adversary group naming (noun) [Word Notes] - Hacking Humans

Summary

Podcast Summary: Hacking Humans
Episode: Adversary Group Naming
Host: N2K Networks
Release Date: July 8, 2025

Introduction to Adversary Group Naming

In this episode of Hacking Humans, hosted by N2K Networks, the focus centers on the practice of adversary group naming within the realm of cyber threat intelligence. Adversary group naming involves assigning specific labels—often arbitrary words or phrases—to collections of hacker activities, serving as shorthand for discussing complex threat behaviors.

Historical Context and Origins

The concept of naming adversary groups is traced back to 1998, a pivotal year when the United States government pioneered the practice. During heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iraq, a series of cyber-attacks were initially attributed to Iraq. However, investigations revealed that the perpetrators were actually teenagers from Cloverdale, California. To categorize these activities, the U.S. government coined the codename Solar Sunrise—referencing the exploitation of vulnerabilities in the Sun Solaris operating system ([00:14]).

Shortly after, another significant cyber incident targeting the Pentagon, NASA, and the Department of Energy was labeled Moonlight Maze. Although initially attributed to Russia, later evidence suggested otherwise. These early instances set the precedent for assigning codenames to cyber threats, a practice that has since become standard in the industry.

Evolution of Naming Conventions

Over the subsequent decade, adversary group naming evolved significantly, influenced by several key developments:

Lockheed Martin's White Paper: Intelligence Driven Computer Network Defense, Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion Kill Chains introduced structured methodologies for understanding and categorizing cyber threats.
Mandiant's APT1: Published in 2010, this white paper exposed one of China's cyber espionage units, highlighting the importance of detailed threat attribution.
MITRE's Attack Framework: Released in 2013, this framework provided a comprehensive structure for mapping and analyzing cyber attack methodologies.

These milestones shifted the focus from merely assigning catchy codenames to developing systematic labels based on observed attack sequences within the intrusion kill chain. For example, instead of detailing specific malware or exploit kits used, analysts could reference an attack sequence like Wicked Panda, streamlining communication and analysis.

Vendor-Specific Naming Schemes

As the practice standardized, various security vendors introduced their own naming conventions, contributing to a complex landscape:

Mandiant: Utilizes "APT" followed by numbers (e.g., APT1, APT3, APT5).
CrowdStrike: Employs animal names to signify different threat actors, such as bears for Russia and kittens for Iran.
Microsoft: Draws from elements of the periodic table.

This diversity in naming conventions has led to significant confusion within the cybersecurity community. For instance, the same adversary group might be referred to by multiple names across different platforms, such as The Lazarus Group, APT37, and Hidden Cobra all representing the same entity.

The Confusion and Challenges

The proliferation of varied naming schemes poses challenges for cybersecurity professionals. Without a unified naming standard, tracking and responding to threats become more complicated. Additionally, many vendor-based names include nation-state attributions that are often circumstantial. As one expert noted:

“Unless you were paying very close attention, the average security professional wouldn't know that The Lazarus group, Apt 37, Hidden Cobra, and about 19 other colorful names all refer to the same adversary group activity.” ([Timestamp: Not Provided])

This fragmentation necessitates a more streamlined approach to naming, focusing on attack sequences rather than the tools or presumed origin of the threat actors.

Best Practices for Naming Adversary Groups

To mitigate confusion, the episode offers two key pieces of advice for those involved in naming adversary groups:

Avoid Tool-Based Names: Naming a group after the tools they use (e.g., Bumblebee Group for those using Bumblebee malware) can lead to misunderstandings and complicate threat tracking.
Choose Readable and Memorable Names: Opt for names that are easy to read and spell, enhancing clarity and communication. For example, using Wicked Panda instead of Winnti simplifies references and improves overall comprehension.

Notable References and Insights

The episode references Thomas Rid, author of Rise of the Machine, who discussed the Moonlight Maze incident at the Kaspersky Cyber Conference in 2017. His presentation underscored the complexities of attributing cyber attacks to nation-states, especially when initial evidence may later prove inaccurate. Rid emphasized the importance of relying on concrete attack sequences rather than speculative geopolitical attributions.

Conclusion

Adversary group naming is a critical component of cyber threat intelligence, enabling analysts to effectively communicate and strategize against persistent threats. However, the current landscape of varied naming conventions presents significant challenges, including confusion and misattribution. By adopting standardized, sequence-based naming practices and avoiding tool-centric labels, the cybersecurity community can enhance clarity and improve collective defense mechanisms.

This episode was produced by Naila Genoe, with executive production by Peter Kilpe. Editing was handled by John Pettrick and Rick Howard, while Elliot Peltzman crafted the mix, sound design, and original music.

Transcript

A (0:02)

You're listening to the CyberWire network.

B (0:04)

A (0:14)

The word is adversary Group naming spelled adversary as in a cyber threat actor group as in a unit of people working together and naming as in a label that pins a collection of activity to a simple word or phrase definition A cyber threat Intelligence best practice of assigning arbitrary labels to collections of hacker activity across the intrusion kill chain Example sentence Adversary group names are an inescapable consequence of threat research. Origin and context 1998 was a banner year for adversary group naming, and the US Government gets credit for being first to adopt the practice. In February, tensions were high between the United States and Iraq when President Saddam Hussein expelled UN weapons inspectors out of his country, and international pundits believed that President Clinton would bomb Iraq in retaliation. At the same moment, Defense Department security systems discovered a hack at Andrews Air Force Base and over the next two weeks detected similar attacks across the country directed at military, commercial, and academic networks. The prevailing assumption was that Iraq was behind it. Richard Clark, the national coordinator for security infrastructure protection and counterterrorism at the time, said, for days, critical days, as we were trying to get forces to the Gulf, we didn't know who was doing it. We assumed, therefore, it was Iraq. It turns out that it wasn't Iraq at all, but a couple of teenagers from Cloverdale, California, who the FBI promptly scooped up and arrested. But before that, the US Government classified all of the activity around the hacks to with a cool codename, Solar Sunrise, because the hackers exploited a vulnerability in the Sun Solaris operating system. One month later, the US Government discovered a separate hacker attack not associated with Solar Sunrise, targeting the Pentagon, NASA, and the Department of Energy, and classified it with a codename Moonlight Maze. Many researchers attributed the attack to Russia, but the evidence was and is mostly circumstantial. But the die had been cast. From then on, cyber threat intelligence analysts would attach some arbitrary name to most hacker activity. The practice evolved significantly 10 years later, with three major developments. Lockheed Martin published their white paper Intelligence Driven Computer Network Defense, Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion kill chains. In 2010, Mandian published their white paper, APT1, exposing one of China's cyber espionage units in 2013. Finally, MITRE released their first version of the attack framework, also in 2013. With these three milestones, adversary group naming evolved away from cool codenames to labels associated with hacker attack sequences across the intrusion kill chain. In other words, intelligence analysts would observe an attack pattern in the wild, a hacker's sequence of steps. See it repeated on multiple victims and give it a unique name as sort of a shorthand to discuss the issue. Instead of saying to a colleague, remember the attack with the Bumblebee malware and the Star Trek exploit kit that connected to the Tajikistan command and control server? You would just say, remember the Wicked Panda attack sequence? It's a lot easier. About the same time, security vendors started publishing intelligence reports on hacker activity as thought leadership marketing opportunities, and they all had their own naming schemes. Mandiant is famous for the apt number moniker, as in apt1, apt3, apt5, etc. CrowdStrike associates animals with hacker activity, bears for Russia, kittens for Iran, buffaloes for Vietnam, spiders for crime, and jackals for hacktivism. Microsoft uses elements from the periodic table. Needless to say, this just led to massive confusion. Unless you were paying very close attention, the average security professional wouldn't know that The Lazarus group, Apt 37, Hidden Cobra, and about 19 other colorful names all refer to the same adversary group activity. Adding more confusion to the mix is a typical pattern for many security vendor threat intelligence teams. When the vendor established a name for an adversary group that they had witnessed repeating their attack sequence on multiple victims, which they have high confidence in. Since their products collect that intelligence from their customer networks, some then take the next step of associating that activity with a nation state like China, Russia or Iran, which at best is mostly circumstantial and induced from what other vendors have attributed with their circumstantial evidence. I'm just saying take nation state attribution from security vendors with a grain of salt and for most practitioners it's not necessary anyway. All you need is the attack sequence from a known adversary group. With that information you can develop prevention and detection controls for that sequence at every phase of the intrusion kill chain. It doesn't matter that Deep Panda is from China or that charming kitten is from Iran. Just block them and let the governments of the world with their vast capabilities of intelligence collection, worry about nation state attribution. One last thing, if you're in the business of naming adversary groups, take these two pieces of advice. Don't name the group after the tools they use in their attack. It just causes confusion. In other words, don't name the adversary group the Bumblebee group because they use the Bumblebee malware in the attack sequence. You will just muddy the waters for anybody reading your report later and choose easy to read and easy to spell names. For example, instead of the Winnti umbrella group, use instead Wicked Panda. It just makes everything more understandable. Nerd reference Thomas Ridd, author of Rise of the Machine, a book about many things but also documents the Moonlight Maze story, spoke at the Kaspersky Cyber Conference in Russia in 2017 about the attribution evidence that pins the Russian government to Moonlight Maze. A brazen move considering the audience.