{"id":3424,"date":"2025-06-03T13:00:57","date_gmt":"2025-06-03T13:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=3424"},"modified":"2025-06-03T13:00:57","modified_gmt":"2025-06-03T13:00:57","slug":"one-hacker-many-names-industry-collaboration-aims-to-fix-cyber-threat-label-chaos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/?p=3424","title":{"rendered":"One hacker, many names: Industry collaboration aims to fix cyber threat label chaos"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

When the same Russian hacking group goes by Midnight Blizzard, Cozy Bear, APT29, or UNC2452, depending on which security vendor is tracking them, you know there\u2019s a problem.<\/p>\n

Microsoft and CrowdStrike have announced that they are working together to solve one of cybersecurity\u2019s most persistent headaches: the confusing web of names used to identify the same threat actors across different security platforms.<\/p>\n

While these two firms are leading the initial effort, Google\u2019s Mandiant and Palo Alto Networks\u2019 Unit 42 have agreed to contribute, Microsoft said in a statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The partnership creates a shared mapping system that aligns threat actor attribution across both companies\u2019 intelligence ecosystems. The goal is simple \u2014 eliminate the delays and confusion caused by inconsistent naming conventions that have plagued security teams for years.<\/p>\n

\u201cAdversaries hide behind both technology and the confusion created by inconsistent naming,\u201d Adam Meyers, head of counter-adversary operations at CrowdStrike, said in a statement<\/a>. \u201cAs defenders, it\u2019s our job to stay ahead and to give security teams clarity on who is targeting them and how to respond.\u201d<\/p>\n

The real cost of name confusion<\/h2>\n

This naming chaos has serious operational consequences. Security analysts lose between 15-30% of their time trying to figure out if different names like \u201cLazarus Group,\u201d \u201cHidden Cobra,\u201d or \u201cTEMP.Hermit\u201d \u2014 all refer to the same hostile entity, according to Brijesh Singh, additional director general of police for the Government of Maharashtra, India, who specializes in cybercrime and cybersecurity.<\/p>\n

Take, for instance, the notorious Russian state-sponsored group behind the SolarWinds breach. Microsoft calls it Midnight Blizzard, but security teams might encounter it as Cozy Bear, APT29, NOBELIUM, UNC2452, Dark Halo, or any of more than 10 other names across various security firms.<\/p>\n

\u201cSecurity teams often get several alerts about the same group of attackers, but each alert uses a different name. This means they waste time chasing the same issue multiple times,\u201d Singh explained. \u201cPrecious time needed to react quickly to an attack is lost while teams are busy correlating threat names.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kumar Avijit<\/a>, vice president at Everest Group, pointed to instances where the confusion has real consequences. \u201cIn practice, the coexistence of multiple aliases for the same adversary has hampered security teams\u2019 ability to quickly correlate intelligence feeds, share findings, and prioritize response actions,\u201d Avijit said. \u201cThis mismatch can lead to duplicated efforts, delaying incident response, and leave gaps in coverage when defenders assume they are tracking distinct threats.\u201d<\/p>\n

Building a translation guide, not a standard<\/h2>\n

The collaboration is analyst-driven, focusing on harmonizing known adversary profiles through direct cooperation between the companies\u2019 threat research teams. Already, the effort has led to alignment on more than 80 threat actors<\/a>, confirming connections that had previously been uncertain.<\/p>\n

The companies describe their effort as creating a \u201cRosetta Stone\u201d for cyber threat intelligence<\/a> \u2014 a reference guide that translates threat actor names across naming systems without forcing anyone to adopt a single industry standard.<\/p>\n

Microsoft\u2019s weather-themed taxonomy categorizes actors into five groups: nation-state actors, financially motivated actors, private sector offensive actors, influence operations, and groups in development. Weather families indicate either country attribution \u2014 Typhoon for China, Blizzard for Russia \u2014 or motivation, such as Tempest for financially motivated actors.<\/p>\n

The collaboration validates specific connections, such as confirming that CrowdStrike\u2019s Vanguard Panda and Microsoft\u2019s Volt Typhoon both represent the same China-nexus threat group. Similarly, Secret Blizzard and Venomous Bear have been identified as aliases for a known Russian state-affiliated actor.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis effort is not about creating a single naming standard,\u201d Vasu Jakkal, corporate vice president at Microsoft Security, said in the statement. \u201cRather, it\u2019s meant to help our customers and the broader security community align intelligence more easily, respond faster, and stay ahead of threat actors.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile advisory names could have effectively been used for correlations, the lack of standard naming was a big challenge,\u201d said Sunil Varkey, advisor at Beagle Security. \u201cCorrelations were mainly happening through TTP-based correlation, IoC, or other methods, which gave only fragmented views, leading to delayed responses, analyst fatigue, and inconsistencies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Challenges ahead<\/h2>\n

Despite the promise, experts identify several potential hurdles that could complicate implementation. Singh notes that different security companies might have varying levels of certainty about who is behind an attack, making it complicated to agree on a single name when confidence levels differ.<\/p>\n

\u201cCyber attacker groups don\u2019t stay static. They might split up or join forces with others, making it hard to keep naming consistent over time,\u201d Singh explained. He warns that attackers targeting specific regions could be overlooked: \u201cAttackers specifically targeting India, such as \u2018SideWinder\u2019 or \u2018Transparent Tribe,\u2019 might not be as well-known globally and could be overlooked in a global naming system.\u201d<\/p>\n

Singh emphasized the broader implications for developing regions: \u201cWhen new attacks or attacker groups appear, updating the shared naming system might take time, meaning the information could be slightly behind the real-time threat landscape.\u201d<\/p>\n

Avijit pointed out that every time a vendor introduces a fresh label \u2014 Microsoft renaming \u201cStrontium\u201d to \u201cForest Blizzard\u201d or CrowdStrike coining \u201cKryptonite Panda\u201d \u2014 the mapping registry needs updating. \u201cFailing to promptly incorporate these changes risks reintroducing the confusion the initiative seeks to solve,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

A good analogy is the cyclone naming system, which evolved through decades of international coordination to solve confusion during weather emergencies \u2014 much like what the cybersecurity world is now attempting, Varkey said.<\/p>\n

Further reading:<\/p>\n

The 10 most dangerous cyber threat actors<\/a><\/p>\n

The dirty dozen: 12 worst ransomware groups active today<\/a>><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When the same Russian hacking group goes by Midnight Blizzard, Cozy Bear, APT29, or UNC2452, depending on which security vendor is tracking them, you know there\u2019s a problem. Microsoft and CrowdStrike have announced that they are working together to solve one of cybersecurity\u2019s most persistent headaches: the confusing web of names used to identify the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":3423,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3424"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3424\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}