mirror of https://github.com/MISP/misp-website
chg: [blog] post updated about decaying indicators
parent
63c75bcb6e
commit
51f1a48c00
|
|
@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: Decaying of Indicators - MISP improved model to expire indicators based on custom models
|
||||
layout: post
|
||||
featured: /assets/images/misp/blog/community-view.png
|
||||
featured: /assets/images/misp/blog/decay.png
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# An improved and flexible model to expire indicators
|
||||
|
||||
This blog post introduces the new functionality of MISP 2.4.116 which allows users and organisations to easily expire information depending on their objectives and targets.
|
||||
|
||||
MISP being a distributed system, various users and organisations are sharing data, sometimes without even knowing each others. While having access to a lot of information is extremely beneficial for all parties, it, however, also induces challenges to deal with.
|
||||
|
||||
In this blog post, we will mainly discuss about information **quality** and **freshness**, other issues like **trust**, **use-cases**, **interests**, etc. are partially taken into account but will not be presented. Nevertheless, these concepts are examined in this [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03914) along with a detailed explanation of the solution we have chosen to tackle these issues.
|
||||
|
|
@ -34,9 +36,9 @@ We still have to see how the ``base_score`` is actually computed. In the built-i
|
|||
|
||||
To give the intuition of how the ``base_score`` computation works, let's look at two examples. In these examples, the two *Taxonomies* used are
|
||||
[*phishing*](https://github.com/MISP/misp-taxonomies/blob/master/phishing/machinetag.json) and [*admiralty-scale*](https://github.com/MISP/misp-taxonomies/blob/master/admiralty-scale/machinetag.json). Both of them contain *Tags* that have a ``numerical_value`` associated to them:
|
||||
- <img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-as-A.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Completely reliable" width="300"/>, ``numerical_value = 100``
|
||||
- <img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-as-D.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Not usually reliable" width="300"/>, ``numerical_value = 25``
|
||||
- <img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-p-H.png" alt="phishing:psychological-acceptability = high" width="250"/>, ``numerical_value = 75``
|
||||
- <img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-as-A.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Completely reliable" width="300"/>, ``numerical_value = 100``
|
||||
- <img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-as-D.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Not usually reliable" width="300"/>, ``numerical_value = 25``
|
||||
- <img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-p-H.png" alt="phishing:psychological-acceptability = high" width="250"/>, ``numerical_value = 75``
|
||||
|
||||
So, if an *Attribute* only have one *Tag* attached, let's say ``admiralty-scale:source-reliability="Completely reliable"``, the ``base_score`` would be:
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -51,9 +53,9 @@ phishing = 50
|
|||
---------------------
|
||||
sum 100
|
||||
```
|
||||
If an *Attribute* has the *Tags* <img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/tag-as-A.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Completely reliable" width="300"/> and <img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//tag-p-H.png" alt="phishing:psychological-acceptability = high" width="250"/> attached, the computation steps would look like this:
|
||||
If an *Attribute* has the *Tags* <img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/tag-as-A.png" alt="admiraly-scale:source-reliability = Completely reliable" width="300"/> and <img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/tag-p-H.png" alt="phishing:psychological-acceptability = high" width="250"/> attached, the computation steps would look like this:
|
||||
|
||||
<img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying//bs-computation-steps.png" alt="base_score comnputation steps" width="600"/>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Thus, the ``base_score`` of this *Attribute* will be ``87.50``.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,7 +70,7 @@ Now that we've seen the basic concepts, let's have a look at how MISP implements
|
|||
|
||||
At the *Event* level, a new filtering button has been added to attach the real-time computed ``score`` of any *Attributes* that has been mapped to a *Model*.
|
||||
|
||||
<img src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-event.png" alt="Decaying Model index" width="700"/>
|
||||
<img src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-event.png" alt="Decaying Model index" width="700"/>
|
||||
|
||||
### Endpoint: ``attribute/restSearch``
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -107,19 +109,19 @@ When creating a new *Decaying Model*, setting a parameters and viewing its impac
|
|||
|
||||
### Customizing lifetime and decay speed parameters
|
||||
|
||||
<video src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-tool.mp4" title="Decaying Model Fine Tuning Tool - Parameters" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
<video src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-tool.mp4" title="Decaying Model Fine Tuning Tool - Parameters" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
Your browser does not support the video tag.
|
||||
</video>
|
||||
|
||||
### Setting the ``base_score``: Customizing Taxonomies' weight
|
||||
|
||||
<video src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-bs.mp4" type="video/mp4" title="Decaying Model Fine Tuning Tool - Base score" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
<video src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-bs.mp4" type="video/mp4" title="Decaying Model Fine Tuning Tool - Base score" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
Your browser does not support the video tag.
|
||||
</video>
|
||||
|
||||
### Viewing scores and simulating the model
|
||||
|
||||
<video src="../assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-simulation.mp4" type="video/mp4" title="Decaying Model Simulation Tool" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
<video src="/assets/images/misp/blog/decaying/dm-simulation.mp4" type="video/mp4" title="Decaying Model Simulation Tool" width="800" height="450" controls autoplay loop>
|
||||
Your browser does not support the video tag.
|
||||
</video>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -148,7 +150,8 @@ class Polynomial extends DecayingModelBase
|
|||
|
||||
public function isDecayed($model, $attribute, $score)
|
||||
{
|
||||
// algorithm returning a boolean stating if the attribute is expired or not
|
||||
// algorithm returning a boolean stating
|
||||
// if the attribute is expired or not
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
?>
|
||||
|
|
@ -158,10 +161,10 @@ class Polynomial extends DecayingModelBase
|
|||
|
||||
Evaluating **quality** and **freshness** of IOCs is a problem commonly found in Threat Intelligence Platforms. We tried to solve it using a simple yet customizable system.
|
||||
|
||||
Upon release, MISP will be shipped with few models that could fit most use-cases. Still, we are eagerly waiting for contributions, fine-tunings or feedbacks from users. This would opens up plenty of opportunities includings improved *Models*' precision, parameters tweaking or even integration of machine learning as a new *Model* algorithm.
|
||||
Upon release, MISP will be shipped with few models that could fit most use-cases. Still, we are eagerly waiting for contributions, fine-tunings or feedbacks from users. This would opens up plenty of opportunities including improved *Models*' precision, parameters tweaking or even integration of machine learning as a new *Model* algorithm.
|
||||
|
||||
Furthermore, we are not done yet! There are already improvements cooking in the MISP-Project oven,
|
||||
- Integration of ``False Positive`` and ``Expiration`` *Sightings*
|
||||
- Formula tweakings to provide better control on how to reset the ``base_score`` once a *Sighting* is created
|
||||
- Formula tweaking to provide better control on how to reset the ``base_score`` once a *Sighting* is created
|
||||
- Per-user Taxonomies' ``numerical_value`` overrides
|
||||
- Weights on *Tag*'s predicate level
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue