Listen to this Post
Introduction: Can Cybersecurity Giants Simplify Threat Actor Naming?
In the ever-evolving world of cybersecurity, clarity and consistency are vital. But one issue has long plagued analysts and defenders: the chaotic naming of Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups. The same group of cybercriminals might be called different names by different vendors, causing confusion and inefficiency across the industry.
To address this, Microsoft and CrowdStrike recently announced a collaborative effort to “deconflict” overlapping names of known threat actors. Their goal is to provide organizations with a clearer picture of who is behind specific cyberattacks. While this move has garnered attention, it’s not the first attempt of its kind—and it may not be the most comprehensive either. Let’s explore what this partnership aims to achieve and whether it can truly reshape how we identify and track cyber threats.
A the Original
Back in 2022, the China-linked cyber-espionage group BlackTech compromised a telecommunications provider for the FIFA World Cup. Yet, different cybersecurity firms called it by different names: CrowdStrike labeled it Circuit Panda, Symantec dubbed it Palmerworm, and Trend Micro used Shrouded Crossbow. This fragmented labeling illustrates a long-standing problem in the cybersecurity industry—too many names for the same threat actors.
To combat this, Microsoft and CrowdStrike announced a joint effort to align threat group names. They published a list on June 2, 2025, showing equivalent names for over 80 threat actors. For example, Microsoft refers to BlackTech as “Canary Typhoon.”
The initiative aims to help organizations better understand cyber threats, recognize patterns, and improve responses. CrowdStrike’s Adam Meyers emphasized that while a universal system isn’t feasible, at least shared naming improves visibility between companies. However, some experts remain skeptical. Sophos, for instance, has its own “Rosetta stone” of APT names and believes it goes further in aligning intelligence than Microsoft and CrowdStrike’s list.
Names are not just labels—they often reflect national affiliations or the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by threat actors. By identifying these behaviors, security teams can trace back and predict potential future actions from these groups. Yet, it’s not a straightforward task. Sometimes what one firm considers a single threat group may be split into two by another, as in the case of Gossamer Bear.
Even with past attempts like the Common Malware Enumeration (CME) and MAEC projects, standardizing threat names has proven difficult. Companies have their own naming conventions, visibility, and levels of analytical rigor. Microsoft acknowledges that this latest initiative won’t replace current taxonomies but will help bridge gaps and improve customer understanding.
Despite its limitations, this collaborative move shows that industry leaders are trying to find common ground without compromising competitive advantage. Microsoft and CrowdStrike aim to continue refining the process, focusing on consistency and long-term cooperation—at least among major players.
What Undercode Say: 🔍 Analysis and Insights
The Good Intentions Behind the Partnership
Undercode sees value in Microsoft and CrowdStrike’s effort—it’s a logical step to bring more coherence to cybersecurity threat intelligence. The inconsistent naming of threat groups has long made communication and response more complex, especially for multinational corporations juggling multiple security vendors. Having a reference chart of aligned names could improve clarity and foster better, faster threat detection and response.
Why Standardization is So Difficult
Despite the benefits, the core issue remains: cybersecurity vendors work in silos. They each collect intelligence based on their own tools, visibility, and telemetry. This naturally leads to varied interpretations of threat actors. Some see a unified group; others spot multiple clusters. This decentralized approach is unlikely to change, making full standardization almost impossible.
Additionally, names are not only identifiers—they often carry geopolitical implications. Microsoft uses elemental names (like “Typhoon”) while CrowdStrike uses animal-based labels. Aligning these conventions without losing internal meaning is a challenge in itself.
Lessons from History: Past Failures to Align
Efforts like CME and MAEC show that naming standardization isn’t new—but neither were they successful. The CME system fizzled out in less than three years, and MAEC never took hold as a universal standard. The fundamental problem lies in a lack of incentives for private companies to fully align. No vendor wants to give up their unique taxonomy that helps distinguish their insights and services.
Limitations of the Microsoft-CrowdStrike Collaboration
While promising, the collaboration may remain limited to just these two companies and possibly a few more trusted partners like Mandiant. Smaller firms, or those not willing to share their internal intelligence, are unlikely to join the effort. This makes the “Rosetta Stone” more of a partial translation guide than a true universal dictionary.
Another practical challenge is real-time applicability. While mapping older groups is helpful, how will this initiative keep up with newly discovered actors and campaigns? If the alignment only happens retrospectively, it may not be as impactful in dealing with fast-moving threats.
Real-world Application: Is It Useful for Companies?
Despite its flaws, a harmonized naming convention—even among a few major players—can still provide operational value. Companies using both Microsoft and CrowdStrike products can now cross-reference threat reports more easily, avoiding duplication of effort or misinterpretation.
Cybersecurity teams will benefit by aligning TTPs with threat actor names more consistently, making attribution and response strategies more streamlined. The risk of confusion during incident response will be lowered when analysts can clearly correlate names across vendor platforms.
Final Take
collaboration doesn’t fix the threat naming chaos entirely—but it is a commendable step in the right direction. Like any language, threat intelligence improves with consistency. The Microsoft-CrowdStrike “Rosetta Stone” offers a foundation for future alignment, even if it’s not the universal answer.
✅ Fact Checker Results
- Microsoft and CrowdStrike did publish a joint list of over 80 threat actor name alignments.
- Previous standardization attempts like CME and MAEC did fail and are no longer active.
- The initiative is not designed to replace existing naming systems but to serve as a reference.
🔮 Prediction: The Future of APT Name Harmonization
Looking ahead, it’s likely that only major security vendors will adopt this kind of threat name alignment. Over time, more companies might informally reference the Microsoft-CrowdStrike taxonomy, especially as cyberattacks continue to grow in complexity. However, a fully unified system will remain elusive due to differing methodologies, visibility gaps, and business competition.
Expect Microsoft and CrowdStrike to periodically update the list, possibly integrating AI-assisted threat correlation in future iterations. While not a perfect solution, this collaboration may serve as a model for how limited but impactful cooperation can make a dent in cyber confusion.
References:
Reported By: www.darkreading.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://stackoverflow.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
