MILE Working Group P. Kampanakis
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational M. Suzuki
Expires: May 19, 2017 NICT
November 15, 2016
IODEF Usage Guidance
draft-ietf-mile-iodef-guidance-07
Abstract
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] defines a data representation that
provides a framework for sharing information commonly exchanged by
Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) about computer
security incidents. Since the IODEF model includes a wealth of
available options that can be used to describe a security incident or
issue, it can be challenging for security practicioners to develop
tools that can leverage IODEF for incident sharing. This document
provides guidelines for IODEF practicioners. It also addresses how
common security indicators can be represented in IODEF and use-cases
of how IODEF is being used so far. The goal of this document is to
make IODEF's adoption by vendors easier and encourage faster and
wider adoption of the model by Computer Security Incident Response
Teams (CSIRTs) around the world.
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 http://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 May 19, 2017.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Minimal IODEF document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Decide what IODEF will be used for . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Indicators vs Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IODEF considerations and how to address them . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. External References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Indicator predicate logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Disclosure level of IODEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Current uses of IODEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Inter-vendor and Service Provider Exercise . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Inter-vendor and Service Provider Exercise Examples 18
A.1. Malware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2. Malware Delivery URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3. DDoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4. Spear-Phishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
1. Introduction
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format v2 in
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] defines a data representation that
provides a framework for sharing information commonly exchanged by
Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) about computer
security incidents. The IODEF data model consists of multiple
classes and data types that are defined in the IODEF XML schema.
The IODEF schema was designed to be able to describe all the possible
fields that would be needed in a security incident exchange. Thus,
IODEF contains plenty data constructs that could potentially make it
harder for IODEF implementers to decide which are the most important
ones to use. Additionally, in the IODEF schema, there exist multiple
fields and classes which do not necessarily need to be used in every
possible data exchange. Moreover, there are fields that are useful
only in data exchanges of non-traditional security events. This
document tries to address these issues. It also addresses how common
security indicators can be represented in IODEF. It points out the
most important IODEF classes for an implementer and describe other
ones that are not as important. Also, it presents some common
challenges for IODEF implementers and how to address them. The end
goal of this document is to make IODEF's adoption by vendors easier
and encourage faster and wider adoption of the model by Computer
Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) around the world.
Section 3 discusses the recommended classes and how an IODEF
implementer should chose the classes to implement. Section 4
presents common considerations a practicioner will come across and
how to address them. Section 5 goes over some common uses of IODEF.
2. Terminology
The terminology used in this document follows the one defined in
[RFC5070] and [RFC7203].
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Implementation Strategy
It is important for IODEF practicioners to be able to distinguish how
the IODEF classes will be used in incident information exchanges. It
is critical to follow a strategy according to which of the various
IODEF classes will be implemented. It is also important to know the
most common classes that will be used to describe common security
incidents or indicators. Thus, this section will describe the most
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
important classes and factors an IODEF implementer should take into
consideration before designing the implementation or tool.
3.1. Minimal IODEF document
An IODEF document MUST include at least an Incident class and a
version attribute. An Incident MUST contain three minimal mandatory-
to-implement classes. An Incident class needs to have a Generation
time and at least one Contact and IncidentID class. The structure of
the minimal-style Incident class follows below.
+-------------------------+
| Incident |
+-------------------------+
| ENUM purpose |<>----------[ IncidentID ]
| |<>----------[ GenerationTime ]
| |<>--{1..*}--[ Contact ]
+-------------------------+
Minimal-style Incident class
This minimal Incident class needs to include a purpose attribute and
the IncidentID, GenerationTime, and Contact elements.
The Contact class requires the type and role attributes, but no
elements are required by the IODEF v2 specification. Nevertheless,
at least one of the elements in the Contact class, such as Email
class, need to be implemented so that the IODEF document can be
practical.
Implementers can refer to Appendix A and Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] for example IODEF and IODEF v2 documents
respectively.
3.2. Decide what IODEF will be used for
There is no need for an practicioner to implement IODEF classes and
fields other than the minimal ones (Section 3.1) and the ones that
are necessary for his use-cases. The implementer SHOULD carefuly
look into the schema and decide classes to implement (or not).
For example, if we have has DDoS as a potential use-case, then the
Flow class and its included information are the most important
classes to use. The Flow class describes information related to the
attacker hosts and victim hosts, which information may help automated
filtering or sink-hole operations.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
Another potential use-case is malware command and control. After
modern malware infects a device, it usually proceeds to connect to
one or more command and control (c2) servers to receive instructions
from its master and potentially exfiltrate information. To protect
against such activity, it is important to interrupt the c2
communication by filtering the activity. IODEF can describe such
activities using the Flow and the ServiceName classes.
For use-cases where indicators need to be described more than events
themselves, the IndicatorData class and the necessary included in it
classes will be implemented instead of the EventData class and its
classes.
In summary, an implementer SHOULD identify the use-cases and find the
classes that are necessary to support in IODEF v2. Implementing and
parsing all IODEF classes can be cumbersome in some occasions and is
not always necessary. Other external schemata can also be used in
IODEF to describe incidents or indicators which should be treated
accordingly only if the implementer's IODEF use-cases require
external schema support.
3.3. Indicators vs Events
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] contains classes that can describe attack
Methods, Events, Indicents, how they were discovered and the
Assessment of the reprecussions of the incident to the victim. It is
important for implementers to know the distinction between these
classes in order to decide which ones fullfulls their use-cases.
An IndicatorData class depicts a threat indicator or observable that
could be used to describe a threat that does not necessarily mean
that an exploit happened. For example, we could see an attack
happening but it might have been prevented and not have resulted in
an incident or security event. On the other hand an EventData class
usually describes a security event and can be considered as a
incident report of something that took place.
Classes like Discovery, Assessment, Method, RecoveryTime are used in
conjuction with EventData as they related to the incident report
described in the EventData. The RelatedActivity class can reference
an incident, an indicator or other related threat activity.
While deciding what classes are important for the needed use-cases,
IODEF users SHOULD carefuly evaluate the necessary classes and how
these are used in order to avoid unecessary work. For example, if we
want to only describe indicators in IODEF, the implementation of
Method or Assessment might not be important.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
4. IODEF considerations and how to address them
4.1. External References
The IODEF format includes the Reference class that refers to
externaly defined information such as a vulnerability, Intrusion
Detection System (IDS) alert, malware sample, advisory, or attack
technique. To facilitate the exchange of information, the Reference
class was extended to the Enumeration Reference Format [RFC7495].
The Enumeration Reference Format specifies a format to include
enumeration values from external data representations into IODEF like
CVE, and manages references to external representations using IANA
registry. Practicioners SHOULD only support external enumerations
that are expected to be used in IODEF documents for their use-cases.
4.2. Extensions
The IODEF data model ([RFC5070]) is extensible. Many class
attributes and their values can be extended using using the "ext-*"
prefix. Additional classed can also be defined by using the
AdditionalData and RecordItem classes. An extension to the
AdditionalData class for reporting Phishing emails is defined in
[RFC5901].
Additionally, IODEF can import existing schemata by using an
extension framework defined in [RFC7203]. The framework enables
IODEF users to embed XML data inside an IODEF document using external
schemata or structures defined by external specifications. Examples
include CVE, CVRF and OVAL. Thus, [RFC7203] enhances the IODEF
capabilities without further extending the data model.
IODEF practicioners can consider using their own IODEF extensions
only for data that cannot be described using existing standards or
importing them in and IODEF document using [RFC7203] is not a
suitable option.
Information about extending IODEF classes attributes and enumarated
values can be found in Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis].
4.3. Indicator predicate logic
An IODEF [I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] document can describe incident
reports and indicators. The Indicator class can include references
to other indicators, observables and more classes the contain details
about the indicator. When describing security indicators, it is
often common to need to group them together in order to form a group
of indicator that constitute a security threat. For example, a
botnet might have multiple command and control servers. For that
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
reason, IODEF v2 introduced the IndicatorExpression class that is
used to add the indicator predicate logic when grouping more than one
indicators or observables.
It is important for implementers to be able to parse and apply the
boolean logic offered by an IndicatorExpression in order to evaluate
the existance of an indicator. As explained in Section 3.29.5 of
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis] the IndicatorExpression element operator
defines the operator applied to all the child element of the
IndicatorExpression. If no operator is defined "and" SHOULD be
assumed. IndicatorExpressions can also be nested together. Child
IndicatorExpressions should be treated as child elements of their
parent and they SHOULD be evaluated first before evaluated with the
operator of their parent.
In the following example the EventData class evaluates as a Flow of
one System with source address being (10.10.10.104 OR 10.10.10.106)
AND target address 10.1.1.1
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<!-- ...XML code omitted... -->
<IndicatorData>
<Indicator>
<IndicatorID name="csirt.example.com" version="1">
G90823490
</IndicatorID>
<Description>C2 domains</Description>
<IndicatorExpression operator="and">
<IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<Observable>
<System category="source" spoofed="no">
<Node>
<Address category="ipv4-addr">
10.10.10.104
</Address>
</Node>
</System>
</Observable>
<Observable>
<System category="source" spoofed="no">
<Node>
<Address category="ipv4-addr">
10.10.10.106
</Address>
</Node>
</System>
</Observable>
</IndicatorExpression>
<Observable>
<System category="target" spoofed="no">
<Node>
<Address category="ipv4-addr">
10.1.1.1
</Address>
</Node>
</System>
</Observable>
</IndicatorExpression>
</Indicator>
</IndicatorData>
<!-- ...XML code omitted... -->
Similarly, the FileData Class can be an observable in an
IndicatorExpression. The hash values of two files can be used to
match against an indicator using boolean "or" logic. In the
following example the indicator consists of either of the two files
with two different hashes.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<!-- ...XML code omitted... -->
<IndicatorData>
<Indicator>
<IndicatorID name="csirt.example.com" version="1">
A4399IWQ
</IndicatorID>
<Description>File hash watchlist</Description>
<IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<Observable>
<FileData>
<File>
<FileName>dummy.txt</FileName>
<HashData>
<Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
141accec23e7e5157de60853cb1e01bc38042d
08f9086040815300b7fe75c184
</ds:DigestValue>
</Hash>
</HashData>
</File>
</FileData>
</Observable>
<Observable>
<FileData>
<File>
<FileName>dummy2.txt</FileName>
<HashData>
<Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
141accec23e7e5157de60853cb1e01bc38042d
08f9086040815300b7fe75c184
</ds:DigestValue>
</Hash>
</HashData>
</File>
</FileData>
</Observable>
</IndicatorExpression>
</Indicator>
</IndicatorData>
<!-- ...XML code omitted... -->
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
4.4. Disclosure level of IODEF
The information conveyed in IODEF documents SHOULD be treated
carefully since the content may be confidential. IODEF provides a
disclosure level indicator, but its enforcement depends on operations
at the practicioner's side.
IODEF has a common attribute, called "restriction", which indicates
the disclosure guideline to which the sender expects the recipient to
adhere to for the information represented in the class and its
children. That way, the sender can express the level of disclosure
for each component of an IODEF document. Appropriate external
measures could be implemented based on the restriction level. One
example is when RID is used to transfer the IODEF documents, it can
provide policy guidelines for handling IODEF documents by using the
RIDPolicy class.
The enforcement of the disclosure guidelines goes beyond IODEF. The
recipient of the IODEF document needs to follow the guidelines, but
these guidelines themselves do not provide any enforcement measures.
For that purpose, practicioners SHOULD consider appropriate measures,
technical or operational.
5. Current uses of IODEF
IODEF is currently used by various organizations in order to
represent security incidents and share incident and threat
information between security operations organizations.
5.1. Inter-vendor and Service Provider Exercise
Various vendors organized and executed an exercise where multiple
threat indicators were exchanged using IODEF. The transport protocol
used was RID. The threat information shared included incidents like
DDoS attacks. Malware and Spear-Phishing. As this was a proof-of-
concept (PoC) exercise only example information (no real threats)
were shared as part of the exchanges.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
____________ ____________
| Vendor X | | Vendor Y |
| RID Agent |_______-------------________| RID Agent |
|___________| | Internet | |___________|
-------------
---- RID Report message --->
-- carrying IODEF example ->
--------- over TLS -------->
<----- RID Ack message -----
<--- in case of failure ----
PoC peering topology
The figure above shows how RID interactions took place during the
PoC. Participating organizations were running RID Agent software on-
premises. The RID Agents formed peering relationships with other
participating organizations. When Entity X had a new incident to
exchange it would package it in IODEF and send it to Entity Y over
TLS in a RID Report message. In case there was an issue with the
message, Entity Y would send an RID Acknowledgement message back to
Entity X which included an application level message to describe the
issue. Interoperability between RID agents and the standards,
[RFC6545] and [RFC6546], was also proven in this exercise.
Appendix A includes some of the incident IODEF example information
that was exchanged by the organizations' RID Agents as part of this
proof-of-concept.
The first use-case included sharing of Malware Data Related to an
Incident between CSIRTs. After Entity X detected an incident, she
would put data about malware found during the incident in a backend
system. Entity X then decided to share the incident information with
Entity Y about the malware discovered. This could be a human
decision or part of an automated process.
Below are the steps followed for the malware information exchange
that was taking place:
(1) Entity X has a sharing agreement with Entity Y, and has already
been configured with the IP address of Entity Y's RID Agent
(2) Entity X's RID Agent connects to Entity Y's RID Agent, and
mutual authentication occurs using PKI certificates.
(3) Entity X pushes out a RID Report message which contains
information about N pieces of discovered malware. IODEF is used
in RID to discribe the
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
(a) Hash of malware files
(b) Registry settings changed by the malware
(c) C&C Information for the malware
(4) Entity Y receives RID Report message, sends RID Acknowledgement
message
(5) Entity Y stores the data in a format that makes it possible for
the back end to know which source the data came from.
Another use-case was sharing Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) as
presented below information: Entity X, a Critical Infrastructure and
Key Resource (CIKR) company detects that their internet connection is
saturated with an abnormal amount of traffic. Further investigation
determines that this is an actual DDoS attack. Entity X's computer
incident response team (CIRT) contacts their ISP and shares
information with them about the attack traffic characteristics. In
addition, Entity X has an information sharing relationship with
Entity Y. It shares information with Entity Y on characteristics of
the attack to watch for. Entitty X's ISP is being overwhelmed by the
amount of traffic, so it shares attack signatures and IP addresses of
the most prolific hosts with its adjacent ISPs.
Below are the steps followed for a DDoS information exchange:
(1) Entity X has a sharing agreement with Entity Y, and has already
been configured with the IP address of Entity Y's RID Agent
(2) Entity X's RID Agent connects to Entity Y's RID Agent, and
mutual authentication occurs using PKI certificates.
(3) Entity X pushes out a RID Report message which contains
information about the DDoS attack. IODEF is used in RID to
discribe the
(a) Start and Detect dates and times
(b) IP Addresses of nodes sending DDoS Traffic
(c) Sharing and Use Restrictions
(d) Traffic characteristics (protocols and ports)
(e) HTTP User-Agents used
(f) IP Addresses of C&C for a botnet
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
(4) Entity Y receives RID Report message, sends RID Acknowledgement
message
(5) Entity Y stores the data in a format that makes it possible for
the back end to know which source the data came from.
One more use-case was sharing spear-phishing email information as
explained in the following scenario: The board members of several
defense contractors receive an email inviting them to attend a
conference in San Francisco. The board members are asked to provide
their personally identifiable information such as their home address,
phone number, corporate email, etc in an attached document which came
with the email. The board members were also asked to click on a URL
which would allow them to reach the sign up page for the conference.
One of the recipients believes the email to be a phishing attempt and
forwards the email to their corporate CSIRT for analysis. The CSIRT
identifies the email as an attempted spear phishing incident and
distributes the indicators to their sharing partners.
Below are the steps followed for a spear-phishing information
exchange between CSIRTs that was part of this PoC.
(1) Entity X has a sharing agreement with Entity Y, and has already
been configured with the IP address of Entity Y's RID Agent
(2) Entity X's RID Agent connects to Entity Y's RID Agent, and
mutual authentication occurs using PKI certificates.
(3) Entity X pushes out a RID Report message which contains
information about the spear-phishing email. IODEF is used in
RID to discribe the
(a) Attachment details (file Name, hash, size, malware family
(b) Target description (IP, domain, NSLookup)
(c) Email information (From, Subject, header information, date/
time, digital signature)
(d) Confidence Score
(4) Entity Y receives RID Report message, sends RID Acknowledgement
message
(5) Entity Y stores the data in a format that makes it possible for
the back end to know which source the data came from.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
5.2. Implementations
In order to use IODEF, some tools that cope with IODEF documents,
such as the IODEF parser, are needed. Though arbitrary
implementations can be done, some guidelines are provided in
[I-D.ietf-mile-implementreport]. IODEF , but
[I-D.ietf-mile-implementreport] provides guidelines for implementers.
The document does not specify any specific MTI but provides a list of
implementations the authors have surveyed at the time of its
publication as well as some tips on the implementations.
Implementers are encourage to read the draft.
5.3. Other
IODEF is also used in various projects and products to consume and
share security information. Various vendor incident reporting
products have the ability to consume and export in IODEF format
[implementations]. Perl and Python modules (XML::IODEF, Iodef::Pb,
iodeflib) exist in order to parse IODEF documents and their
extensions. Additionally, some worldwide CERT organizations are
already able to use receive incident information in IODEF.
Future use-cases of IODEF could be:
(1) ISP notifying a national CERT or organization when it identifies
and acts upon an incident and CERTs notifying ISPs when they are
aware of incidents.
(2) Suspected phishing emails could be shared amongst organizations
and national agencies. Automation could validate web content
that the suspicious emails are pointing to. Identified
malicious content linked in a phishing email could then be
shared using IODEF. Phishing campaigns could thus be subverted
much faster by automating information sharing using IODEF.
(3) When finding a certificate that should be revoked, a thrid-party
would forward an automated IODEF message to the CA with the full
context of the certificate and the CA could act accordingly
after checking its validity. Alternatively, in the event of a
compromise of the private key of a certificate, a third-party
could alert the certificate owner about the compromise using
IODEF.
6. Updates
version -07 updates:
(1) Updated examples in Appendix A to follow IODEFv2.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
version -06 updates:
(1) Updated wording in various sections to make content clearer.
(2) Updated Predicate Logic section to reflect the latest
IndicatorExpression logic in iodef-bis.
(3) Updated section to describe the difference between events and
indicators and their use in IODEF v2.
version -05 updates:
(1) Changed section title from "Restrictions in IODEF" to
"Disclosure level of IODEF" and added some description
(2) Mixed "Recommended classes to implement" section with
"Unnecessary Fields" section into "Minimal IODEF document"
section
(3) Added description to "Decide what IODEF will be used for"
section, "Implementations" section, and "Security
Considerations" section
version -04 updates:
(1) Expanded on the Extensions section using Take's suggestion.
(2) Moved Future use-cases under the Other section.
(3) CIF and APWG were consolidated in one "Implementation" section
(4) Added abstract of RFC7495 to the "External References" section
(5) Added Kathleen's example of malware delivery URL to "Appendix"
(6) Added a little description to "Recommended classes to implement"
section
version -03 updates:
(1) Added "Updates" section.
(2) Added details about the flow of information exchanges in "Inter-
vendor and Service Provider Exercise" section. Also updated the
usecases with more background information.
(3) Added future use-cases in the "Collective Intelligence
Framework" section
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
(4) Updated Perl and Python references with the actual module names.
Added IODEF implementation reference "implementations".
(5) Added Predicate logic section
(6) Updated Logic of watchlist of indicators section to simplify the
logic and include examples.
(7) Renamed Externally defined indicators section to Indicator
reference and elaborated on the use of indicator-uid and
indicator-set-uid attribute use.
version -02 updates:
(1) Updated the "Logic for watchlist of indications" section to
clarify the logic based on community feedback.
(2) Added "Inter-vendor and Service Provider Exercise" section.
(3) Added Appendix to include actual use-case IODEF examples.
7. Acknowledgements
8. Security Considerations
This document does not incur any new security issues, since it only
talks about the usage of IODEF, which is defined in RFC 5070
[RFC5070]. Nevertheless, readers of this document SHOULD refer to
the security consideration section of RFC5070 and
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5070, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5070>.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
[RFC5901] Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document
Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5901, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5901>.
[RFC6545] Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)",
RFC 6545, DOI 10.17487/RFC6545, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6545>.
[RFC6546] Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network
Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6546, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6546>.
[RFC7203] Takahashi, T., Landfield, K., and Y. Kadobayashi, "An
Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
Extension for Structured Cybersecurity Information",
RFC 7203, DOI 10.17487/RFC7203, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7203>.
[RFC7495] Montville, A. and D. Black, "Enumeration Reference Format
for the Incident Object Description Exchange Format
(IODEF)", RFC 7495, DOI 10.17487/RFC7495, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7495>.
9.2. Informative References
[APWG] "APWG", <http://apwg.org/>.
[CIF] "CIF", <http://csirtgadgets.org/
collective-intelligence-framework/>.
[I-D.ietf-mile-implementreport]
Inacio, C. and D. Miyamoto, "MILE Implementation Report",
draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-10 (work in progress),
November 2016.
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis]
Danyliw, R., "The Incident Object Description Exchange
Format v2", draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-26 (work in
progress), October 2016.
[implementations]
"Implementations on IODEF",
<http://siis.realmv6.org/implementations/>.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
Appendix A. Inter-vendor and Service Provider Exercise Examples
Below some of the incident IODEF example information that was
exchanged by the vendors as part of this proof-of-concept Inter-
vendor and Service Provider Exercise.
A.1. Malware
In this test, malware information was exchanged using RID and IODEF.
The information included file hashes, registry setting changes and
the C&C servers the malware uses.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<IODEF-Document version="2.00"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<iodef:Incident purpose="reporting">
<iodef:IncidentID name="csirt.example.com">
189234
</iodef:IncidentID>
<iodef:ReportTime>2013-03-07T16:14:56.757+05:30</iodef:ReportTime>
<iodef:GenerationTime>2013-03-07T16:14:56.757+05:30</iodef:GenerationTime>
<iodef:Description>
Malware and related indicators identified
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Assessment occurrence="potential">
<iodef:SystemImpact severity="medium" type="breach-proprietary">
<iodef:Description>
Malware with Command and Control Server and System Changes
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:SystemImpact>
</iodef:Assessment>
<iodef:Contact role="creator" type="organization">
<iodef:ContactName>example.com CSIRT</iodef:ContactName>
<iodef:Email>
<iodef:EmailTo>contact@csirt.example.com</iodef:EmailTo>
</iodef:Email>
</iodef:Contact>
<iodef:EventData>
<iodef:Method>
<iodef:Reference>
<iodef:URL>
http://www.threatexpert.example.com/report.aspx?
md5=e2710ceb088dacdcb03678db250742b7
</iodef:URL>
<iodef:Description>Zeus</iodef:Description>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
</iodef:Reference>
</iodef:Method>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr" observable-id="addr-c2-91011-001">
203.0.113.200
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="site-uri" observable-id="addr-c2-91011-002">
http://zeus.556677889900.example.com/log-bin/
lunch_install.php?aff_id=1&amp;
lunch_id=1&amp;maddr=&amp;
action=install
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:NodeRole category="c2-server"/>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
<iodef:Record>
<iodef:RecordData>
<iodef:FileData observable-id="file-91011-001">
<iodef:File>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha1"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
MHg2NzUxQTI1MzQ4M0E2N0Q4NkUwRjg0NzYwRjYxRjEwQkJDQzJFREZG
</ds:DigestValue>
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
<iodef:File>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#md5"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
MHgyRTg4ODA5ODBENjI0NDdFOTc5MEFGQTg5NTEzRjBBNA==
</ds:DigestValue>
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
</iodef:FileData>
<iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified observable-id="regkey-91011-001">
<iodef:Key registryaction="add-value">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
CurrentVersion\Run\tamg
</iodef:KeyName>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<iodef:Value>
?\?\?%System%\wins\mc.exe\?\??
</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
<iodef:Key registryaction="modify-value">
<iodef:KeyName>HKLM\Software\Microsoft\
Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\dqo
</iodef:KeyName>
<iodef:Value>"\"\"%Windir%\Resources\
Themes\Luna\km.exe\?\?"
</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
</iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified>
</iodef:RecordData>
</iodef:Record>
</iodef:EventData>
<iodef:EventData>
<iodef:Method>
<iodef:Reference>
<iodef:URL>
http://www.threatexpert.example.com/report.aspx?
md5=c3c528c939f9b176c883ae0ce5df0001
</iodef:URL>
<iodef:Description>Cridex</iodef:Description>
</iodef:Reference>
</iodef:Method>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr" observable-id="addr-c2-91011-003">
203.0.113.100
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:NodeRole category="c2-server"/>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>8080</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
<iodef:Record>
<iodef:RecordData>
<iodef:FileData observable-id="file-91011-002">
<iodef:File>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha1"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
MHg3MjYzRkUwRDNBMDk1RDU5QzhFMEM4OTVBOUM1ODVFMzQzRTcxNDFD
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
</ds:DigestValue>
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
</iodef:FileData>
<iodef:FileData observable-id="file-91011-003">
<iodef:File>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#md5"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
MHg0M0NEODUwRkNEQURFNDMzMEE1QkVBNkYxNkVFOTcxQw==
</ds:DigestValue>
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
</iodef:FileData>
<iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified observable-id="regkey-91011-002">
<iodef:Key registryaction="add-value">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
CurrentVersion\Run\KB00121600.exe
</iodef:KeyName>
<iodef:Value>
\?\?%AppData%\KB00121600.exe\?\?
</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
</iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified>
</iodef:RecordData>
</iodef:Record>
</iodef:EventData>
<iodef:IndicatorData>
<iodef:Indicator>
<iodef:IndicatorID name="csirt.example.com" version="1">
ind-91011
</iodef:IndicatorID>
<iodef:Description>
evil c2 server, file hash, and registry key
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Address category="site-uri" observable-id="addr-qrst">
http://foo.example.com:12345/evil/cc.php
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr" observable-id="addr-stuv">
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
192.0.2.1
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr" observable-id="addr-tuvw">
198.51.100.1
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Address category="ipv6-addr" observable-id="addr-uvwx">
2001:db8:dead:beef::1
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Observable>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="addr-c2-91011-001"/>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="addr-c2-91011-002"/>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="addr-c2-91011-003"/>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="and">
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:FileData observable-id="file-91011-000">
<iodef:File>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
141accec23e7e5157de60853cb1e01bc38042d08f9086040815300b7fe75c184
</ds:DigestValue>
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
</iodef:FileData>
</iodef:Observable>
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified observable-id="regkey-91011-000">
<iodef:Key registryaction="add-key"
observable-id="regkey-vwxy">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\
Services\.Net CLR
</iodef:KeyName>
</iodef:Key>
<iodef:Key registryaction="add-key"
observable-id="regkey-wxyz">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\
Services\.Net CLR\Parameters
</iodef:KeyName>
<iodef:Value>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
\"\"%AppData%\KB00121600.exe\"\"
</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
<iodef:Key registryaction="add-value"
observable-id="regkey-xyza">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\
.Net CLR\Parameters\ServiceDll
</iodef:KeyName>
<iodef:Value>C:\bad.exe</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
<iodef:Key registryaction="modify-value"
observable-id="regkey-zabc">
<iodef:KeyName>
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\
Services\.Net CLR\Parameters\Bar
</iodef:KeyName>
<iodef:Value>Baz</iodef:Value>
</iodef:Key>
</iodef:WindowsRegistryKeysModified>
</iodef:Observable>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="and">
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="file-91011-001"/>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="regkey-91011-001"/>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="and">
<iodef:IndicatorExpression operator="or">
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="file-91011-002"/>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="file-91011-003"/>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
<iodef:ObservableReference uid-ref="regkey-91011-002"/>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
</iodef:IndicatorExpression>
</iodef:Indicator>
</iodef:IndicatorData>
</iodef:Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
A.2. Malware Delivery URL
This example indicates malware and related URL for file delivery.
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<IODEF-Document version="2.00"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<iodef:Incident purpose="reporting">
<iodef:IncidentID name="csirt.example.com">
189801
</iodef:IncidentID>
<iodef:RelatedActivity>
<iodef:URL>http://zeus.556677889900.example.com/log-bin/lunch_install.php?aff_id=1&lunch_id=1&maddr=&action=install
</iodef:URL>
</iodef:RelatedActivity>
<iodef:ReportTime>2012-12-05T12:20:00+00:00</iodef:ReportTime>
<iodef:GenerationTime>2012-12-05T12:20:00+00:00</iodef:GenerationTime>
<iodef:Description>Malware and related indicators</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Assessment occurrence="potential">
<iodef:SystemImpact severity="medium" type="breach-privacy">
<iodef:Description>Malware with C&C
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:SystemImpact>
</iodef:Assessment>
<iodef:Contact role="creator" type="organization">
<iodef:ContactName>example.com CSIRT
</iodef:ContactName>
<iodef:Email>
<iodef:EmailTo>contact@csirt.example.com
</iodef:EmailTo>
</iodef:Email>
</iodef:Contact>
<iodef:EventData>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">192.0.2.200
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:NodeRole category="www"/>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
</iodef:EventData>
</iodef:Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
A.3. DDoS
The DDoS test exchanged information that described a DDoS including
protocols and ports, bad IP addresses and HTTP User-Agent fields.
The IODEF version used for the data representation was based on
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<IODEF-Document version="2.00"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<iodef:Incident purpose="reporting" restriction="default">
<iodef:IncidentID name="csirt.example.com">
189701
</iodef:IncidentID>
<iodef:DetectTime>2013-02-05T01:15:45+00:00</iodef:DetectTime>
<iodef:StartTime>2013-02-05T00:34:45+00:00</iodef:StartTime>
<iodef:ReportTime>2013-02-05T01:34:45+00:00</iodef:ReportTime>
<iodef:GenerationTime>2013-02-05T01:15:45+00:00</iodef:GenerationTime>
<iodef:Description>DDoS Traffic Seen</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Assessment occurrence="actual">
<iodef:SystemImpact severity="medium" type="availability-system">
<iodef:Description>DDoS Traffic
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:SystemImpact>
<iodef:Confidence rating="high"/>
</iodef:Assessment>
<iodef:Contact role="creator" type="organization">
<iodef:ContactName>Dummy Test</iodef:ContactName>
<iodef:Email>
<iodef:EmailTo>contact@dummytest.com
</iodef:EmailTo>
</iodef:Email>
</iodef:Contact>
<iodef:EventData>
<iodef:Description>
Dummy Test sharing with ISP1
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Method>
<iodef:Reference>
<iodef:URL>
http://blog.spiderlabs.com/2011/01/loic-ddos-
analysis-and-detection.html
</iodef:URL>
<iodef:URL>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Orbit_Ion_Cannon
</iodef:URL>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<iodef:Description>
Low Orbit Ion Cannon User Agent
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:Reference>
</iodef:Method>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source" spoofed="no">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
192.0.2.104
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>1337</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="source" spoofed="no">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
192.0.2.106
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>1337</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="source" spoofed="no">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-net">
198.51.100.0/24
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>1337</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="source" spoofed="no">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv6-addr">
2001:db8:dead:beef::1
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>1337</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="target">
<iodef:Node>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
203.0.113.1
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Service ip-protocol="6">
<iodef:Port>80</iodef:Port>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="sensor">
<iodef:Node>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:Description>
Information provided in Flow class instance is from
Inspection of traffic from network tap
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
<iodef:Expectation action="other"/>
</iodef:EventData>
<iodef:IndicatorData>
<iodef:Indicator>
<iodef:IndicatorID name="csirt.example.com" version="1">
G83345941
</iodef:IndicatorID>
<iodef:Description>
User-Agent string
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Observable>
<iodef:BulkObservable type="http-user-agent">
<iodef:BulkObservableList>
user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12">
</iodef:BulkObservableList>
</iodef:BulkObservable>
</iodef:Observable>
</iodef:Indicator>
</iodef:IndicatorData>
</iodef:Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
A.4. Spear-Phishing
The Spear-Phishing test exchanged information that described a Spear-
Phishing email including DNS records and addresses about the sender,
malicious attached file information and email data. The IODEF
version used for the data representation was based on
[I-D.ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis].
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
<IODEF-Document version="2.00"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-2.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<iodef:Incident purpose="reporting">
<iodef:IncidentID name="csirt.example.com">
189601
</iodef:IncidentID>
<iodef:DetectTime>2013-01-04T08:06:12+00:00</iodef:DetectTime>
<iodef:StartTime>2013-01-04T08:01:34+00:00</iodef:StartTime>
<iodef:EndTime>2013-01-04T08:31:27+00:00</iodef:EndTime>
<iodef:ReportTime>2013-01-04T09:15:45+00:00</iodef:ReportTime>
<iodef:GenerationTime>2013-01-04T09:15:45+00:00</iodef:GenerationTime>
<iodef:Description>
Zeus Spear Phishing E-mail with Malware Attachment
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Assessment occurrence="potential">
<iodef:SystemImpact severity="medium" type="takeover-system">
<iodef:Description>
Malware with Command and Control Server and System Changes
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:SystemImpact>
</iodef:Assessment>
<iodef:Contact role="creator" type="organization">
<iodef:ContactName>example.com CSIRT</iodef:ContactName>
<iodef:Email>
<iodef:EmailTo>contact@csirt.example.com</iodef:EmailTo>
</iodef:Email>
</iodef:Contact>
<iodef:EventData>
<iodef:Description>
Targeting Defense Contractors,
specifically board members attending Dummy Con
</iodef:Description>
<iodef:Method>
<iodef:Reference observable-id="ref-1234">
<iodef:Description>Zeus</iodef:Description>
</iodef:Reference>
</iodef:Method>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="site-uri">
http://www.zeusevil.example.com
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
192.0.2.166
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="asn">
65535
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="ext-value"
ext-category="as-name">
EXAMPLE-AS - University of Example"
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="ext-value"
ext-category="as-prefix">
192.0.2.0/24
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:NodeRole category="malware-distribution"/>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
<iodef:Flow>
<iodef:System category="source">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:DomainData>
<Name>mail1.evildave.example.com</Name>
</iodef:DomainData>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
198.51.100.6
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="asn">
65534
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:Address category="ext-value"
ext-category="as-name">
EXAMPLE-AS - University of Example
</iodef:Address>
<iodef:DomainData>
<iodef:Name>evildave.example.com</iodef:Name>
<iodef:DateDomainWasChecked>2013-01-04T09:10:24+00:00
</iodef:DateDomainWasChecked>
<!-- <iodef:RelatedDNS RecordType="MX"> -->
<iodef:RelatedDNS dtype="string">
evildave.example.com MX prefernce = 10, mail exchanger
= mail1.evildave.example.com
</iodef:RelatedDNS>
<iodef:RelatedDNS dtype="string">
mail1.evildave.example.com
internet address = 198.51.100.6
</iodef:RelatedDNS>
<iodef:RelatedDNS dtype="string">
zuesevil.example.com. IN TXT \"v=spf1 a mx -all\"
</iodef:RelatedDNS>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
</iodef:DomainData>
</iodef:Node>
<iodef:NodeRole category="mail">
<iodef:Description>
Sending phishing mails
</iodef:Description>
</iodef:NodeRole>
<iodef:Service>
<iodef:EmailData>
<iodef:EmailFrom>
emaildave@evildave.example.com
</iodef:EmailFrom>
<iodef:EmailSubject>
Join us at Dummy Con
</iodef:EmailSubject>
<iodef:EmailX-Mailer>
StormRider 4.0
</iodef:EmailX-Mailer>
</iodef:EmailData>
</iodef:Service>
</iodef:System>
<iodef:System category="target">
<iodef:Node>
<iodef:Address category="ipv4-addr">
203.0.113.2
</iodef:Address>
</iodef:Node>
</iodef:System>
</iodef:Flow>
<iodef:Expectation action="other"/>
<iodef:Record>
<iodef:RecordData>
<iodef:FileData observable-id="fd-1234">
<iodef:File>
<iodef:FileName>
Dummy Con Sign Up Sheet.txt
</iodef:FileName>
<iodef:FileSize>
152
</iodef:FileSize>
<iodef:HashData scope="file-contents">
<iodef:Hash>
<ds:DigestMethod
Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#sha256"/>
<ds:DigestValue>
141accec23e7e5157de60853cb1e01bc38042d
08f9086040815300b7fe75c184
</ds:DigestValue>
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IODEF Guidance November 2016
</iodef:Hash>
</iodef:HashData>
</iodef:File>
</iodef:FileData>
</iodef:RecordData>
<iodef:RecordData>
<iodef:CertificateData>
<iodef:Certificate>
<ds:X509Data>
<ds:X509IssuerSerial>
<ds:X509IssuerName>FakeCA
</ds:X509IssuerName>
<ds:X509SerialNumber>
57482937101
</ds:X509SerialNumber>
</ds:X509IssuerSerial>
<ds:X509SubjectName>EvilDaveExample
</ds:X509SubjectName>
</ds:X509Data>
</iodef:Certificate>
</iodef:CertificateData>
</iodef:RecordData>
</iodef:Record>
</iodef:EventData>
</iodef:Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
Authors' Addresses
Panos Kampanakis
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: pkampana@cisco.com
Mio Suzuki
NICT
4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi
Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795
JP
Email: mio@nict.go.jp
Kampanakis & Suzuki Expires May 19, 2017 [Page 31]
