Hacker Nicknames No More: Tech Giants Unite to Simplify Cyber ThreatsOn June 2, leading tech and cybersecurity companies Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks and Google (owned by Alphabet) announced they are working together to create a public glossary of state-sponsored hacker groups and cybercriminals. This smart and timely move is meant to solve a major problem in the cybersecurity world: the confusing and ever-growing list of strange and unofficial hacker nicknames. The world of digital espionage has its share of nicknames shorthand for the malicious groups that are believed to function through nation-states or organized cybercrime. The absence of a standardized nomenclature has led to a great deal of chaos and confusion, especially when several organizations assign different names to the same group. Vasu Jakkal Said,
“We do believe this will accelerate our collective response and collective defense against these threat actors,”
Corporate Vice President of Microsoft Security. This initiative, still in its early days, signals a hopeful change toward more unified threat identification and clearer communication among cybersecurity professionals and governments.
From APT1 to “Kryptonite Panda”: The Naming Dilemma
For years, cybersecurity companies have independently assigned names to hacking groups. Some of these names are purely technical and dry, such as APT1, a group exposed by Mandiant, or TA453, monitored by Proofpoint. These identifiers, while systematic, often lack clarity or memorability.
On the other hand, some companies adopted more creative aliases. For example:
- Earth Lamia (TrendMicro)
- Equation Group (Kaspersky)
- Iron Twilight (SecureWorks)
- Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear and Kryptonite Panda (CrowdStrike)
- Microsoft’s weather-themed names like Lemon Sandstorm and Sangria Tempest
This growing pool of colorful and sometimes whimsical names, while catchy, has turned into a major obstacle. The U.S. government’s 2016 election interference report, for instance, listed 48 different hacker nicknames attributed to Russian actors and malicious software. These included labels such as Sofacy, Pawn Storm, CHOPSTICK, Tsar Team, and OnionDuke all referring to overlapping or even identical threats.
This confusion prompted the tech industry’s latest move. By creating a public, collaborative glossary, the companies aim to identify Who’s Who in cyber espionage, offering defenders a consolidated source for tracking threats.
Big Tech’s United Front Against Hacker Confusion
Michael Sikorski, Chief Technology Officer at Palo Alto’s threat intelligence unit, called the initiative a “game-changer.” He noted,
“Disparate naming conventions for the same threat actors create confusion at the exact moment defenders need clarity.”
According to Microsoft and CrowdStrike, the glossary will be openly accessible and will include both new and existing names. Importantly, it could soon include contributions from other cybersecurity firms and potentially the U.S. government itself.
Adam Meyers, Senior Vice President of Counter Adversary Operations at CrowdStrike, confirmed the practical benefits of this initiative. One example he gave was how it helped their analysts connect Microsoft’s “Salt Typhoon” with CrowdStrike’s own designation of the same group as “Operator Panda.”
This kind of clarity is vital in cybersecurity. When threat researchers are tracking the same group using different names, it slows down response efforts, leads to miscommunication, and weakens global defense mechanisms.
Skepticism Remains
However, not everyone is convinced. Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, Executive Director for Intelligence and Security Research at SentinelOne, raised valid concerns. He pointed out that most cybersecurity companies still hoard intelligence, using it as a competitive advantage rather than sharing it openly.
Unless this culture changes, Guerrero-Saade warned, the glossary could become more of a branding exercise than a real transformation. He described the effort as
“branding-marketing-fairy dust sprinkled on top of business realities.”
What Was, What Is, and What’s Next?
What Was:
In the past, the cyber field has operated more as a fragmented battlefield. Each company tracked threats uniquely, using different names, identifiers and sometimes even varying criteria for what constituted a unique threat actor. This chaotic state of non standardization meant that often crucial intelligence simply did not cross-reference across distinct systems or teams.
What Is:
The creation of this new shared glossary represents an important milestone, as for the very first time, the predominant players in the industry are coming together to establish one unified nomenclature. This can greatly enhance coordination and acceleration in response to threats while also providing the basis to create better partnerships between government offices and the private sector.
What’s Next:
If this endeavor gathers any success, we will have arrived at an altogether different area of sharing.
What’s Next:
If this collaboration proves successful, it could usher in a new era of shared intelligence. We might see:
- Faster identification and response to threats
- Less duplication in research
- More public-private cooperation
- Better-informed policy decisions
- A more educated cybersecurity community
Of course, challenges remain. Will companies truly open up their intelligence-sharing models? Will new participants join the effort, or will it stay limited to a few major players?
Why It Matters: The Real-World Benefits
This new glossary isn’t just for academics or cyber geeks. It has real-world implications:
- IT departments can react quicker with clearer information.
- Governments can collaborate more effectively.
- Businesses can better understand the threats they face.
- Media and researchers can report and analyze cyber incidents with improved accuracy.
In short, reducing confusion leads to faster, smarter, and more unified cyber defence.
Our Perspective
From our viewpoint, this initiative reflects a critical shift. While skepticism is natural and, in some cases, warranted, the potential benefits of a shared, accurate naming system are too significant to ignore. If executed with sincerity, this glossary can help clean up one of the messiest corners of cybersecurity.
It’s not just about simplifying names. It’s about sharpening focus, improving global defenses, and, ultimately, making cyberspace a little less chaotic.
The war against digital threats is complex enough. This step, though small, is a smart and necessary one.
Tech Writer