Google Threat Intelligence Group Launches Unified Naming Scheme for Cyber Threat Actors
Introduction
The Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) is on the verge of a significant overhaul in how it catalogs and communicates the identities of cyber threat actors. Starting today, the organization will implement a unified naming system aimed at bringing cohesion to its tracking efforts across various platforms. This initiative marks a vital shift from disparate methods of classification to a more streamlined and standardized approach that hopefully enhances clarity and usability for cybersecurity professionals.
Rationale Behind the New Naming Convention
In the past, Mandiant and Google's Threat Analysis Group (TAG) operated with their own unique tracking systems, each using independent naming conventions. This disjointed approach, which evolved separately over time, underscored the complexity of understanding and responding to threats. Enter the new GTIG. By blending these systems into a simpler, more intuitive naming schema, GTIG seeks to address a critical issue: the cognitive overload faced by defenders who struggle to keep track of a multitude of threat identifiers. Instead of relying on alphanumeric codes like APT1 or sequential numbering, which offer little context, the new system will utilize more meaningful cryptonyms. This change isn’t just procedural; it's a practical acknowledgment that insight and rapid response are paramount in cybersecurity operations.
Overview of the New Naming Scheme
Under the new schema, each threat actor will be assigned a two-word cryptonym, designed to be both distinctive and memorable. The first part of the name will derive from a recognizable term associated with that actor, often based on names already circulating in public discourse. If no prior moniker exists, a random term will be generated, biased against favoritism, and validated by analysts. The second word in the duo categorizes the actor based on their motives, affiliations, or operational tactics. This dual structure is not just for show; it aims to help cybersecurity teams formulate defensive strategies more effectively by emphasizing the context of each threat.
Efforts to Maintain Consistency
GTIG is aware of the landscape's diverse call signs for threat actors, and it pledges to keep this new convention as simple as possible to aid in cross-comparisons. However, there's a crucial caveat: organizations possess varying degrees of visibility into the threat landscape, making precise comparisons tricky. Simplifying the naming convention is a necessary step, yet the differences in data accessibility across firms will still remain a challenge. A simplified naming strategy is thus a valuable move toward addressing the complex web of threat actor tracking.
A Continuous Effort
Initial efforts will focus on renaming the most active threat groups, with the plan for ongoing updates as GTIG expands its database. Previous identifiers will still be searchable within the Google Threat Intelligence platform, ensuring that legacy knowledge is preserved for analysts. Technologies and methodologies evolve, and the shift to a more uniform naming structure reflects a growing understanding of what effective threat tracking looks like. As organizations move forward in their cybersecurity journeys, adapting to these changes will be essential for sustained resilience against evolving threats.
