Cybersecurity Naming Chaos: Decoding APT29, Cozy Bear, and Other Threat Actors

TL;DR

Microsoft and CrowdStrike, along with other cybersecurity firms, have attempted to standardize the naming of cyber threat actors. However, the initiative has led to confusion rather than clarity, with multiple aliases for the same groups. This article examines the challenges and implications of this naming chaos in the cybersecurity landscape.

Introduction

In the complex world of cybersecurity, identifying and tracking threat actors is a critical task. However, the lack of standardized naming conventions has led to confusion among security professionals. Recent efforts by Microsoft, CrowdStrike, and other threat intelligence outfits to bring clarity to threat-actor naming have instead resulted in an “alias salad,” with multiple names for the same groups. This article delves into the intricacies of this issue and its impact on the cybersecurity community.

The Naming Dilemma

Cybersecurity firms often use different names to refer to the same threat actors. For instance, the group known as APT29 is also referred to as Cozy Bear, Midnight Blizzard, and Voodoo Bear. This lack of consistency creates challenges in threat intelligence sharing and coordination among different organizations.

Efforts Towards Standardization

Microsoft and CrowdStrike, along with other cybersecurity companies, announced a collaboration to standardize the naming of cyber threat actors. The goal was to enhance clarity and improve communication within the industry. However, the initiative has faced significant hurdles, leading to more confusion rather than the intended clarity.

Impact on Threat Intelligence

The use of multiple aliases for the same threat actor can hinder effective threat intelligence sharing. Security professionals may struggle to correlate information from different sources, leading to delayed responses and inefficient mitigation strategies. This issue is particularly critical in the face of advanced persistent threats (APTs) that require coordinated efforts to counter.

Challenges and Solutions

Standardizing the naming of threat actors is a complex task that involves overcoming several challenges:

• Historical Naming Conventions: Different organizations have their own naming conventions based on historical data and internal processes.
• Information Sharing: Ensuring that all stakeholders adopt the new naming conventions requires robust information-sharing mechanisms.
• Consensus Building: Achieving consensus among different organizations on a standardized naming system is a daunting task.

Despite these challenges, the cybersecurity community must work towards a common naming framework to enhance threat intelligence sharing and improve overall security posture.

Conclusion

The efforts by Microsoft, CrowdStrike, and other cybersecurity firms to standardize threat-actor naming highlight the need for better coordination and communication within the industry. While the current initiative has faced setbacks, it is a step in the right direction. The cybersecurity community must continue to work towards a unified naming system to enhance threat intelligence sharing and improve defenses against cyber threats.

For further insights, check: Source