Project

General

Profile

Location data » History » Version 2

Anonymous, 02/12/2016 09:25 AM

1 1 Anonymous
h1. Location data
2 1 Anonymous
3 2 Anonymous
h2. Aim: 
4 1 Anonymous
5 1 Anonymous
Add more precise information about the location of a node.
6 1 Anonymous
7 1 Anonymous
IDMEF class Node already has a location attribute. But it is only a single string, which isn't enough to describe precisely the location of the node.
8 1 Anonymous
9 2 Anonymous
h2. Solution 1:
10 1 Anonymous
11 2 Anonymous
Replace the field location in Node by a normalised class.
12 1 Anonymous
13 2 Anonymous
|_.Impacted Class|_.Proposed Field|_.Type   |
14 2 Anonymous
|/5.Node->Location|latitude|float|
15 2 Anonymous
|longitude|float|
16 2 Anonymous
|city|String|
17 2 Anonymous
|country|String|
18 2 Anonymous
|state|String|
19 2 Anonymous
|{background:#e99b9b}.Node|\2{background:#e99b9b}.Location|
20 1 Anonymous
21 1 Anonymous
22 2 Anonymous
h3. Pros
23 1 Anonymous
24 2 Anonymous
h3. Cons
25 1 Anonymous
26 2 Anonymous
h2. Meetings: 
27 2 Anonymous
28 2 Anonymous
+30/10/2015 Meeting+: OK !
29 2 Anonymous
30 2 Anonymous
> *GL*: Could be interesting to also add an agency name for enterprises for example.
31 2 Anonymous
32 2 Anonymous
> *SM* : Indeed, this information is available in LEEF.
33 2 Anonymous
34 2 Anonymous
> *GL* : We will have to choose a standard for longitude and latitude, since there are many of them.
35 2 Anonymous
36 2 Anonymous
> *YV* : To be discussed in priority because some changes must be made in Prelude regarding this topic. Should be done *before FIC ! Meeting ASAP !*
37 2 Anonymous
38 2 Anonymous
> *VH* : Prelude shouldn't really interfere with SECEF and it seems hazardous to me to change the implementation of IDMEF before having set up on a new structure for the format. However, I understand this is necessary, and, since everyone seem to agree on this topic, we could maybe make an exception.