Hacker Nicknames: Forest Blizzard vs Fancy Bear – Microsoft & Google

The Great Hacker Name Unification: Will It End the Cybersecurity Chaos?

Imagine trying to navigate a city where every street has three different names. That’s the current state of cybersecurity,and a coalition of tech giants is finally trying to fix it. Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, and Google are joining forces to create a public glossary of state-sponsored hacking groups and cybercriminals. But is this just a PR stunt, or a genuine step towards a safer digital world?

Why the Confusion? A Hacker by Any other Name…

Cybersecurity firms have long assigned their own nicknames to hacking groups. Attributing attacks to specific countries or organizations is notoriously difficult, so researchers need a way to track and discuss thes shadowy actors.The problem? Everyone has their own naming system.

The Colorful World of Hacker Aliases

Some names are blandly functional, like “APT1.” Others are far more evocative. crowdstrike, in particular, is known for its colorful monikers like “Cozy Bear” (Russian hackers) and “Kryptonite Panda” (Chinese hackers). Microsoft itself has shifted from element-themed names like “Rubidium” to weather-themed ones like “Lemon Sandstorm.”

Quick Fact: The U.S. government once released a report on hacking attempts against the 2016 election that included 48 different nicknames for Russian hacking groups and malicious programs. Talk about confusing!

The Promise of a Unified Glossary

The goal of this new initiative is simple: to create a single, authoritative source for identifying hacking groups.This would eliminate the confusion caused by multiple names for the same actor,allowing security professionals to respond more quickly and effectively to threats.

Microsoft’s Viewpoint: A Collective Defense

“We do believe this will accelerate our collective response and collective defense against these threat actors,” said Vasu Jakkal, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Security. The idea is that a unified naming system will foster better dialog and collaboration within the cybersecurity community.

The Skeptics: is This Just “Branding-Marketing-Fairy Dust”?

Not everyone is convinced. Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, Executive Director for Intelligence and security Research at SentinelOne, argues that cybersecurity companies frequently enough hoard facts, making true collaboration difficult. Unless that changes, he believes this initiative is just a marketing ploy.

The Information Sharing Hurdle

Guerrero-Saade’s skepticism highlights a key challenge: the competitive nature of the cybersecurity industry. Companies often keep their threat intelligence proprietary to gain a competitive edge.Will they be willing to share this information for the greater good?

Potential Benefits: Clarity in Chaos

Despite the skepticism, a unified glossary could offer important benefits. Michael Sikorski, CTO of Palo Alto’s threat intelligence unit, calls the initiative a “game-changer,” emphasizing that “disparate naming conventions for the same threat actors create confusion at the exact moment defenders need clarity.”

Connecting the Dots: Salt Typhoon and Operator Panda

Adam Meyers, Senior Vice President of Counter Adversary Operations at CrowdStrike, points to an early success: the initiative helped his analysts connect a group Microsoft called “Salt Typhoon” with one CrowdStrike dubbed “Operator panda.” This kind of cross-referencing could become much easier with a unified glossary.

the Future of Hacker Naming: What’s Next?

The success of this initiative hinges on several factors:

• Adoption: Will other cybersecurity companies and the U.S. government join the effort?
• Maintenance: How will the glossary be maintained and updated as new hacking groups emerge and existing ones evolve?
• Enforcement: How will the industry ensure that everyone uses the unified names?

Expert Tip: Standardizing Threat Intelligence Feeds

Expert Tip: One crucial step is to standardize threat intelligence feeds. If all security tools and platforms used the same naming conventions, it would greatly simplify threat detection and response.

Pros and Cons: A Balanced View

Let’s weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks:

Pros:

• Improved communication and collaboration among cybersecurity professionals.
• Faster and more effective threat detection and response.
• Reduced confusion and wasted time.
• Better attribution of attacks to specific actors.

Cons:

• Potential for disagreements over naming conventions.
• Risk of the glossary becoming outdated or incomplete.
• Challenges in getting all industry players to adopt the unified names.
• Concerns about information sharing and competitive advantage.

The American Angle: Protecting Critical Infrastructure

For American businesses and government agencies, a unified hacker naming system could be particularly valuable in protecting critical infrastructure. As seen with recent ransomware attacks targeting pipelines and healthcare providers, the ability to quickly identify and attribute attacks is essential for mitigating damage and preventing future incidents.

Did You Know? The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) plays a key role in coordinating the U.S. government’s response to cyber threats. A unified glossary could substantially enhance CISA’s ability to share threat intelligence with private sector partners.

Did You Know? The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) plays a key role in coordinating the U.S. government’s response to cyber threats. A unified glossary could significantly enhance CISA’s ability to share threat intelligence with private sector partners.

The Bottom Line: A step in the Right Direction

While challenges remain, the effort to create a public glossary of hacking groups is a positive step towards a more unified and effective cybersecurity landscape. Whether it becomes a true game-changer or just another layer of complexity remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the current system of disparate naming conventions is unsustainable, and change is needed.

What do you think? Will this initiative succeed in ending the cybersecurity chaos? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Will a Unified Hacker Naming System End Cybersecurity Chaos? An Expert Weighs In

The cybersecurity landscape is often described as a battlefield, with malicious actors constantly probing for weaknesses. But what if the very language used to discuss thes threats was itself a source of confusion? A new initiative aims to solve this by creating a unified glossary of hacker group names.We sat down with Elias Thorne,a leading self-reliant cybersecurity consultant,to discuss the potential impact of this effort.

Time.news: elias,thanks for joining us. The big news is this push for a unified hacker naming system. Why is this even necessary?

Elias Thorne: It boils down to clarity. Imagine different intelligence agencies referring to the same terrorist group by completely different names. It hinders communication and slows down response times. That’s precisely what’s happening in cybersecurity. Cybersecurity firms,in their efforts to track and analyze these groups,have developed their own internal naming conventions. [[3]] You might have one firm calling a particular group “salt typhoon” while another knows them as “Operator Panda.” This creates unnecessary confusion, ashighlighted in the article with the example of Microsoft and CrowdStrike.

Time.news: So, what’s the proposed solution?

Elias Thorne: The idea is to create a single, authoritative glossary, accessible to everyone in the cybersecurity community. Major players like Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, and Google are backing this initiative. They aim to establish common ground, a shared language for identifying and discussing threat actors.

Time.news: It sounds promising in theory. What are some potential benefits of hacker name unification?

Elias Thorne: The upsides are meaningful.improved communication is the most obvious. When everyone is on the same page,information can flow more freely,leading to faster and more effective threat detection. It also streamlines incident response. If a company is under attack, a unified naming system allows them to quickly access relevant information and coordinate with other organizations.[[1]] ultimately, this contributes to a stronger overall security posture.

Time.news: The article also mentions some skepticism, particularly around information sharing. Is that a valid concern?

Elias Thorne: Absolutely. The cybersecurity industry is competitive.Companies invest heavily in threat intelligence and are often reluctant to share it, viewing it as a competitive advantage. For this initiative to succeed,organizations need to be willing to contribute their knowledge to the greater good.It will require a shift in mindset.

Time.news: What are some of the challenges in getting everyone on board with a unified hacker naming system?

Elias Thorne: The practical challenges are numerous. First, there’s the issue of agreement. Deciding on the definitive name for a particular group will inevitably involve some negotiation and compromise. Than there’s maintenance. The threat landscape is constantly evolving, so the glossary needs to be regularly updated. And there’s enforcement, ensuring that everyone actually uses the unified names across their systems and communications.[[2]]

Time.news: The article highlights the importance of protecting critical infrastructure. How does this unified naming system play into that?

Elias Thorne: Critical infrastructure,such as energy grids and healthcare systems,are prime targets for cyberattacks. A unified naming system improves attribution. In the event of an attack, it becomes easier to identify the responsible parties, which is crucial for law enforcement and national security. It also allows for better threat intelligence sharing between goverment agencies like CISA and private sector partners, leading to more proactive defense measures.

Time.news: What’s your take? Is this initiative likely to succeed?

Elias thorne: While there are certainly hurdles to overcome, I believe this is a positive step in the right direction. The current system is unsustainable; something has to change. Weather it becomes a true “game-changer” remains to be seen. Though, the potential benefits – improved communication, faster response times, and better collaboration – are simply too significant to ignore.

Time.news: Any final thoughts or practical advice for our readers?

Elias Thorne: Standardizing threat intelligence feeds is paramount. Every company, every security team, needs to ensure their cybersecurity tools and platforms can ingest and process information using these unified naming conventions. This is a crucial step in bridging the gap and accelerating the journey to a more secure digital world. It helps streamline threat detection when everyone is using the same “hacker naming generator”.