Listen to this Post
A New Era for Cybersecurity Language
Two of the most respected cybersecurity leaders from the US and UK are urging a complete transformation in how cyber threat actors are named. Jen Easterly, director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Ciaran Martin, founding chief of the UKās National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), have raised concerns over the chaotic and sometimes theatrical way cyber attackers are currently labeled. Their call is not just about semantics ā itās a demand for clarity, practicality, and security effectiveness.
Their recent joint piece published on Just Security confronts a long-standing issue in cyber threat intelligence: the lack of a universal, vendor-neutral system to name threat actors. Drawing attention to the confusion and inefficiencies caused by inconsistent and often glamorized naming conventions, they highlight the growing urgency of creating a standardized taxonomy. Without it, attribution remains murky, public communication becomes less effective, and cybersecurity responses get tangled in branding rather than accuracy.
Confusion in Cyberspace: Why Current Threat Names
Since Mandiantās groundbreaking 2013 APT1 report identified Chinaās PLA Unit 61398, the cybersecurity industry has spiraled into a mess of mismatched and sometimes sensationalized naming. From the numerical codes of MITRE to the more colorful tags like Fancy Bear or Volt Typhoon, thereās no consistent rule. While some of these names are meant to simplify identification, theyāve led to a fragmented, often misleading landscape.
Martin and Easterly argue that this inconsistent terminology isnāt just inconvenient ā it’s actively harmful. Security teams, from analysts in SOCs to top-level executives, struggle to coordinate due to overlapping or conflicting labels. The same hacker group might go by several names across different platforms, delaying critical responses and sowing confusion. Moreover, these nicknames often serve marketing interests rather than providing clear insights into who is behind the attacks.
The duo also criticized the way the media picks up on these quirky names. Headlines referring to attacks by groups like āScattered Spiderā trivialize serious crimes. These names make hackers sound like movie villains, not dangerous criminal networks disrupting vital infrastructure and services. In the recent UK retail disruption, no one could say with certainty whether the culprits were the same as those behind previous high-profile attacks, simply because the naming systems donāt allow for consistent attribution.
Some efforts are being made. Microsoft and CrowdStrike recently announced plans to align their naming conventions, with support from Mandiant and Palo Alto Networks. This collaboration, which has already ādeconflictedā over 80 adversary groups, was praised as a significant step ā but not a complete solution. Martin and Easterly insist that true reform means moving past company-specific labels and embracing a shared, international standard. They call on governments and the private sector to unite in building this framework.
Rather than fantasy-themed nicknames, the proposed system would focus on geopolitical identifiers and factual data. The goal is transparency, not theater. Similar to how NATO classifies weapons or the World Health Organization tracks diseases, cybersecurity needs a universal language to discuss threats. The refusal to standardize, the authors argue, is no longer defensible in todayās global digital battlefield.
What Undercode Say:
The Marketing Mirage Behind Hacker Names
The cybersecurity industry has long struggled to balance technical accuracy with public communication. But the trend toward colorful and glamorized threat actor names reveals a deeper issue: branding has begun to overshadow operational clarity. Names like āFancy Bearā or āScattered Spiderā may be memorable, but they distort the reality of who these actors are and what theyāre doing. The public perceives these names with intrigue or amusement, but cybersecurity is no place for storytelling gimmicks.
Inconsistent Naming Undermines Response
When threat actors are tracked under multiple aliases across different platforms, it becomes harder for security teams to quickly identify and respond to attacks. This inconsistency isnāt just a naming problem ā itās an operational risk. A universal, vendor-neutral system would reduce friction between agencies and allow faster coordination when breaches occur.
Cross-Vendor Collaboration Is Not Enough
The efforts by Microsoft, CrowdStrike, and others to align naming is an encouraging move. But cross-referencing proprietary labels still keeps the industry rooted in siloed thinking. True reform requires building a system from the ground up, not patching over differences. A neutral global taxonomy would encourage transparency and eliminate the influence of corporate agendas.
The Danger of Glamourizing Cybercrime
Using animal-based or mythological names adds a mystique that inadvertently elevates cybercriminals. This not only misinforms the public but also desensitizes them to the real-world consequences of cyberattacks. Instead of fear or vigilance, the public may react with fascination ā and thatās a dangerous sentiment when facing digital threats capable of paralyzing hospitals, utilities, or retailers.
Real-World Confusion = Real-World Consequences
The chaos in naming has already shown its impact. In the UKās recent retail cyber crisis, confusion around whether Scattered Spider was responsible hindered efforts to clearly communicate the threat. This delays responses, limits accountability, and makes recovery harder. When criminals have better branding than law enforcement, the system is broken.
Cybersecurity Needs a āRosetta Stoneā
Like in medicine, biology, and international defense, a unified language is vital. Cybersecurity is no different. The idea that it’s ānot practicalā is a weak excuse, especially when lives, infrastructure, and national security are on the line. A shared taxonomy can enhance collaboration between countries, private firms, and intelligence agencies.
Public Trust Depends on Clarity
With every cyberattack, public trust in digital systems is tested. Confusing names and vague attributions only deepen suspicion. A clear, standardized naming system can help restore confidence by showing that authorities are organized, transparent, and in control of the situation.
Time for Global Governance in Cyber Naming
This isnāt just an industry problem ā itās a governance issue. Governments must take the lead in developing a standardized naming structure, working closely with private vendors. Only through a globally endorsed framework can we achieve consistency, accuracy, and trust in cyber threat intelligence.
š Fact Checker Results:
ā
Microsoft and CrowdStrike did announce efforts to align threat naming in June 2025.
ā
The cybersecurity industry currently lacks a standardized, global naming system.
ā There’s no credible evidence suggesting a universal naming system is impossible.
š Prediction:
Expect increased momentum toward establishing a global naming standard within the next 12 to 24 months. More companies will align with Microsoft and CrowdStrikeās approach, and governments may begin pushing for a formal taxonomy. If adopted, this change could significantly improve attribution accuracy, public communication, and cross-border cyber cooperation. šš
References:
Reported By: www.infosecurity-magazine.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.instagram.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2 & Openai
