann
Internet-Draft Telecom Sud Paris
Obsoletes: 4765 (if approved) T. Andrejak
Intended status: Standards Track F. Poirotte
Expires: 18 April 2023 CS GROUP
15 October 2022
The Incident Detection Message Exchange Format version 2 (IDMEFv2)
draft-lehmann-idmefv2-00
Abstract
The Incident Detection Message Exchange Format version 2 (IDMEFv2)
provides a way to describe any incidents detected on cyber and/or
physical infrastructures.
The format is agnostic so it can be used in standalone or combined
cyber (SIEM), physical (PSIM) and availability (NMS) monitoring
systems. IDMEFv2 can also be used to describe cyber and physical
potential threats (CTI/PTI).
IDMEFv2 improves situational awareness by facilitating correlation of
multiple types of events using the same base format thus enabling
efficient detection of complex and combined cyber and physical
attacks on critical infrastructures.
If approved this draft will obsolete RFC4765.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 April 2023.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Issues and limitations in RFC 4765 . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Changes from RFC 4765 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. About the JSON serialization method . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Relationship between IDMEFv2 and other event/incident
formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Normative sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Concepts related to event processing . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. Alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.4. Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.5. Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.6. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. The IDMEF Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Floating-point values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Enumerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. Timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3. Geographical Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.4. UNECE Location Codes (UN/LOCODE) . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.5. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.6. IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.7. E-mail addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.8. Attachment and Observable names . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.9. Media types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.10. Universally Unique IDentifiers (UUIDs) . . . . . . . 13
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
3.3.11. Protocol Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.12. IDMEF Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.13. Hashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. The IDMEF Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. The Alert Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. The Analyzer Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4. The Sensor Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.5. The Source Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.6. The Target Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.7. The Vector Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.8. The Attachment Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.9. The Observable Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.10. The JavaScript Object Notation Serialization Method . . . 49
4.11. Attributes completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.1. Physical intrusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.2. Cyberattack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.3. Server outage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.4. Combined incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix B. JSON Validation Schema (Non-normative) . . . . . . . 68
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1. Introduction
Today's threats are a result of hybrid attacks targeting both
physical and cyber assets. The adoption and integration of Internet
of Things (IoT) and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) devices have
led to an increasingly interconnected mesh of cyber-physical systems
(CPS), which expands the attack surface and blurs the once clear
functions of cybersecurity and physical security. Meanwhile, efforts
to build cyber resilience and accelerate the adoption of advanced
technologies can also introduce or exacerbate security risks in this
evolving threat landscape.
In the meantime, although security is often presented as the
Confidentiality-Integrity-Availability triad, performance and
availability management systems are still run independently from
security management systems making global correlation difficult.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
The Incident Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF) is intended to
be a standard data format that incident detection systems can use to
report alerts about events that they deem noticeable. The format
enables interoperability among commercial, open source, and research
systems, allowing users to mix-and-match the deployment of these
systems according to their strong and weak points to obtain an
optimal implementation.
The Incident Detection Message Exchange Format is a format for
representing different types of events:
* Cyber-security events (e.g. authentication failure/success, virus/
malware detection, bruteforce/scan detection, etc.)
* Physical security events (e.g. intrusion detection, object
detection, face or activity recognition, fire/smoke/noise/rain
detection, etc.)
* Availability/observability/performance events (e.g. system
failure, service malfunction, performance decrease, etc.)
* Natural hazards events (e.g. wildfires, avalanches, droughts,
earthquakes, etc.)
+-----------------------------+ +---------+
| "Universal" SI(E)M |<---| PTI/CTI |
+-----------------------------+ +---------+
| | |
+------+ +-----+ +------+
Managers | PSIM | | NMS | | SIEM |
+------+ +-----+ +------+
| | |
+--------+ +----------+ +-----+
Detectors/Sensors |Physical| |Monitoring| |Cyber|
+--------+ +----------+ +-----+
| | |
+-------------------------------+
| Critical Infrastructure |
+-------------------------------+
Figure 1: IDMEF Use Architecture
IDMEF improves situational awareness by enabling correlation of
multiple types of events using the same base format.
This document defines a model for the purpose of describing these
events. It also defines serialization methods so that such messages
can be exchanged between Computer Security Incident Response Teams
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
(CSIRTs) or those responsible for security incident handling for
service providers (SPs). The defined serializations make it easy for
CSIRTs to exchange data in a way that is both easy and secure for
machines to parse.
1.1. Issues and limitations in RFC 4765
The original IDMEF (version 1) RFC [RFC4765] was specifically
designed to describe alerts related to cyber intrusions. As such,
its data model makes it hard to describe other types of (cyber)
incidents.
IDMEF v1 defines many classes and attributes, adding a lot of
complexity. Some constructs (e.g. use of recursive Analyzer
instances, unlimited usage of the Linkage class, etc.) make the
implementators' job hard.
RFC 4765 uses the Extensible Markup Language (XML) to describe IDMEF
classes and attributes, using an XML Document Type Definition. It
does not specify however if the XML representation of IDMEF messages
must be used when exchanging messages with other systems/tools. In
practice, this lack of a requirement means that competiting
implementations may use incompatible protocols to do so.
In addition, XML suffers from a number of specific flaws which can be
easy to overlook and difficult to address depending on the tooling
used:
* XML External Entity (XXE) vulnerabilities may be used to include
external (potentially remote) content inside the XML document
during processing. This may impact the integrity of the IDMEF
messages, result in unintentional information disclosure, etc.
* XInclude processing may result in the inclusion of potentially
remote content, similar to the XXE vulnerability above.
* XML Entity bombs like the so-called "Billion laughs" attack can
result in a denial of service against IDMEF processors by
exhausting the system's CPU and memory resources.
As such, the use of XML as an exchange format can be problematic.
1.2. Changes from RFC 4765
Several changes have been made compared to the original IDMEF v1 RFC
[RFC4765]:
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
* The first version of IDMEF (i.e. the Intrusion Detection Message
Exchange Format) was specifically designed to describe only alerts
related to cyber intrusions. This document redefines IDMEF as the
"Incident Detection Message Exchange Format".
This change is made to include other sources of incidents that may
impact a company's security. For instance, the failure of a
service may be due to a physical intrusion followed by sabotage,
some hardware failure, a natural disaster, etc., or to a
combination of several types of incidents.
As an intrusion is only part of the incidents that IDMEF v2
intends to describe, it makes sense to allow IDMEF to address a
broader scope. In addition, this means that this documents is
semantically backward compatible with the former RFC.
* Simplicity and ease of adoption have been preferred over
completeness and complexity. As a result of this simplification,
the number of classes and attributes has been reduced. Moreover,
the model has been reworked to limit the depth of classes to two
levels.
* A "Sensor" class has been added to help distinguish detection
systems made of a separate detector and analyzer (e.g. a camera
recording a video feed and the backend server/software component
analyzing this feed).
* An "Attachment" class has been added to attach additional data to
the alert (e.g. a video clip, a malware sample, etc.).
* The "Observable" and "Vector" classes have been added to describe
the attack vectors and observable effects/measurements related to
the incident.
* The Hearbeat class has been abandonned.
1.3. About the JSON serialization method
Although the IDMEF data model strives to be independent from any
particular representation, such a serialization is necessary if IDMEF
is to be used as an exchange format. Moreover, an interoperable
serialization scheme is required for compatibility reasons.
This document describes a serialization method for IDMEF messages
based on the JavaScript Object Notation [RFC8259]. This choice is
motivated by the following factors:
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
* The format is already largely used inside the cybersecurity
community, e.g. to replace the syslog format for log shopping. It
thus lowers the level of entry for implementors.
* JSON is often seen as a simpler format compared to XML, from both
an implementor's and user's point of view. Because of the way XML
works, XML documents are usually larger than JSON ones when
representing the same content, due for example to the use of
namespaces and the repetition of the elements' tag name inside the
markup.
* An effort has been made to make IDMEF useable from end to end,
i.e. from the incident detectors to the operator. IDMEF messages
must therefore be easy to store in a database, especially NoSQL
databases which are often used to store very large amounts of
data. JSON is a good format for native NoSQL storage.
In contrast, the authors acknowledge that:
* JSON may suffer from issues of its own. For instance, string
processing may require additional normalization steps (e.g. when
comparing two JSON strings). and two JSON parsers may handle
duplicate members inside a JSON object differently. These
concerns are largely covered in [RFC8259] and in this document's
Security Considerations (Section 6).
* Other formats similar to JSON could also fit this role (e.g.
YAML, TOML). Those formats are less widely used by incident
management tools and operators. They may also introduce
vulnerabilities and incompatibilities of their own (e.g. there are
multiple versions of YAML, a YAML document may call
implementation-specific functions used "tags", etc.). In
addition, most of those formats focus on human-readability, while
for the purpose of IDMEF, the main objectives are performance and
security.
1.4. Relationship between IDMEFv2 and other event/incident formats
IDMEFv1 : IDMEFv2 (Incident Detection) replaces and obsoletes IDMEFv1
(Intrusion Detection) by covering a wider spectrum.
IODEFv2 : IDMEFv2 helps detect incident that will after be fully
described with IODEFv2. IDMEF is used upstream IODEFv2.
Syslog : IDMEFv2 can be used as an alternative to syslog for
detectors needing to log detailed information of an event and/or an
incident.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
SNMP : SNMP polls information from devices which is then compared to
thresholds to detect incident. IDMEFv2 can be used when incident is
detected downstream of SNMP. IDMEFv2 can have a similar role as SNMP
Traps.
STIX : IDMEFv2 can help gathering information for creation of CTI.
SIEM propriatory formats (CEF, LEEF, ECS, CIM, ...) : By covering
physical and monitoring incident type, IDMEFv2 offers a wider
spectrum than those formats. Gateways between IDMEFv2 and those
formats can be developped.
2. Terminology
2.1. Keywords
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Normative sections
Implementations of IDMEFv2 are REQUIRED to fully implement:
* The data types defined in Section 3
* The data model defined in Section 4
* The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) serialization method
Section 4.10.
2.3. Concepts related to event processing
2.3.1. Event
An event is something that triggered a notice. Any incident starts
off as an event or a combination of events, but not all events result
in an incident. An event need not be an indication of wrongdoing.
E.g. someone successfully logging in or entering a building is an
event.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
2.3.2. Incident
An incident is an event that compromises or has a significant
probability of compromising at least one of the organization's
security criteria such as Confidentiality, Integrity or Availability.
An incident may affect a production tool, personnel, etc. It may be
logical, physical or organizational in nature. Last but not least,
an incident may be caused on purpose or by accident.
2.3.3. Alert
An alert is a notification/message that a particular event/incident
(or series of events/incidents) has occurred.
2.3.4. Attack
An attack is an attempt to destroy, expose, alter, disable, steal or
gain unauthorized access to or make unauthorized use of a cyber or
physical asset. An attack is one or many kinds of incidents.
2.3.5. Correlation
Correlation is the identification of relationships between two or
more events.
2.3.6. Aggregation
Aggregation is the consolidation of similar events into a single
event.
3. The IDMEF Data Types
Each object inside the IDMEF data model has an associated data type.
This type may be used to validate the content of incoming IDMEF
messages.
3.1. Classes
The classes are meant to group related attributes together. Some of
the classes may be instanciated multiple times (e.g. Source, Target,
etc.) while others may only appear once in an IDMEF message (e.g.
Analyzer).
3.2. Numbers
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
3.2.1. Integers
Integers inside the IDMEF data model are expressed using the
following ABNF [RFC5234] grammar:
integer = *1minus int
int = zero / ( digit1-9 *DIGIT )
minus = %x2D ; -
zero = %0x30 ; 0
digit1-9 = %x31-39 ; 1-9
E.g. 123.
Such values are indicated with the "INT" type annotation in the
model.
3.2.2. Floating-point values
Floating-point values inside the IDMEF data model are expressed using
the following ABNF grammar:
float = integer *1frac
frac = decimal-point 1*DIGIT
decimal-point = %x2E ; .
This grammar reuses some of the production rules listed in
Section 3.2.1.
E.g. 12.34.
Such values are indicated with the "FLOAT" type annotation in the
model.
3.3. Strings
Strings are series of characters from the [UNICODE] standard and are
used to represent a text.
For readability, this document uses quotes (") to delimit strings,
but please note that these quotes are not syntactically part of the
actual strings.
E.g. "Hello world".
Some of the strings used in the IDMEFv2 data model follow a stricter
syntax. These are included below for completeness.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Such values are indicated with the "STRING" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.1. Enumerations
Enumerations are special strings used when valid values for an IDMEF
attribute are restricted to those present in a predefined list.
Such values are indicated with the "ENUM" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.2. Timestamps
Timestamps are used to indicate a specific moment in time. The
timestamps used in the IDMEF data model follow the syntax defined by
the "date-time" production rule of the grammar in [RFC3339] ch 5.6.
E.g. "1985-04-12T23:59:59.52Z" represents a moment just before April
5th, 1985 in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
Such values are indicated with the "TIMESTAMP" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.3. Geographical Locations
Some attributes inside the IDMEF data model may refer to geographical
locations using a set of coordinates. The reference system for all
geographical coordinates is a geographic coordinate reference system,
using the World Geodetic System 1984 [WGS84]. The reference system
used is the same as for the Global Positioning System (GPS).
The format for such values can be either "latitude,longitude" or
"latitude,longitude,altitude". Each of these coordinates is
represented as a floating-point value. The latitude and longitude
are expressed in degrees while the altitude is expressed in meters.
E.g. "48.8584,2.2945,276.13" matches the (3-dimensional) geographical
location for the top floor or the Eiffel Tower located in Paris,
France, while "48.8584,2.2945" matches the same location in two
dimensions (with the altitude removed).
Such values are indicated with the "GEOLOC" type annotation in the
model.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
3.3.4. UNECE Location Codes (UN/LOCODE)
Some attributes inside the IDMEF data model may refer to geographical
locations using Locations Codes. These codes can be assimilated to
an enumeration, where the list of possible values is defined in the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Codes for Trade
[UN-LOCODE].
E.g. "FR PAR" is the Location Code for the city of Paris, France.
Such values are indicated with the "UNLOCODE" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.5. Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
The IDMEF data model uses Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), as
defined in [RFC3986], when referring to external resources. Unless
otherwise specified, either a Uniform Resource Location (URL) or a
Uniform Resource Name (URN) may be used where a URI is expected.
E.g. both "https://example.com/resource" and "urn:myapp:resource" are
valid Uniform Resource Identifiers.
Such values are indicated with the "URI" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.6. IP Addresses
IP addresses inside the IDMEF data model are expressed as strings
using the traditionnal dotted-decimal notation for IPv4 addresses
(defined by the "dotnum" production rule in the grammar in
[RFC5321]), while IPv6 addresses are expressed using the text
representation defined in [RFC4291] ch 2.2.
E.g. "192.0.2.1" represents a valid IPv4 address, while "::1/128"
represents a valid IPv6 address.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations follow the recommendations for
IPv6 text representation stated in [RFC5952].
Such values are indicated with the "IP" type annotation in the model.
3.3.7. E-mail addresses
E-mail addresses inside the IDMEF data model are expressed as strings
using the address specification syntax defined in [RFC5322] ch 3.4.1.
E.g. "root@example.com".
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Such values are indicated with the "EMAIL" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.8. Attachment and Observable names
Attachments and Observables inside the IDMEF data model are
identified using a unique name, composed of a string whose character
set is limited to the ASCII letters (A-Z a-z) and digits (0-9).
E.g. "state" is a valid name for an attachment or an observable.
The constraint on name unicity is enforced per class. That is, it is
perfectly okay for an attachment and an observable to use the same
name, but it is not possible for two attachments or two observables
to share the same name.
Such values are indicated with the "ID" type annotation in the model.
3.3.9. Media types
Media types are used in the IDMEF data model to describe an
attachment's content. The syntax for such values is defined in
[RFC2046].
IANA keeps a list of all currently registered media types in the
Media Types registry .
E.g. "application/xml" or "text/plain; charset=utf-8".
Such values are indicated with the "MEDIATYPE" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.10. Universally Unique IDentifiers (UUIDs)
Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) are used to uniquely identify
IDMEF messages. It is also possible for an IDMEF message to
reference other IDMEF messages using their UUIDs. The syntax for
UUIDs is defined in [RFC4122].
To limit the risk of UUID collisions, implementors SHOULD NOT
generate version 4 UUIDs (randomly or pseudo-randomly generated
UUIDs).
E.g. "ba2e4ef4-8719-42bb-a712-d6e8871c5c5a".
UUIDs are case-insensitive when used in comparisons.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Such values are indicated with the "UUID" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.11. Protocol Names
Such values are indicated with the "PROTOCOL" type annotation in the
model.
3.3.12. IDMEF Paths
This document defines a way to represent the path to every possible
attribute inside an IDMEF message. For conciseness, the top-level
"Alert" class is omitted from the path.
This representation can be used in contexts where the path to an
IDMEF attribute is expected. An example of such usage can be seen in
the definition of the "AggrCondition" attribute inside the Alert
class (Section 4.2).
The syntax for these IDMEF paths is expressed in the following ABNF
grammar:
class-name = "Analyzer" / "Sensor" / "Source" / "Target" /
"Vector" / "Observable" / "Attachment"
attribute-name = 1*ALPHA
class-reference = class-name "."
num = *1"-" 1*DIGIT
list-index = "(" num ")"
path = *1class-reference attribute-name *1list-index
Valid attribute names are limited to those defined for the specified
class-reference (or in the top-level "Alert" class if class-reference
is omitted).
For example, the following path refers to the "CeaseTime" attribute
of the top-level "Alert" class: "CeaseTime".
Likewise, the following path refers to the "Name" attribute of the
"Analyzer" class: "Analyzer.Name".
For attributes defined as lists (see Section 3.4), the path may
include the (0-based) index for an entry inside the list. The index
defaults to 0 if omitted. This means that several (valid)
representations may be used to reference the same IDMEF attribute
when list attributes are involved.
For example, both of the following paths refer to the IP address of
the first source associated with an IDMEF message:
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Source.IP
Source(0).IP
Compatible implementations MUST reject paths that reference an
unknown class, an unknown attribute, or use a list-index for an IDMEF
field which is not defined as a list.
A compatible implementation MUST also normalize paths before
comparing them (e.g. by stripping the text "(0)" from paths referring
to list attributes).
3.3.13. Hashes
Hashes are sometimes used inside the data model to protect the
integrity (and optionally, authenticity) of attachments.
The syntax for these values is "function:hash_result", where
"function" refers to one of the hashing function names listed in and
"hash_result" contains the hexadecimal notation for the hash result
obtained by calling the specified hash function on the input value.
In the context of IDMEF, either a keyless or keyed hash function may
be used to process the raw input value.
E.g. "sha256:a02735ed8b10ad432d557bd4849c0dac3b23d64706e0618716d6df2d
ef338374"
Hashes are case-insensitive when used in comparisons.
Such values are indicated with the "HASH" type annotation in the
model.
3.4. Lists
Some attributes of the IDMEF data model accept ordered lists of
values.
Such ordered lists are indicated with the "X[]" type annotation in
the model. where "X" refers to one of the data types defined in
Section 3. For example, "ENUM[]" refers to an ordered list of
enumeration values.
4. The IDMEF Data Model
In this section, the individual components of the IDMEF data model
will be discussed in detail. For each class, the semantics will be
described.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
4.1. Overview
An IDMEF message is composed of an instance of the Alert class
(Section 4.2) representing the overall properties of the message. It
also contains exactly one instance of the Analyzer class
(Section 4.3) and zero or more instances of the Sensor class
(Section 4.4).
The message may also describe various aspects of an incident using
the Source (Section 4.5), Target (Section 4.6) and Vector
(Section 4.7) classes.
Last but not least, it may also include zero or more instances of the
Attachment class (Section 4.8), e.g. captured files or network
packets related to the event, as well as zero or more instances of
the Observable class (Section 4.9) containing information that may
help in understanding and analyzing the event, such as a description
of running processes at the time the event occurred, a description of
the targeted machine's configuration, etc.
The relationship between the main Alert class and other classes of
the data model is shown in Figure 2 (attributes are omitted for
clarity).
+-------+ +-------------
| Alert |<>----------| Analyzer |
+-------+ +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Sensor |
| | +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Source |
| | +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Target |
| | +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Vector |
| | +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Observable |
| | +------------+
| | 0..* +------------+
| |<>----------| Attachment |
+-------+ +------------+
Figure 2: IDMEFv2 Classes
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
It is important to note that the data model does not specify how an
alert should be categorized or identified. For example, an attacker
scanning a network for machines listening on a specific port may be
identified by one analyzer as a single attack against multiple
targets, while another analyzer may identify it as multiple attacks
from a single source. However, once an analyzer has determined the
type of alert it plans on sending, the data model dictates how that
alert should be formatted.
4.2. The Alert Class
The Alert class contains high level information about the event that
triggered the alert.
+---------------------------+
| Alert |
+---------------------------+
| STRING Version |
| UUID ID |
| STRING Entity |
| ENUM[] Category |
| ENUM Cause |
| STRING Description |
| ENUM Status |
| ENUM Severity |
| FLOAT Confidence |
| STRING Note |
| TIMESTAMP CreateTime |
| TIMESTAMP StartTime |
| TIMESTAMP CeaseTime |
| TIMESTAMP DeleteTime |
| STRING[] AltNames |
| STRING[] AltCategory |
| URI[] Ref |
| UUID[] CorrelID |
| CONDITION[] AggrCondition |
| UUID[] PredID |
| UUID[] RelID |
+---------------------------+
Figure 3: The Alert class
The aggregate classes that make up Alert are:
Analyzer
Exactly one. An instance of the Analyzer class (Section 4.3) that
describes the tool/device responsible for the analysis that
resulted in the alert being sent.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Sensor
Zero or more. Instances of the Sensor class (Section 4.4) used to
describe the sensor(s) that captured the information used during
the analysis.
Depending on the tools/devices used to detect incidents, an
Analyzer may rely on the output from a single sensor or from
multiple sensors to generate alerts. In addition, the Analyzer
and Sensor may actually be part of the same physical device and
may share some of their attributes (e.g. IP, Hostname, Model,
etc.).
Source
Zero or more. Instances of the Source class (Section 4.5) used to
describe the source(s) of the incident (e.g. attackers, faulty
device, etc.).
Target
Zero or more. Instances of the Target class (Section 4.6) used to
describe the target(s) of the incident, i.e. the impacted
devices/users/services.
Vector
Zero or more. Instances of the Vector class (Section 4.7) used to
describe the means which were employed by the sources to disrupt
the targets.
E.g. to describe a car crashing into a building and resulting in
service loss.
Observable
Zero or more. Instances of the Observable class (Section 4.9)
used to describe a feature or phenomenon that can be observed or
measured for the purposes of detecting malicious behavior.
This may include anything that may help security analysts in their
understanding and analysis of the incident.
If the information is available as an electronic file, the
Attachment class (Section 4.8) SHOULD be used instead.
Attachment
Zero or more. Instances of the Attachment class (Section 4.8)
used to describe the electronic artifacts captured in relation
with the incident.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
The intent of the Attachment class is to keep track of the
electronic files left as a trail during the incident. This may
include things like on-disk files (e.g. malware samples), network
packet captures, videos or still images from a camera feed, etc.
If the information is not readily-available as an electronic file,
consider using the Observable class (Section 4.9) instead.
The Alert class has the following attributes:
Version
Mandatory. The version of the IDMEF format in use by this alert.
For this version of the IDMEF specification, this is the constant
string "2.0".
ID
Mandatory. Unique identifier for the alert.
Entity
Optional. Tenant ID to support multi-tenancy (e.g. decentralized
infrastructure, local agency, subsidiary company, etc.).
Should be used when there are multiple sites/locations or multiple
tenants (e.g. by Managed Security Services Providers).
Category
Optional. The incident's category & subcategory as listed in
[ENISA-RIST] using the format "category.subcategory" (e.g.
"Attempt.Exploit").
+======+===========================+=============================+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+===========================+=============================+
| 0 | Abusive.Spam | Or 'Unsolicited Bulk |
| | | Email', this means that |
| | | the recipient has not |
| | | granted verifiable |
| | | permission for the message |
| | | to be sent and that the |
| | | message is sent as part of |
| | | a larger collection of |
| | | messages, all having a |
| | | functionally comparable |
| | | content. This IOC refers |
| | | to resources, which make |
| | | up a SPAM infrastructure, |
| | | be it a harvesters like |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | address verification, URLs |
| | | in spam e-mails etc. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 1 | Abusive.Harassment | Discretization or |
| | | discrimination of |
| | | somebody, e.g. cyber |
| | | stalking, racism or |
| | | threats against one or |
| | | more individuals. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 2 | Abusive.Illicit | Child Sexual Exploitation |
| | | (CSE), Sexual content, |
| | | glorification of violence, |
| | | etc. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 3 | Malicious.System | System infected with |
| | | malware, e.g. PC, |
| | | smartphone or server |
| | | infected with a rootkit. |
| | | Most often this refers to |
| | | a connection to a |
| | | sinkholed C2 server |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 4 | Malicious.Botnet | Command-and-control server |
| | | contacted by malware on |
| | | infected systems. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 5 | Malicious.Distribution | URI used for malware |
| | | distribution, e.g. a |
| | | download URL included in |
| | | fake invoice malware spam |
| | | or exploit-kits (on |
| | | websites). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 6 | Malicious.Configuration | URI hosting a malware |
| | | configuration file, e.g. |
| | | web-injects for a banking |
| | | trojan. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 7 | Recon.Scanning | Attacks that send requests |
| | | to a system to discover |
| | | weaknesses. This also |
| | | includes testing processes |
| | | to gather information on |
| | | hosts, services and |
| | | accounts. Examples: |
| | | fingerd, DNS querying, |
| | | ICMP, SMTP (EXPN, RCPT, |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | ...), port scanning. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 8 | Recon.Sniffing | Observing and recording of |
| | | network traffic |
| | | (wiretapping). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 9 | Recon.SocialEngineering | Gathering information from |
| | | a human being in a non- |
| | | technical way (e.g. lies, |
| | | tricks, bribes, or |
| | | threats). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 10 | Attempt.Exploit | An attempt to compromise a |
| | | system or to disrupt any |
| | | service by exploiting |
| | | vulnerabilities with a |
| | | standardised identifier |
| | | such as CVE name (e.g. |
| | | buffer overflow, backdoor, |
| | | cross site scripting, |
| | | etc.) |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 11 | Attempt.Login | Multiple login attempts |
| | | (Guessing / cracking of |
| | | passwords, brute force). |
| | | This IOC refers to a |
| | | resource, which has been |
| | | observed to perform brute- |
| | | force attacks over a given |
| | | application protocol. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 12 | Attempt.NewSignature | An attack using an unknown |
| | | exploit. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 13 | Intrusion.AdminCompromise | Compromise of a system |
| | | where the attacker gained |
| | | administrative privileges. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 14 | Intrusion.UserCompromise | Compromise of a system |
| | | using an unprivileged |
| | | (user/service) account. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 15 | Intrusion.AppCompromise | Compromise of an |
| | | application by exploiting |
| | | (un-)known software |
| | | vulnerabilities, e.g. SQL |
| | | injection. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| 16 | Intrusion.SysCompromise | Compromise of a system, |
| | | e.g. unauthorised logins |
| | | or commands. This |
| | | includes compromising |
| | | attempts on honeypot |
| | | systems. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 17 | Intrusion.Burglary | Physical intrusion, e.g. |
| | | into corporate building or |
| | | data-centre. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 18 | Availability.DoS | Denial of Service attack, |
| | | e.g. sending specially |
| | | crafted requests to a web |
| | | application which causes |
| | | the application to crash |
| | | or slow down. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 19 | Availability.DDoS | Distributed Denial of |
| | | Service attack, e.g. SYN- |
| | | Flood or UDP-based |
| | | reflection/amplification |
| | | attacks. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 20 | Availability.Misconf | Software misconfiguration |
| | | resulting in service |
| | | availability issues, e.g. |
| | | DNS server with outdated |
| | | DNSSEC Root Zone KSK. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 21 | Availability.Theft | Physical theft, e.g. |
| | | stolen laptop computer, |
| | | stolen USB key, stolen |
| | | paper document, etc. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 22 | Availability.Sabotage | Physical sabotage, e.g |
| | | cutting wires or malicious |
| | | arson. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 23 | Availability.Outage | Outage caused e.g. by air |
| | | condition failure or |
| | | natural disaster. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 24 | Availability.Failure | Failure, malfunction (e.g. |
| | | : bug, wear, faults, etc.) |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 25 | Information. | Unauthorised access to |
| | UnauthorizedAccess | information, e.g. by |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | abusing stolen login |
| | | credentials for a system |
| | | or application, |
| | | intercepting traffic or |
| | | gaining access to physical |
| | | documents. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 26 | Information. | Unauthorised modification |
| | UnauthorizedModification | of information, e.g. by an |
| | | attacker abusing stolen |
| | | login credentials for a |
| | | system or application or a |
| | | ransomware encrypting |
| | | data. Also includes |
| | | defacements. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 27 | Information.DataLoss | Loss of data, e.g. caused |
| | | by harddisk failure or |
| | | physical theft. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 28 | Information.DataLeak | Leaked confidential |
| | | information like |
| | | credentials or personal |
| | | data. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 29 | Fraud.UnauthorizedUsage | Using resources for |
| | | unauthorised purposes |
| | | including profit-making |
| | | ventures, e.g. the use of |
| | | e-mail to participate in |
| | | illegal profit chain |
| | | letters or pyramid |
| | | schemes. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 30 | Fraud.Copyright | Offering or Installing |
| | | copies of unlicensed |
| | | commercial software or |
| | | other copyright protected |
| | | materials (Warez). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 31 | Fraud.Masquerade | Type of attack in which |
| | | one entity illegitimately |
| | | impersonates the identity |
| | | of another in order to |
| | | benefit from it. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 32 | Fraud.Phishing | Masquerading as another |
| | | entity in order to |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | persuade the user to |
| | | reveal private |
| | | credentials. This IOC |
| | | most often refers to a |
| | | URL, which is used to |
| | | phish user credentials. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 33 | Vulnerable.Crypto | Publicly accessible |
| | | services offering weak |
| | | crypto, e.g. web servers |
| | | susceptible to POODLE/ |
| | | FREAK attacks. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 34 | Vulnerable.DDoS | Publicly accessible |
| | | services that can be |
| | | abused for conducting DDoS |
| | | reflection/amplification |
| | | attacks, e.g. DNS open- |
| | | resolvers or NTP servers |
| | | with monlist enabled. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 35 | Vulnerable.Surface | Potentially unwanted |
| | | publicly accessible |
| | | services, e.g. Telnet, |
| | | RDP or VNC. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 36 | Vulnerable.Disclosure | Publicly accessible |
| | | services potentially |
| | | disclosing sensitive |
| | | information, e.g. SNMP or |
| | | Redis. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 37 | Vulnerable.System | A system which is |
| | | vulnerable to certain |
| | | attacks. Example: |
| | | misconfigured client proxy |
| | | settings (example: WPAD), |
| | | outdated operating system |
| | | version, XSS |
| | | vulnerabilities, etc. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 38 | Geophysical.Earthquake | A hazard originating from |
| | | solid earth. This term is |
| | | used interchangeably with |
| | | the term geological |
| | | hazard. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 39 | Geophysical.MassMovement | A hazard originating from |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | solid earth. This term is |
| | | used interchangeably with |
| | | the term geological |
| | | hazard. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 40 | Geophysical.Volcanic | A hazard originating from |
| | | solid earth. This term is |
| | | used interchangeably with |
| | | the term geological |
| | | hazard. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 41 | Meteorological. | A hazard caused by short- |
| | Temperature | lived, micro- to meso- |
| | | scale extreme weather and |
| | | atmospheric conditions |
| | | that last from minutes to |
| | | days. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 42 | Meteorological.Fog | A hazard caused by short- |
| | | lived, micro- to meso- |
| | | scale extreme weather and |
| | | atmospheric conditions |
| | | that last from minutes to |
| | | days. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 43 | Meteorological.Storm | A hazard caused by short- |
| | | lived, micro- to meso- |
| | | scale extreme weather and |
| | | atmospheric conditions |
| | | that last from minutes to |
| | | days. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 44 | Hydrological.Flood | A hazard caused by the |
| | | occurrence, movement, and |
| | | distribution of surface |
| | | and subsurface freshwater |
| | | and saltwater. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 45 | Hydrological.Landslide | A hazard caused by the |
| | | occurrence, movement, and |
| | | distribution of surface |
| | | and subsurface freshwater |
| | | and saltwater. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 46 | Hydrological.Wave | A hazard caused by the |
| | | occurrence, movement, and |
| | | distribution of surface |
| | | and subsurface freshwater |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | and saltwater. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 47 | Climatological.Drought | A hazard caused by long- |
| | | lived, meso- to macro- |
| | | scale atmospheric |
| | | processes ranging from |
| | | intra-seasonal to multi- |
| | | decadal climate |
| | | variability. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 48 | Climatological. | A hazard caused by long- |
| | LakeOutburst | lived, meso- to macro- |
| | | scale atmospheric |
| | | processes ranging from |
| | | intra-seasonal to multi- |
| | | decadal climate |
| | | variability. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 49 | Climatological.Wildfire | A hazard caused by long- |
| | | lived, meso- to macro- |
| | | scale atmospheric |
| | | processes ranging from |
| | | intra-seasonal to multi- |
| | | decadal climate |
| | | variability. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 50 | Biological.Epidemic | A hazard caused by the |
| | | exposure to living |
| | | organisms and their toxic |
| | | substances (e.g. venom, |
| | | mold) or vector-borne |
| | | diseases that they may |
| | | carry. Examples are |
| | | venomous wildlife and |
| | | insects, poisonous plants, |
| | | and mosquitoes carrying |
| | | disease-causing agents |
| | | such as parasites, |
| | | bacteria, or viruses (e.g. |
| | | malaria). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 51 | Biological.Insect | A hazard caused by the |
| | | exposure to living |
| | | organisms and their toxic |
| | | substances (e.g. venom, |
| | | mold) or vector-borne |
| | | diseases that they may |
| | | carry. Examples are |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | venomous wildlife and |
| | | insects, poisonous plants, |
| | | and mosquitoes carrying |
| | | disease-causing agents |
| | | such as parasites, |
| | | bacteria, or viruses (e.g. |
| | | malaria). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 52 | Biological.Animal | A hazard caused by the |
| | | exposure to living |
| | | organisms and their toxic |
| | | substances (e.g. venom, |
| | | mold) or vector-borne |
| | | diseases that they may |
| | | carry. Examples are |
| | | venomous wildlife and |
| | | insects, poisonous plants, |
| | | and mosquitoes carrying |
| | | disease-causing agents |
| | | such as parasites, |
| | | bacteria, or viruses (e.g. |
| | | malaria). |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 53 | Extraterrestrial.Impact | A hazard caused by |
| | | asteroids, meteoroids, and |
| | | comets as they pass near- |
| | | earth, enter the Earth's |
| | | atmosphere, and/or strike |
| | | the Earth, and by changes |
| | | in interplanetary |
| | | conditions that effect the |
| | | Earth's magnetosphere, |
| | | ionosphere, and |
| | | thermosphere. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 54 | Extraterrestrial. | A hazard caused by |
| | SpaceWeather | asteroids, meteoroids, and |
| | | comets as they pass near- |
| | | earth, enter the Earth's |
| | | atmosphere, and/or strike |
| | | the Earth, and by changes |
| | | in interplanetary |
| | | conditions that effect the |
| | | Earth's magnetosphere, |
| | | ionosphere, and |
| | | thermosphere. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 55 | Other.Uncategorised | All incidents which don't |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| | | fit in one of the given |
| | | categories should be put |
| | | into this class or the |
| | | incident is not |
| | | categorised. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 56 | Other.Undetermined | The categorisation of the |
| | | incident is unknown/ |
| | | undetermined. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 57 | Test.Test | Meant for testing. |
+------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
Table 1: Incident taxonomy
Cause
Optional. Alert cause, if known at the time of detection.
If unknown, this key SHOULD NOT be defined by the analyzer and may
be filled later on by a manager or a human operator.
+======+=============+=========================================+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+=============+=========================================+
| 0 | Normal | The event is related to an expected |
| | | phenomenon or to a phenomenon that does |
| | | not qualify as out of the ordinary. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1 | Error | The event is related to a human error. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2 | Malicious | The event is related to malicious code |
| | | or malicious actions. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 3 | Malfunction | The event is related to a device or |
| | | service malfunction. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 4 | Natural | The event is related to a natural |
| | | phenomenon. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 5 | Unknown | The cause of the event is unknown. |
+------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 2: Incident causes
Description
Optional. Short free text human-readable description.
Status
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Optional. Alert state in the overall alert lifecycle.
+======+==========+=============+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+==========+=============+
| 0 | Event | |
+------+----------+-------------+
| 1 | Incident | |
+------+----------+-------------+
Table 3: Incident statuses
Severity
Optional. Severity of the alert.
+======+=========+=============+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+=========+=============+
| 0 | Unknown | |
+------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Info | |
+------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Low | |
+------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Medium | |
+------+---------+-------------+
| 4 | High | |
+------+---------+-------------+
Table 4: Incident severities
Confidence
Optional. A floating-point value between 0 and 1 indicating the
analyzer's confidence in its own reliability of this particular
detection, where 0 means that the detection is surely incorrect
while 1 means there is no doubt about the detection made.
Note
Optional. Free text human-readable additional note, possibly a
longer description of the incident if is not already obvious.
CreateTime
Mandatory. Timestamp indicating when the message was created.
May point out delay between detection and processing of the
events.
StartTime
Optional. Timestamp indicating the deduced start of the event.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
In case the event is not part of a series, this attribute MAY
instead be set to the timestamp initially present in the event (if
any).
CeaseTime
Optional. Timestamp indicating the deduced end of the event.
DeleteTime
Optional. Timestamp indicating when the message must be deleted.
This attribute MUST be specified if the message has to be deleted
after this date, e.g. for technical, organizational or ethical
reasons.
AltNames
Optional. Alternative identifiers; strings which help pair the
event to internal systems' information (for example ticket IDs
inside a request tracking systems).
AltCategory
Optional. Alternate categories from a reference other than
[ENISA-RIST] (e.g. MISP, MITRE ATT@CK or another proprietary/
internal reference).
Ref
Optional. References to sources of information related to the
alert and/or vulnerability, and specific to this alert.
This MAY be a URL to additional info, or a URN in a registered or
unregistered ad-hoc namespace bearing reasonable information value
and uniqueness, such as "urn:cve:CVE-2013-2266".
CorrelID
Optional. Identifiers for the messages which were used as
information sources to create this message, in case the message
has been created based on correlation/analysis/deduction from
other messages.
AggrCondition
Optional. A list of IDMEF fields used to aggregate events. The
values for these fields will be the same in all aggregated events.
This attribute should mostly be set by intermediary nodes, which
detect duplicates, or aggregate events, spanning multiple
detection windows, into a longer one.
The "StartTime" and "CeaseTime" attributes are used in conjunction
with this attribute to describe the aggregation window.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
PredID
Optional. A list containing the identifiers of previous messages
which are obsoleted by this message.
The obsoleted alerts SHOULD NOT be used anymore. This field can
be used to "update" an alert.
RelID
Optional. A list containing the identifiers of other messages
related to this message.
4.3. The Analyzer Class
The Analyzer class describes the module that has analyzed the data
captured by the sensors, identified an event of interest and decided
to create an alert.
+----------------------+
| Analyzer |
+----------------------+
| IP IP |
| STRING Name |
| STRING Hostname |
| STRING Model |
| ENUM[] Type |
| ENUM[] Category |
| ENUM[] Data |
| ENUM[] Method |
| GEOLOC GeoLocation |
| UNLOCODE UnLocation |
| STRING Location |
+----------------------+
Figure 4: The Analyzer class
The Analyzer class has the following attributes:
IP
Mandatory. Analyzer IP address.
Name
Mandatory. Name of the analyzer, which must be reasonably unique,
however still bear some meaningful sense.
This attribute usually denotes the hierarchy of organizational
units the detector belongs to and its own name. It MAY also be
used to distinguish multiple analyzers running with the same IP
address.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Hostname
Optional. Hostname of this analyzer.
SHOULD be a fully-qualified domain name.
Model
Mandatory. Analyzer model description (usually its generic name,
brand and version).
Type
Optional. Analyzer type.
+======+==============+======================================+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+==============+======================================+
| 0 | Cyber | The analyzer specializes in the |
| | | detection of cyber incidents |
+------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| 1 | Physical | The analyzer specializes in the |
| | | detection of physical incidents |
+------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| 2 | Availability | The analyzer specializes in the |
| | | detection of availability incidents |
+------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| 3 | Combined | The analyzer specilizes in |
| | | detections that combine data from |
| | | multiple domains (e.g. a combination |
| | | of Cyber and Availability data) |
+------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 5: Analyzer types
Category
Mandatory. Analyzer categories.
+======+=========+=====================================+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+=========+=====================================+
| 0 | 1DLiS | 1D LIDAR Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 1 | 2DLiS | 2D LIDAR Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 2 | 3DLiS | 3D LIDAR Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 3 | 1DLaS | 1D Laser Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 4 | 2DLaS | 2D Laser Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| 5 | 3DLaS | 3D Laser Sensor |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 6 | VAD | Voice Activity Detection |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 7 | HAR | Human Activity Detection |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 8 | FRC | Face Recognition Camera |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 9 | VNIR | Visible and Near-InfraRed |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 10 | SWIR | Short Wavelength InfraRed |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 11 | MWIR | Middle Wavelength InfraRed |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 12 | LWIR | Long Wavelength InfraRed |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 13 | ADS | Anti-Drone System |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 14 | ODC | Object Detection Camera |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 15 | DDOS | Anti-DDoS (Distributed Denial of |
| | | Service) protection |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 16 | SPAM | Spam detection, phishing detection, |
| | | etc. |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 17 | AV | Signature-based virus/malware |
| | | detection |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 18 | EDR | Endpoint Detection and Response |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 19 | FW | Firewall |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 20 | NIDS | Network Intrusion Detection System |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 21 | HIDS | Host Intrusion Detection System |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 22 | WIDS | Wi-Fi Intrusion Detection System |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 23 | PROX | Proxy, e.g. detection of violations |
| | | to the company's security policy |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 | WAF | Web Application Firewall |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 25 | HPT | Honeypot |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 26 | LOG | Log analyzer |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
| 27 | IAM | Identity and Access Management tool |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 28 | VPN | Devices/tools related to Virtual |
| | | Private Network |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 29 | ETL | Extract-Transform-Load tools |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 30 | RASP | Runtime Application Self-Protection |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 31 | BAST | Clientless Remote Desktop Gateway / |
| | | administration bastions |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 32 | NAC | Devices/tools related to Network |
| | | Access Control |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 33 | SIEM | Security Information and Event |
| | | Management systems |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 34 | NMS | Network Management Systems |
+------+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 6: Analyzer categories
Data
Mandatory. Type of data analyzed during the detection.
+======+===============+=============+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+===============+=============+
| 0 | Light | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 1 | Noise | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 2 | Touch | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 3 | Images | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 4 | Vibrations | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 | Lidar | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 6 | Thermic | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 7 | Seismic | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 8 | Temperature | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 9 | Rain | |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 10 | Water | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 11 | Humidity | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 12 | Particles | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 13 | Contact | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 14 | MagneticField | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 15 | Acoustics | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 16 | Fog | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 17 | External | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 18 | Reporting | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 19 | Connection | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 20 | Datagram | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 21 | Content | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 22 | Data | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 23 | File | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 24 | Flow | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 25 | Log | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 26 | Protocol | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 27 | Host | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 28 | Network | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 29 | Alert | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 30 | Relay | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 31 | Auth | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
| 32 | SNMP | |
+------+---------------+-------------+
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Table 7: Analyzer data
Method
Mandatory. Detection method.
+======+=============+=============+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+=============+=============+
| 0 | Biometric | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 1 | Policy | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 2 | Heat | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 3 | Movement | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 4 | Blackhole | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 5 | Signature | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 6 | Statistical | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 7 | Heuristic | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 8 | Integrity | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 9 | Honeypot | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 10 | Tarpit | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 11 | Recon | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 12 | Correlation | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 13 | Monitor | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 14 | AI | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
| 15 | Threshold | |
+------+-------------+-------------+
Table 8: Analyzer methods
GeoLocation
Optional. GPS coordinates for the analyzer.
UnLocation
Optional. Standard UN/Locode for the analyzer.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Location
Optional. Internal name for the location of the analyzer.
4.4. The Sensor Class
The Sensor class describes the module that captured the data before
sending it to an analyzer. The Sensor may be a subpart of the
Analyzer.
+----------------------+
| Sensor |
+----------------------+
| IP IP |
| STRING Name |
| STRING Hostname |
| STRING Model |
| UNLOCODE UnLocation |
| STRING Location |
| STRING CaptureZone |
+----------------------+
Figure 5: The Sensor class
The Sensor class has the following attributes:
IP
Mandatory. The sensor's IP address.
Name
Mandatory. Name of the sensor, which must be reasonably unique,
however still bear some meaningful sense.
This attribute usually denotes the hierarchy of organizational
units the sensor belongs to and its own name. It MAY also be used
to distinguish multiple sensors running with the same IP address.
Hostname
Optional. The sensor's hostname.
This SHOULD be a fully qualified domain name, but may not conform
exactly because values extracted from logs, messages, DNS, etc.
may themselves be malformed.
An empty string MAY be used to explicitly state that this value
was inquired but not found (missing DNS entry).
Model
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Mandatory. The sensor model's description (usually its generic
name, brand and version).
UnLocation
Optional. Standard UN/Locode for the sensor.
Location
Optional. Internal name for the location of the sensor.
CaptureZone
Optional. A string that describes the "capture zone" of the
sensor, as a JSON-serialized string.
Depending on the type of sensor, the capture zone may for instance
refer to:
* A JSON object describing a camera's settings (elevation,
horizontal and vertical field of view, azimuth, etc.)
* A description of the IP network where packet capture is taking
place.
4.5. The Source Class
The Source class describes the source(s) of the event(s) leading up
to the alert.
In this context, the Source always refers to the attacker, which may
be different from the source in the context of a network connection.
For instance, when a user connects to a webserver spreading malwares,
the webserver will be listed as the IDMEF Source, even though it was
initially the destination of the underlying HTTP(S) connection.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+------------------------+
| Source |
+------------------------+
| IP IP |
| STRING Hostname |
| STRING Note |
| STRING[] TI |
| STRING User |
| EMAIL Email |
| PROTOCOL[] Protocol |
| INT[] Port |
| GEOLOC GeoLocation |
| UNLOCODE UnLocation |
| STRING Location |
| ID[] Attachment |
| ID[] Observable |
+------------------------+
Figure 6: The Source class
The Source class has the following attributes:
IP
Optional. Source IP address.
Hostname
Optional. Hostname of this source.
This SHOULD be a fully qualified domain name, but may not conform
exactly because values extracted from logs, messages, DNS, etc.
may themselves be malformed.
An empty string MAY be used to explicitly state that this value
was inquired but not found (missing DNS entry).
Note
Optional. Free text human-readable additional note for this
source.
TI
Optional. Threat Intelligence data about the source.
Values in this list MUST use the format "attribute:origin", where
"attribute" refers to the attribute inside this source found
inside a Threat Intelligence database, and "origin" contains a
short identifier for the Threat Intelligence database. E.g.
"IP:Dshield".
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Please note that the same attribute may appear multiple times
inside the list (because a match was found in multiple Threat
Intelligence databases).
User
Optional. User ID or login responsible for the alert.
Email
Optional. Email address responsible for the alert.
E.g. the value of the "Reply-To" or "From" header inside a
phishing e-mail.
Protocol
Optional. Protocols related to connections from/to this source.
If several protocols are stacked, they MUST be ordered from the
lowest (the closest to the medium) to the highest (the closest to
the application) according to the ISO/OSI model.
Port
Optional. Source ports involved in the alert.
Values in this list MUST be integers and MUST be in the range
1-65535.
GeoLocation
Optional. GPS coordinates for the source.
UnLocation
Optional. Standard UN/Locode for the source.
Location
Optional. Internal name for the location of the source.
Attachment
Optional. Identifiers for attachments related to this source.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the attachments described using the Attachment class
(Section 4.8).
Observable
Optional. Identifiers for observables related to this source.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the observables described using the Observable class
(Section 4.9).
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
4.6. The Target Class
The Target class describes the target(s) of the event(s) leading up
to the alert.
In this context, the Target always refers to the potential victim,
which may be different from the destination in the context of a
network connection. For instance, when a user connects to a
webserver spreading malwares, the user will be listed as the IDMEF
Target, even though it was initially the source of the underlying
HTTP(S) connection.
+------------------------+
| Target |
+------------------------+
| IP IP |
| STRING Hostname |
| STRING Note |
| STRING Service |
| STRING User |
| EMAIL Email |
| INT[] Port |
| GEOLOC GeoLocation |
| UNLOCODE UnLocation |
| STRING Location |
| ID[] Attachment |
| ID[] Observable |
+------------------------+
Figure 7: The Target class
The Target class has the following attributes:
IP
Optional. Target IP address.
Hostname
Optional. Hostname of this target.
This SHOULD be a fully qualified domain name, but may not conform
exactly because values extracted from logs, messages, DNS, etc.
may themselves be malformed.
An empty string MAY be used to explicitly state that this value
was inquired but not found (missing DNS entry).
Note
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Optional. Free text human-readable additional note for this
target.
Service
Optional. Service or process impacted by the alert.
User
Optional. User ID or login targeted by the alert.
Email
Optional. Email address targeted by the alert.
E.g. the value of the "To" header inside a phishing e-mail.
Port
Optional. Target ports involved in the alert.
Values in this list MUST be integers and MUST be in the range
1-65535.
GeoLocation
Optional. GPS coordinates for the target.
UnLocation
Optional. Standard UN/Locode for the target.
Location
Optional. Internal name for the location of the target.
Attachment
Optional. Identifiers for attachments related to this target.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the attachments described using the Attachment class
(Section 4.8).
Observable
Optional. Identifiers for observables related to this target.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the observables described using the Observable class
(Section 4.9).
4.7. The Vector Class
The Vector class describes the vector(s) of the event(s) leading up
to the alert. o Name, location, description, ...
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+------------------------+
| Vector |
+------------------------+
| ENUM[] Category |
| STRING Name |
| ENUM Size |
| STRING Note |
| STRING[] TI |
| GEOLOC GeoLocation |
| FLOAT GeoRadius |
| UNLOCODE UnLocation |
| STRING Location |
| ID[] Attachment |
| ID[] Observable |
+------------------------+
Figure 8: The Vector class
The Vector class has the following attributes:
Category
Mandatory. Category for the detected "vector".
FIXME: Les valeurs du domaine cyber n'ont pas ete ajoutees car
elles semblent redondantes avec la notion d'Observable.
+======+======================+=============+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+======================+=============+
| 0 | Unknown | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 1 | Face | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 2 | RunningMan | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 3 | Human | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 4 | Man | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 5 | Woman | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 6 | Children | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 7 | Animal | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 8 | Object | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 9 | Blast | |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 10 | Fire | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 11 | Wind | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 12 | Snow | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 13 | Rain | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 14 | Chemical | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 15 | Smoke | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 16 | Vapors | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 17 | Drug | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 18 | Device | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 19 | Drone | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 20 | Car | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 21 | Truck | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 22 | Vehicle | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 23 | Bird | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 24 | Storm | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 25 | HighTemperature | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 26 | Artifact | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 27 | Autonomous System | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 28 | Directory | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 29 | Domain Name | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 30 | Email Address | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 31 | Email Message | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 32 | File | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 33 | IPv4 Address | |
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 34 | IPv6 Address | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 35 | Mutex | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 36 | Network Traffic | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 37 | Process | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 38 | URL | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 39 | User Account | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 40 | Windows Registry Key | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
| 41 | X509 Certificate | |
+------+----------------------+-------------+
Table 9: Vector categories
Name
Optional. Name of the detected vector or "Unknown".
Please note that this name does not need to be unique across
vectors.
Size
Optional. Rough estimate of the detected vector's size.
+======+=========+============================================+
| Rank | Keyword | Description |
+======+=========+============================================+
| 0 | Small | For things like a dog, a small drone, etc. |
+------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Medium | For things like a person |
+------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 2 | Large | For things like a car, a truck, etc. |
+------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 3 | Huge | For things like a big crowd, a storm, etc. |
+------+---------+--------------------------------------------+
Table 10: Vector sizes
Note
Optional. Free text human-readable additional note for this
vector.
TI
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Optional. Threat Intelligence data about the vector.
Values in this list MUST use the format "attribute:origin", where
"attribute" refers to the attribute inside this vector found
inside a Threat Intelligence database, and "origin" contains a
short identifier for the Threat Intelligence database. E.g.
"Name:FBI-Wanted".
Please note that the same attribute may appear multiple times
inside the list (because a match was found in multiple Threat
Intelligence databases).
GeoLocation
Optional. GPS coordinates for the vector.
GeoRadius
Optional. Estimated radius around the provided geolocation in
meters.
This attribute can be interpreted as an error margin related to
the detection of this vector.
UnLocation
Optional. Standard UN/Locode for the vector.
Location
Optional. Internal name for the location of the vector.
Attachment
Optional. Identifiers for attachments related to this vector.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the attachments described using the Attachment class
(Section 4.8).
Observable
Optional. Identifiers for observables related to this vector.
Each identifier listed here MUST match the "Name" attribute for
one of the observables described using the Observable class
(Section 4.9).
4.8. The Attachment Class
The Attachment class contains additional data which was captured in
relation with the event.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+----------------------------+
| Attachment |
+----------------------------+
| ID Name |
| STRING FileName |
| HASH[] Hash |
| INT Size |
| URI[] Ref |
| URI[] ExternalURI |
| STRING Note |
| MEDIATYPE ContentType |
| STRING ContentEncoding |
| STRING Content |
+----------------------------+
Figure 9: The Attachment class
The Attachment class has the following attributes:
Name
Mandatory. A unique identifier among attachments that can be used
to reference this attachment from other classes using the
"Attachment" attribute.
FileName
Optional. Attachment filename.
This will usually be the original name of the captured file or the
name of the file containing the captured content (e.g. a packet
capture file).
Hash
Optional. A list of hash results for the attachment's Content.
The values in this list are computed by taking the raw value of
the attachment's "Content" attribute. The hash result is computed
before any other transformation (e.g. Base64 encoding) is applied
to the content, so that a receiving IDMEF system may reverse the
transformation, apply the same hashing function and obtain the
same hash result. See also the definition for the
"ContentEncoding" attribute below.
It is RECOMMENDED that compatible implementations use one of the
hashing functions from the SHA-2 [RFC6234] or SHA-3
[NIST.FIPS.202] families to compute the hash results in this list.
Size
Optional. Length of the content (in bytes).
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
This value MUST be a non-negative integer.
Ref
Optional. References to sources of information related to the
alert and/or vulnerability, and specific to this attachment.
ExternalURI
Optional. If the attachment's content is available and/or
recognizable from an external resource, this is the URI (usually a
URL) to that resource.
This MAY also be a URN in a registered or unregistered ad-hoc
namespace bearing reasonable information value and uniqueness,
such as "urn:mhr:55eaf7effadc07f866d1eaed9c64e7ee49fe081a" or
"magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:YNCKHTQCWBTRNJIV4WNAE52SJUQCZO5C".
Note
Optional. Free text human-readable additional note for this
attachment.
ContentType
Optional. Internet Media Type of the attachment.
For compatibility reasons, implementations SHOULD prefer one of
the well-known media types registered in IANA .
ContentEncoding
Optional. Content encoding.
The following encodings are defined in this version of the
specification:
* "json": The content refers to a JSON object which has been
serialized to a string using the serialization procedure
defined in [RFC8259].
* "base64": The content has been serialized using the Base64
encoding defined in [RFC4648].
The "base64" encoding SHOULD be used when the content contains
binary data. If omitted, the "json" encoding MUST be assumed.
Content
Optional. The attachment's content, in case it is directly
embedded inside the message.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
For large attachments, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations make
use of the "ExternalURI" attribute to refererence a copy of the
content saved in an external storage mechanism.
4.9. The Observable Class
The Observable class describes a feature or phenomenon that can be
observed or measured for the purposes of detecting malicious
behavior.
+------------------+
| Observable |
+------------------+
| ID Name |
| STRING Reference |
| STRING Content |
+------------------+
Figure 10: The Observable class
The Observable class has the following attributes:
Name
Mandatory. A unique identifier among observables that can be used
to reference this observable from other classes using the
"Observable" attribute.
Reference
Optional. Name of the reference where the observable is
specified.
This attribute is meant to help implementations in identifying
supported observables.
Content
Mandatory. Observable content.
4.10. The JavaScript Object Notation Serialization Method
This serialization method aims to convert IDMEFv2 messages to a
format that is easy to parse and process, both by software/hardware
processors, as well as humans. It relies on the the JavaScript
Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format defined in [RFC8259].
Conforming implementations MUST implement all the requirements
specified in [RFC8259].
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
In addition, the following rules MUST be observed when serializing an
IDMEFv2 message:
* The top-level Alert class (Section 4.2) is represented as a JSON
object ([RFC8259]). This JSON object is returned to the calling
process at the end of the serialization process.
* Aggregate classes are represented as JSON objects and stored as
members of the top-level JSON object, using the same name as in
the IDMEF data model. E.g. the appears under the name "Analyzer"
inside the top-level JSON object.
* Attributes are stored as members of the JSON object representing
the class they belong to, using the same name as in the IDMEF data
model. E.g. the "Version" attribute from the is stored under the
name "Version" inside the top-level JSON object.
* Lists from the IDMEF data model are represented as JSON arrays
([RFC8259]). This also applies to aggregate classes where a list
is expected. E.g. the "Sensor" member inside the top-level JSON
object contains a list of objects, where each object represents an
instance of the .
* The various string-based data types listed in Section 3 are
represented as JSON strings ([RFC8259]). Please note that the
issues outlined in [RFC8259] regarding strings processing also
apply here.
* IDMEF attributes with the "NUMBER" data type are represented as
JSON numbers ([RFC8259]).
4.11. Attributes completeness
The next table shows when each attributes is required depending on
it's Type: physical, cyber or availability.
Legend:
* R: REQUIRED
* r: Recommanded
* o: Optional
* NA: Not Applicable
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+===============+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+===============+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Alert | | | | |
+===============+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Version | String | R | R | R |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| ID | UUID | R | R | R |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Entity | String | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Category | Array of ENUM | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Cause | ENUM | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Description | String | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Status | ENUM | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Severity | ENUM | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Confidence | Number | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Note | String | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| CreateTime | Timestamp | R | R | R |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| StartTime | Timestamp | r | r | r |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| CeaseTime | Timestamp | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| DeleteTime | Timestamp | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| AltNames | Array of String | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| AltCategory | Array of String | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Ref | Array of URI | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| CorrelID | Array of UUID | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| AggrCondition | Array of String | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| PredID | Array of UUID | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| RelID | Array of UUID | o | o | o |
+---------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Table 11: Attributes completness - Alert
+=============+===============+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=============+===============+=====+=====+=======+
| Analyzer | Class | R | R | R |
+=============+===============+=====+=====+=======+
| IP | IPAddress | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Name | String | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Hostname | String | r | r | r |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Type | ENUM | r | r | r |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Model | String | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Category | Array of ENUM | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Data | Array of ENUM | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Method | Array of ENUM | R | R | R |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| GeoLocation | GeoLocation | r | o | o |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| UnLocation | UN/LOCODE | o | o | o |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Location | String | o | o | o |
+-------------+---------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 12: Attributes completness - Analyzer
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+=============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| Sensor | Array of Class | o | o | o |
+=============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| IP | IPAddress | R | R | R |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Name | String | R | R | R |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Hostname | String | r | r | r |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Model | String | R | R | R |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| UnLocation | UN/LOCODE | o | o | o |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Location | String | o | o | o |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| CaptureZone | String | o | o | o |
+-------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 13: Attributes completness - Sensor
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Source | Array of Class | o | o | o |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| UnLocation | UN/LOCODE | o | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Location | String | o | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| GeoLocation | GeoLocation | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Note | String | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| TI | Array of String | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| IP | IPAddress | NA | r | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Hostname | String | NA | r | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| User | String | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Email | String | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Protocol | Array of ProtocolName | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Port | Array of Port | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Attachment | Array of AttachmentName | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Observable | Array of ObservableName | NA | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 14: Attributes completness - Source
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Target | Array of Class | o | R | R |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| UnLocation | UN/LOCODE | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Location | String | r | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| GeoLocation | GeoLocation | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Note | String | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| IP | IPAddress | o | r | R |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Hostname | String | o | r | r |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Service | String | NA | o | r |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| User | String | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Email | String | NA | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Port | Array of Port | NA | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Attachment | Array of AttachmentName | NA | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Observable | Array of ObservableName | NA | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 15: Attributes completness - Target
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Vector | Array of Class | o | o | o |
+=============+=========================+=====+=====+=======+
| Category | Array of ENUM | R | R | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| TI | Array of String | o | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Name | String | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Size | ENUM | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| UnLocation | UN/LOCODE | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| GeoLocation | GeoLocation | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| GeoRadius | Number | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Location | String | r | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Note | String | o | NA | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Attachment | Array of AttachmentName | o | o | o |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Observable | Array of ObservableName | o | o | NA |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 16: Attributes completness - Vector
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
+=================+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+=================+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attachment | Array of Class | o | o | o |
+=================+=================+=====+=====+=======+
| Name | String | R | R | R |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| FileName | String | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Hash | Array of Hashes | r | r | r |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Size | Number | r | r | r |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Ref | Array of URI | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| ExternalURI | Array of URI | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Note | String | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| ContentType | MediaType | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| ContentEncoding | String | r | r | r |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Content | String | o | o | o |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 17: Attributes completness - Attachment
+============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| Attributes | Type | Phy | Cyb | Avail |
+============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| Observable | Array of Class | o | o | o |
+============+================+=====+=====+=======+
| Name | String | R | R | R |
+------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Reference | String | r | r | r |
+------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
| Content | String | R | R | R |
+------------+----------------+-----+-----+-------+
Table 18: Attributes completness - Observable
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
5. Security Considerations
This document describes a data representation for exchanging
security-related information between incident detection system
implementations. Although there are no security concerns directly
applicable to the format of this data, the data itself may contain
security-sensitive information whose confidentiality, integrity, and/
or availability may need to be protected.
This suggests that the systems used to collect, transmit, process,
and store this data should be protected against unauthorized use and
that the data itself should be protected against unauthorized access.
The underlying messaging format and protocol used to exchange
instances of the IDMEF MUST provide appropriate guarantees of
confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity. The use of a
standardized security protocol is encouraged.
The draft-poirotte-idmefv2-00.txt document defines the transportation
of IDMEF over HTTPs that provides such security.
6. IANA Considerations
This document creates 10 identically structured registries to be
managed by IANA:
* Name of the parent registry: "Incident Detection Message Exchange
Format v2 (IDMEF)"
* URL of the registry: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/idmef2>
* Namespace format: A registry entry consists of:
- Value. A value for a given IDMEF attribute. It MUST conform
to the formatting specified by the IDMEF "ENUM" data type
(Section 3.3.1).
- Description. A short description of the enumerated value.
- Reference. An optional list of URIs to further describe the
value.
* Allocation policy: Expert Review per [RFC8126]. This reviewer
will ensure that the requested registry entry conforms to the
prescribed formatting. The reviewer will also ensure that the
entry is an appropriate value for the attribute per the
information model (Section 4).
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
The registries to be created are named in the "Registry Name" column
of Table 19. Each registry is initially populated with values and
descriptions that come from an attribute specified in the IDMEF model
(Section 4). The initial values for the Value and Description fields
of a given registry are listed in "Initial Values". The "Initial
Values" column points to a table in this document that lists and
describes each enumerated value. Each enumerated value in the table
gets a corresponding entry in a given registry. The initial value of
the Reference field of every registry entry described below should be
this document.
+===================+========================================+
| Registry Name | Initial Values |
+===================+========================================+
| Alert-Category | Table 1 (Alert class (Section 4.2)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Alert-Cause | Table 2 (Alert class (Section 4.2)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Alert-Severity | Table 4 (Alert class (Section 4.2)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Alert-Status | Table 3 (Alert class (Section 4.2)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Analyzer-Category | Table 6 (Alert class (Section 4.2)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Analyzer-Data | Table 7 (Analyzer class (Section 4.3)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Analayzer-Method | Table 8 (Analyzer class (Section 4.3)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Analyzer-Type | Table 5 (Analyzer class (Section 4.3)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Vector-Category | Table 9 (Vector (Section 4.7)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Vector-Size | Table 10 (Vector (Section 4.7)) |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 19: IANA Enumerated Value Registries
7. Acknowledgement
Thanks to the core participants of the SECEF (SECurity Exchange
Format) project :
* Herve Debar, Telecom SudParis
* Guillaume Hiet, CentraleSupelec
* Francois Dechelle, Teclib'
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
Thanks to the H2020 7SHIELD project (Safety and Security Standards of
Space Systems, ground Segments and Satellite data assets, via
prevention, detection, response and mitigation of physical and cyber
threats) who implemented in real scale first versions of IDMEFv2 on
different critical infrastructures around Europa helping greatly to
improve it.
Thanks to the CESNET team for their work on the [IDEA0] format (based
on IDMEFv1) which inspired multiples concepts to IDMEFv2.
(<https://idea.cesnet.cz/en/index>)
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[UNICODE] Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard", version 14.0.0, 14
September 2021,
<https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/>.
[ENISA-RIST]
ENISA, "Reference Incident Classification Taxonomy", 26
January 2018, <https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/
reference-incident-classification-taxonomy>.
[IANA_media_types]
IANA, "Media Types", 10 October 2022,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA_hash_function_text_names]
IANA, "Hash Function Textual Names", 21 April 2006,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-
names>.
[UN-LOCODE]
UNECE, "UN/LOCODE Code List by Country and Territory", 6
July 2021, <https://unece.org/trade/cefact/unlocode-code-
list-country-and-territory>.
8.2. Informative References
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
[RFC4765] Debar, H., Curry, D., and B. Feinstein, "The Intrusion
Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)", RFC 4765,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4765, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4765>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
[NIST.FIPS.202]
Dworkin, Morris J., "SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based
Hash and Extendable-Output Functions", NIST NIST FIPS 202,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202, July 2015,
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
NIST.FIPS.202.pdf>.
[WGS84] National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department of
Defense World Geodetic System 1984: Its Definition and
Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems", Third Edition,
1984, <https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA280358.pdf>.
[IDEA0] CESNET, "Intrusion Detection Extensible Alert version 0",
25 September 2015, <https://idea.cesnet.cz/en/definition>.
Appendix A. Examples
This section contains several examples of events/incidents which may
be described using the IDMEF Data Model defined in.
For each example, the serialization method listed in Section 5 was
used on the original IDMEF message to produce a JSON representation.
A.1. Physical intrusion
Listing 1 describes an incident where an unidentified man was
detected on company premises near the building where server room A is
located.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
{
"Version": "2.0",
"ID": "819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b1",
"Description": "Potential intruder detected",
"Severity": "Low",
"Status": "Incident",
"Cause": "Malicious",
"CreateTime": "2021-05-10T16:52:13.075994+00:00",
"StartTime": "2021-05-10T16:52:13+00:00",
"Category": [
"Intrusion.Burglary"
],
"Analyzer": {
"Name": "BigBrother",
"Hostname": "bb.example.com",
"Type": "Physical",
"Model": "Big Brother v42",
"Category": [
"HAR",
"FRC"
],
"Data": [
"Images"
],
"Method": [
"Movement",
"Biometric",
"AI"
],
"IP": "192.0.2.1"
},
"Sensor": [
{
"IP": "192.0.2.2",
"Name": "Camera #23",
"Model": "SuperDuper Camera v1",
"Location": "Hallway to server room A1"
}
],
"Source": [
{
"Note": "Black Organization, aka. APT 4869"
}
],
"Vector": [
{
"Category": ["Man"],
"TI": ["Name:FBI-Wanted"],
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"Name": "John Doe",
"Note": "Codename Vodka, known henchman for APT 4869",
"Size": "Medium",
"Location": "Hallway to server room A1",
"Attachment": ["pic01", "wanted"]
}
],
"Attachment": [
{
"Name": "wanted",
"FileName": "fbi-wanted-poster.jpg",
"Size": 1234567,
"Ref": ["https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten"],
"ContentType": "image/jpg",
"ContentEncoding": "base64",
"Content": "..."
},
{
"Name": "pic01",
"Note": "Hi-res picture showing John Doe near server room A1",
"ExternalURI": ["ftps://192.0.2.1/cam23/20210510165211.jpg"],
"ContentType": "image/jpg"
}
]
}
A.2. Cyberattack
Listing 2 describes an incident related to a potential bruteforce
attack against the "root" user account of the server at 192.0.2.2 and
2001:db8::/32.
{
"Version": "2.0",
"ID": "819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b2",
"Description": "Potential bruteforce attack on root user account",
"Severity": "Medium",
"CreateTime": "2021-05-10T16:55:29.196408+00:00",
"StartTime": "2021-05-10T16:55:29+00:00",
"Category": [
"Attempt.Login"
],
"Analyzer": {
"Name": "SIEM",
"Hostname": "siem.example.com",
"Type": "Cyber",
"Model": "Prelude SIEM 5.2",
"Category": [
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"SIEM",
"LOG"
],
"Data": [
"Log"
],
"Method": [
"Monitor",
"Signature"
],
"IP": "192.0.2.1"
},
"Sensor": [
{
"IP": "192.0.2.5",
"Name": "syslog",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"Model": "rsyslog 8.2110",
"Location": "Server room A1, rack 10"
}
],
"Target": [
{
"IP": "192.0.2.2",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"Location": "Server room A1, rack 10",
"User": "root"
},
{
"IP": "2001:db8::/32",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"Location": "Server room A1, rack 10",
"User": "root"
}
]
}
A.3. Server outage
Listing 3 describes an incident where the webserver at
"www.example.com" encountered some kind of failure condition
resulting in an outage.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
{
"Version": "2.0",
"ID": "819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b3",
"Description": "A server did not reply to an ICMP ping request",
"Severity": "Medium",
"Status": "Incident",
"Cause": "Unknown",
"CreateTime": "2021-05-10T16:59:11.875209+00:00",
"StartTime": "2021-05-10T16:59:11.875209+00:00",
"Category": [
"Availability.Outage"
],
"Analyzer": {
"Name": "NMS",
"Hostname": "nms.example.com",
"Type": "Availability",
"Model": "Vigilo NMS 5.2",
"Category": [
"NMS"
],
"Data": [
"Network"
],
"Method": [
"Monitor"
],
"IP": "192.0.2.1"
},
"Target": [
{
"IP": "192.168.1.2",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"Service": "website",
"Location": "Server room A1, rack 10"
}
]
}
A.4. Combined incident
Listing 4 describes a combined incident resulting from the
correlation of the previous physical, cyber and availability
incidents.
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
{
"Version": "2.0",
"ID": "819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b4",
"Description": "Intrusion and Sabotage detected",
"Severity": "High",
"Status": "Incident",
"Cause": "Malicious",
"CreateTime": "2021-05-10T16:59:15.075994+00:00",
"StartTime": "2021-05-10T16:52:11+00:00",
"Category": [
"Intrusion.Burglary",
"Attempt.Login",
"Intrusion.SysCompromise",
"Availability.Outage",
"Availability.Sabotage",
"Availability.Failure"
],
"CorrelID": [
"819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b1",
"819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b2",
"819df7bc-35ef-40d8-bbee-1901117370b3"
],
"Analyzer": {
"Name": "Correlator",
"Hostname": "correlator.example.com",
"Type": "Combined",
"Model": "Unity 360 Hybrid Correlator v5.2",
"Category": [
],
"Data": [
"Alert"
],
"Method": [
"Correlation"
],
"IP": "192.0.2.1"
},
"Source": [
{
"Note": "Black Organization, aka. APT 4869"
}
],
"Vector": [
{
"Category": ["Man"],
"TI": ["Name:FBI-Wanted"],
"Name": "John Doe",
"Note": "Codename Vodka, known henchman for APT 4869",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"Size": "Medium"
}
],
"Target": [
{
"Location": "Server room A1"
},
{
"IP": "192.0.2.2",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"User": "root"
},
{
"IP": "192.0.2.2",
"Hostname": "www.example.com",
"Service": "website"
}
]
}
Appendix B. JSON Validation Schema (Non-normative)
Listing 5 contains a JSON Schema that can be used to validate
incoming IDMEF messages prior to processing. Please note that
extraneous linebreaks have been included due to formatting
constraints.
FIXME: le type vectorCategoryEnum ne correspond pas a l'enumeration
definie dans le document (voir remarque dans la classe Vector)
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"type": "object",
"title": "IDMEF v2.0",
"description": "JSON schema for IDMEF version 2",
"definitions": {
"attachmentNameType": {
"description": "A unique identifier among attachments",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$"
},
"observableNameType": {
"description": "A unique identifier among observables",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$"
},
"portType": {
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"description": "A network port number",
"type": "integer",
"minimum": 0,
"maximum": 65535,
"exclusiveMinimum": true
},
"timestampType": {
"description": "A JSON string containing a timestamp (RFC 3339)",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[0-9]{4}-(0[0-9]|1[012])-([0-2][0-9]|3[01])T([0-1]
[0-9]|2[0-3]):[0-5][0-9]:([0-5][0-9]|60)(\\.[0-9]+)?(Z|[-+]([0-1]
[0-9]|2[0-3]):[0-5][0-9])?$"
},
"geoLocationType": {
"description": "Geolocation coordinates (ISO 6709)",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[-+]?([0-9]+(\\.[0-9]*)?)(, ?[-+]?([0-9]+(\\.
[0-9]*)?)){1,2}$"
},
"unLocodeType": {
"description": "A valid UN/LOCODE location (e.g. \"FR PAR\")",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[A-Z]{2} ?[A-Z]{3}$"
},
"ipAddressType": {
"description": "An Internet Protocol address (version 4 or 6)",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^(((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\\.){3}(25
[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){7,7}[0-9a-f
A-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,7}:|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,6}:[0-9a-f
A-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,5}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,2}|([0-9a-f
A-F]{1,4}:){1,4}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,3}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,3}
(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,2}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4})
{1,5}|[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:((:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,6})|:((:[0-9a-fA-F]
{1,4}){1,7}|:)|fe80:(:[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}){0,4}%[0-9a-zA-Z]{1,}|::
(ffff(:0{1,4}){0,1}:){0,1}((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9])
\\.){3,3}(25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9])|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}
:){1,4}:((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9])\\.){3,3}(25[0-5]|
(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]))$"
},
"mediaTypeType": {
"description": "A valid media type (RFC 7231)",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[-!#$%&'*+.^_`|~0-9a-zA-Z]+/[-!#$%&'*+.^_`|~0-9a-z
A-Z]+([ \t]*;[ \t]*[-!#$%&'*+.^_`|~0-9a-zA-Z]+=([-!#$%&'*+.^_`|~0-9
a-zA-Z]+|\"([]-~\t !#-[\\x80-\\xFF]|\\\\([\t 0-9a-zA-Z\\x80-\\xFF]
))*\"))*$"
},
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"uuidType": {
"description": "A Universally Unique IDentifier (RFC 4122)",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[0-9A-Fa-f]{8}(-[0-9A-Fa-f]{4}){3}-[0-9A-Fa-f]{12}$"
},
"protocolNameType": {
"description": "A JSON string containing a service/protocol name",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9](-?[a-zA-Z0-9])*$"
},
"hashType": {
"description": "A checksum (e.g. \"crc32:cbf43926\")",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+:([a-fA-F0-9]{2})+$"
},
"statusEnum": {
"description": "Possible alert statuses",
"enum": [
"Event",
"Incident"
]
},
"causeEnum": {
"description": "Possible alert causes",
"enum": [
"Normal",
"Error",
"Malicious",
"Malfunction",
"Natural",
"Unknown"
]
},
"severityEnum": {
"description": "Possible alert severities",
"enum": [
"Unknown",
"Info",
"Low",
"Medium",
"High"
]
},
"analyzerCategoryEnum": {
"description": "Possible analyzer categories",
"enum": [
"1DLiS",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"2DLiS",
"3DLiS",
"1DLaS",
"2DLaS",
"3DLaS",
"VAD",
"HAR",
"FRC",
"VNIR",
"SWIR",
"LWIR",
"MWIR",
"ADS",
"ODC",
"WEA",
"DDOS",
"SPAM",
"AV",
"EDR",
"FW",
"NIDS",
"HIDS",
"WIDS",
"PROX",
"WAF",
"HPT",
"LOG",
"IAM",
"VPN",
"ETL",
"RASP",
"BAST",
"NAC",
"SIEM",
"NMS"
]
},
"analyzerTypeEnum": {
"description": "Possible analyzer types",
"enum": [
"Cyber",
"Physical",
"Availability",
"Combined"
]
},
"analyzerDataEnum": {
"description": "Possible types of data/sensors",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"enum": [
"Light",
"Noise",
"Touch",
"Images",
"Vibration",
"Lidar",
"Thermic",
"Seismic",
"Temperature",
"Rain",
"Water",
"Humidity",
"Particles",
"Contact",
"MagneticField",
"Acoustics",
"Fog",
"External",
"Reporting",
"Connection",
"Datagram",
"Content",
"Data",
"File",
"Flow",
"Log",
"Protocol",
"Host",
"Network",
"Alert",
"Relay",
"Auth",
"SNMP"
]
},
"analyzerMethodEnum": {
"description": "Possible detection methods",
"enum": [
"Biometric",
"Signature",
"Monitor",
"Policy",
"Statistical",
"AI",
"Heat",
"Movement",
"Blackhole",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"Heuristic",
"Integrity",
"Honeypot",
"Tarpit",
"Recon",
"Correlation",
"Threshold"
]
},
"vectorCategoryEnum": {
"description": "Possible categories for attack vectors",
"enum": [
"Unknown",
"Face",
"RunningMan",
"Human",
"Man",
"Woman",
"Chilren",
"Animal",
"Object",
"Blast",
"Fire",
"Wind",
"Snow",
"Rain",
"Chemical",
"Smoke",
"Vapors",
"Drug",
"Device",
"Drone",
"Car",
"Truck",
"Vehicle",
"Bird",
"Storm",
"HighTemperature",
"Artifact",
"AutonomousSystem",
"Directory",
"DomainName",
"EmailAddress",
"EmailMessage",
"File",
"IPv4Address",
"IPv6Address",
"Mutex",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"NetworkTraffic",
"Process",
"URL",
"UserAccount",
"WindowsRegistryKey",
"X509Certificate"
]
},
"vectorSizeEnum": {
"description": "Possible sizes for attack vectors",
"enum": [
"Small",
"Medium",
"Large",
"Huge"
]
},
"categoryEnum": {
"description": "Possible alert categories",
"enum": [
"Abusive.Spam",
"Abusive.Harassment",
"Abusive.Illicit",
"Malicious.System",
"Malicious.Botnet",
"Malicious.Distribution",
"Malicious.Configuration",
"Recon.Scanning",
"Recon.Sniffing",
"Recon.SocialEngineering",
"Attempt.Exploit",
"Attempt.Login",
"Attempt.NewSignature",
"Intrusion.AdminCompromise",
"Intrusion.UserCompromise",
"Intrusion.AppCompromise",
"Intrusion.SysCompromise",
"Intrusion.Burglary",
"Availability.DoS",
"Availability.DDoS",
"Availability.Misconf",
"Availability.Theft",
"Availability.Sabotage",
"Availability.Outage",
"Availability.Failure",
"Information.UnauthorizedAccess",
"Information.UnauthorizedModification",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"Information.DataLoss",
"Information.DataLeak",
"Fraud.UnauthorizedUsage",
"Fraud.Copyright",
"Fraud.Masquerade",
"Fraud.Phishing",
"Vulnerable.Crypto",
"Vulnerable.DDoS",
"Vulnerable.Surface",
"Vulnerable.Disclosure",
"Vulnerable.System",
"Geophysical.Earthquake",
"Geophysical.MassMovement",
"Geophysical.Volcanic",
"Meteorological.Temperature",
"Meteorological.Fog",
"Meteorological.Storm",
"Hydrological.Flood",
"Hydrological.Landslide",
"Hydrological.Wave",
"Climatological.Drought",
"Climatological.LakeOutburst",
"Climatological.Wildfire",
"Biological.Epidemic",
"Biological.Insect",
"Biological.Animal",
"Extraterrestrial.Impact",
"Extraterrestrial.SpaceWeather",
"Other.Uncategorized",
"Other.Undetermined",
"Test.Test"
]
}
},
"required": [
"Version",
"ID",
"CreateTime",
"Analyzer"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"Version": {
"description": "Version of the IDMEFv2 Format",
"enum": ["2.0.3"]
},
"ID": {
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"description": "128-bit Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID)",
"$ref": "#/definitions/uuidType"
},
"Entity": {
"description": "Tenant identifier to support multi-tenancy",
"type": "string"
},
"Category": {
"description": "The ENISA:RIST incident category & subcategory",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/categoryEnum"
}
},
"Cause": {
"description": "Alert cause's origin",
"$ref": "#/definitions/causeEnum"
},
"Description": {
"description": "Short free text human-readable description",
"type": "string"
},
"Status": {
"description": "Alert state in the overall alert lifecycle",
"$ref": "#/definitions/statusEnum"
},
"Severity": {
"description": "Severity of the alert",
"$ref": "#/definitions/severityEnum"
},
"Confidence": {
"description": "Confidence in detection",
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"maximum": 1
},
"Note": {
"description": "Free text human-readable additional note",
"type": "string"
},
"CreateTime": {
"description": "Message creation timestamp",
"$ref": "#/definitions/timestampType"
},
"StartTime": {
"description": "Deduced start of the event",
"$ref": "#/definitions/timestampType"
},
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"CeaseTime": {
"description": "Deduced end of the event",
"$ref": "#/definitions/timestampType"
},
"DeleteTime": {
"description": "Message deletion timestamp",
"$ref": "#/definitions/timestampType"
},
"AltNames": {
"description": "Alternative identifiers",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"AltCategory": {
"description": "Alternative categories",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"Ref": {
"description": "References related to the alert",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "uri"
}
},
"CorrelID": {
"description": "Messages used to create this message",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/uuidType"
}
},
"AggrCondition": {
"description": "Conditions used to aggregate messages",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"PredID": {
"description": "Previous messages which are now obsolete",
"type": "array",
"items": {
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"$ref": "#/definitions/uuidType"
}
},
"RelID": {
"description": "Other messages related to this message",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/uuidType"
}
},
"Analyzer": {
"description": "Analyzer from which the message originates",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"IP",
"Name",
"Model",
"Category",
"Data",
"Method"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"IP": {
"description": "IP address",
"$ref": "#/definitions/ipAddressType"
},
"Name": {
"description": "Name of the analyzer",
"type": "string"
},
"Hostname": {
"description": "Hostname of this analyzer",
"type": "string"
},
"Type": {
"description": "Analyzer type",
"$ref": "#/definitions/analyzerTypeEnum"
},
"Model": {
"description": "Generic name, brand, version",
"type": "string"
},
"Category": {
"description": "Analyzer categories",
"type": "array",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/analyzerCategoryEnum"
}
},
"Data": {
"description": "Data used during the detection",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/analyzerDataEnum"
}
},
"Method": {
"description": "Detection method",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/analyzerMethodEnum"
}
},
"GeoLocation": {
"description": "GPS coordinates for the analyzer",
"$ref": "#/definitions/geoLocationType"
},
"UnLocation": {
"description": "Standard UN/LOCODE location",
"$ref": "#/definitions/unLocodeType"
},
"Location": {
"description": "Internal location of the analyzer",
"type": "string"
}
}
},
"Sensor": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Sensor(s) used by the analyzer for its analysis",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"IP",
"Name",
"Model"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"IP": {
"description": "The sensor's IP address",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"$ref": "#/definitions/ipAddressType"
},
"Name": {
"description": "Name of the sensor",
"type": "string"
},
"Hostname": {
"description": "Hostname of the sensor",
"type": "string"
},
"Model": {
"description": "Generic name, brand, version",
"type": "string"
},
"UnLocation": {
"description": "Standard UN/LOCODE location",
"$ref": "#/definitions/unLocodeType"
},
"Location": {
"description": "Internal location of the sensor",
"type": "string"
},
"CaptureZone": {
"description": "Sensor capture zone (as serialized JSON)",
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"Source": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Possible source(s) of the event",
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"UnLocation": {
"description": "Standard UN/LOCODE location for this source",
"$ref": "#/definitions/unLocodeType"
},
"Location": {
"description": "Internal location (for internal sources)",
"type": "string"
},
"GeoLocation": {
"description": "GPS coordinates for the source",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"$ref": "#/definitions/geoLocationType"
},
"Note": {
"description": "Free text human-readable additional note",
"type": "string"
},
"TI": {
"description": "Threat Intelligence about the source",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"IP": {
"description": "Source IP address",
"$ref": "#/definitions/ipAddressType"
},
"Hostname": {
"description": "Hostname of this source",
"type": "string"
},
"User": {
"description": "User ID or login responsible for the alert",
"type": "string"
},
"Email": {
"description": "Email address",
"type": "string",
"format": "email"
},
"Protocol": {
"description": "Protocols in connections from/to this source",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/protocolNameType"
}
},
"Port": {
"description": "Source ports involved",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/portType"
}
},
"Attachment": {
"description": "Attachments related to this source",
"type": "array",
"items": {
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"$ref": "#/definitions/attachmentNameType"
}
},
"Observable": {
"description": "Observables related to this source",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/observableNameType"
}
}
}
}
},
"Target": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Possible target(s) of the event",
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"UnLocation": {
"description": "Standard UN/LOCODE location for this target",
"$ref": "#/definitions/unLocodeType"
},
"Location": {
"description": "Internal location of the target",
"type": "string"
},
"GeoLocation": {
"description": "GPS coordinates for the target",
"$ref": "#/definitions/geoLocationType"
},
"Note": {
"description": "Free text human-readable additional note",
"type": "string"
},
"IP": {
"description": "Target IP address",
"$ref": "#/definitions/ipAddressType"
},
"Hostname": {
"description": "Hostname of this target",
"type": "string"
},
"Service": {
"description": "Impacted service/process",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"type": "string"
},
"User": {
"description": "User ID or login targeted by the alert",
"type": "string"
},
"Email": {
"description": "Email address",
"type": "string"
},
"Port": {
"description": "Ports affected on this target",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/portType"
}
},
"Attachment": {
"description": "Attachments related to this target",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/attachmentNameType"
}
},
"Observable": {
"description": "Observables related to this target",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/observableNameType"
}
}
}
}
},
"Vector": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Vector(s) of the event",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"Category"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"Category": {
"description": "Category for the detected \"vector\"",
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/vectorCategoryEnum"
}
},
"TI": {
"description": "Threat Intelligence about the vector",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"Name": {
"description": "Name of the detected vector or \"Unknown\"",
"type": "string"
},
"Size": {
"description": "Average size of the detected vector",
"$ref": "#/definitions/vectorSizeEnum"
},
"UnLocation": {
"description": "UN Location of the vector",
"$ref": "#/definitions/unLocodeType"
},
"GeoLocation": {
"description": "GPS coordinates for the vector",
"$ref": "#/definitions/geoLocationType"
},Acknowledgments
"GeoRadius": {
"description": "Error margin in meters",
"type": "number"
},
"Location": {
"description": "Internal location",
"type": "string"
},
"Note": {
"description": "Free text human-readable additional note",
"type": "string"
},
"Attachment": {
"description": "Attachments related to this vector",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/attachmentNameType"
}
},
"Observable": {
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"description": "Observables related to this vector",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/observableNameType"
}
}
}
}
},
"Attachment": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Data linked to a source, target or vector",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"Name"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"Name": {
"description": "Unique identifier among attachments",
"$ref": "#/definitions/attachmentNameType"
},
"FileName": {
"description": "Attachment filename",
"type": "string"
},
"Hash": {
"description": "Checksum of the attachment's content",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/hashType"
}
},
"Size": {
"description": "Content length (in bytes)",
"type": "integer"
},
"Ref": {
"description": "Link to information about this attachment",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "uri"
}
},
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"ExternalURI": {
"description": "Link to external copies (e.g. online copies)",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "uri"
}
},
"Note": {
"description": "Free text human-readable additional note",
"type": "string"
},
"ContentType": {
"description": "Media Type of the attachment (RFC 2046)",
"$ref": "#/definitions/mediaTypeType"
},
"ContentEncoding": {
"description": "Content encoding",
"type": "string"
},
"Content": {
"description": "The attachment's content (if embedded)",
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"Observable": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"description": "Metadata linked to a source, target or vector",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"Name",
"Content"
],
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"Name": {
"description": "Unique identifier among observables",
"$ref": "#/definitions/observableNameType"
},
"Reference": {
"description": "Reference to the observable's specification",
"type": "string"
},
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft IDMEFv2 October 2022
"Content": {
"description": "Observable content",
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
}
}
Authors' Addresses
Gilles Lehmann
Telecom Sud Paris
France
Email: gilles.lehmann@telecom-sudparis.eu
Thomas Andrejak
CS GROUP
France
Email: thomas.andrejak@csgroup.eu
Francois Poirotte
CS GROUP
France
Email: francois.poirotte@csgroup.eu
Lehmann, et al. Expires 18 April 2023 [Page 87]