Google's New Threat Actor Naming System: An Ineffective Attempt at Standardization

Google's New Naming Convention

Google is rolling out a revised naming convention for identifying cyber threat actors, aiming to bring clarity and standardization to how cybersecurity threats are reported. However, many experts are skeptical about its efficacy, citing concerns over whether a naming system can provide meaningful context in an already complex arena. Critics argue that without substantive backing, the new names might serve as little more than labels rather than actionable intelligence.

The Motivation Behind the Change

Security researchers often rely on established naming schemes to attribute cyber attacks accurately, even without knowing the exact origins of the offenders. Previously, Google utilized two internal systems: one from its Threat Analysis Group (TAG) and another from Mandiant, a subsidiary of Google. These systems created a fragmented landscape of identifications, making it challenging for researchers to draw connections between incidents and actors. In a field where understanding the threat landscape can dramatically shift responses, the need for a coherent naming strategy becomes apparent.

A Closer Look at the System

The new method introduced by Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) replaces prior systems based on generic identifiers. This two-word system categorizes the first word by the type of activity, motivation, or attribution, while the second identifies the specific actor. For example, threat groups associated with China will now end with "CASTLE," while those from Russia will conclude with "RELIC." Non-state-sponsored groups will be tagged with "COMET." This approach may simplify the taxonomy of cyber threats, but will it be enough to prevent confusion down the line? The risk is that new names may not convey the operational nuances behind each actor, leaving details obscured.

Examples and Alternatives

Under the new scheme, existing threat groups have already been renamed; for example, TEMP.Tick is now termed TICK CASTLE and FIN11 has become RAZOR COMET. Such changes raise questions about consistency in naming conventions across the industry. Instead of creating a completely new structure, Google could have simply adopted one of its existing systems or aligned with the naming taxonomy introduced by Microsoft earlier this year or other industry initiatives aimed at establishing a unified categorization before 2025. This redundancy may lead to a mixing of terminologies that hampers effective communication among cybersecurity professionals. In the fast-moving world of cyber threats, clarity is paramount.

Reflections on Standardization

This situation draws parallels to Randall Munroe's XKCD comic “How standards proliferate,” illustrating the challenges inherent in achieving consensus in naming conventions across the cybersecurity field. The comic points out that with each new standard, the previous ones seem to multiply rather than diminish. To a certain extent, that mirrors what happens in cybersecurity nomenclature. Each vendor or researcher often creates its own naming schema. If you're working in this space, you'll realize how complicated it can get when different organizations use different names for the same threat actor. This fragmentation can disrupt incident response efforts, complicate intelligence sharing, and contribute to uncoordinated defenses.

Implications and Future Outlook

The launch of Google's new naming convention reflects bigger issues within the cybersecurity community. Many believe there's more at stake than mere labels; it's about establishing a common language that fosters collaboration. Yet skepticism remains strong. Experts are asking whether Google's system will be adopted widely, or if it will become another layer of confusion in an already murky area. What this means for you is that the effectiveness of these names will hinge on their adoption by other cybersecurity entities. If they fail to catch on, we'll see a continuation of the fragmented naming conventions that have pervaded the industry thus far.

In the long run, the goal should be to create a cohesive system that can be universally understood and adopted. However, achieving true standardization will require collective action across vendors, researchers, and governments. That’s no simple task. The urgency to address cyber threats has never been higher, and the challenge of integrating contrasting naming systems could hinder efforts to react effectively to these fast-evolving threats.