Cybersecurity teams frequently confront duplicate or conflicting names for the same threat actors, complicating the response to cyberattacks and delaying defensive actions. CrowdStrike and Microsoft have announced a joint effort to address this issue by formally aligning the names each company uses for threat groups. The goal is to reduce ambiguity and help organizations identify threats more efficiently, especially as the sophistication of attacks and frequency of incidents continues to grow. Industry professionals note that this step could ease the burden on defenders and facilitate faster cross-referencing of intelligence data.
Recent discussions about threat actor naming have spotlighted inconsistencies that have persisted across major cybersecurity vendors for years. Other high-profile security providers such as Google’s Mandiant and Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 have previously expressed interest in coordinated attribution but had not taken collective public action until now. While various companies have maintained their attribution systems and sometimes published joint reports, the formal recognition between CrowdStrike and Microsoft of overlapping threat group names marks a significant collaboration in this space, reflecting broader shifts toward inter-vendor cooperation.
How Are CrowdStrike and Microsoft Addressing Attribution Overlap?
CrowdStrike and Microsoft have agreed to link the group names they assign in their respective threat intelligence publications, providing a cross-reference for defenders and analysts. This collaboration does not enforce a universal naming standard but acknowledges, for example, that Midnight Blizzard, Cozy Bear, APT29, and UNC2452 are aliases for the same group. The companies plan to regularly update a public listing of these links, making it easier for security teams to interpret reports from multiple sources and understand that they reference the same threat actor.
What Impact Will This Have on the Cybersecurity Community?
Industry feedback suggests that this move will streamline incident response by reducing confusion over threat actor identities. Michael Sikorski of Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 noted,
“A shared baseline for threat actor names means faster attribution, improved cyberattack response, and fewer blind spots.”
Joint mapping efforts among CrowdStrike, Microsoft, Mandiant, and Unit 42 are intended to foster greater consistency, allowing defenders to act on intelligence with greater confidence and less delay. Nonetheless, many observers believe technical and organizational barriers will persist, given the business interests and proprietary methodologies involved.
Could Industry-Wide Consensus on Naming Ever Be Achieved?
Despite collaborative mapping, major vendors continue to rely on their internal processes and naming conventions due to varying data sources, research priorities, and branding interests. Experts, such as Joe Slowik from Dataminr, argue that while mapping overlaps helps, it is unlikely to eliminate the diversity of naming systems in use today.
“Organizations will continue to maintain their own naming and classification schema for the foreseeable future. I do not see that going away, irrespective of this effort and collaboration,”
Slowik observed. The mapping exercise therefore serves more as a practical bridge than a step toward standardization, aiming to clarify when reports from different vendors describe the same threat group.
A newly published reference guide by CrowdStrike and Microsoft includes over 80 threat groups with corresponding names from various vendors, accessible through public blog posts and planned for future integration via APIs. The alliance acknowledges that precise attribution remains both an art and science, with occasional errors inevitable. Instead of forcing conformity, the agreement allows vendors to retain analytic independence while providing the marketplace with clearer cross-references.
Open collaboration among major cybersecurity providers marks a notable effort to improve core industry documentation without disrupting competitive and methodological diversity. Making these connections public gives defenders better tools to interpret threat intelligence and coordinate against sophisticated adversaries. While mapping overlaps will not solve all attribution challenges, it lays groundwork for further discussion and incremental progress, benefiting organizations navigating a crowded and complex threat landscape. For organizations tracking cybersecurity threats, regularly consulting updated mappings between CrowdStrike, Microsoft, and other vendors provides clarity and can aid in swifter incident triage. Maintaining awareness of both unified references and proprietary threat intelligence practices will be vital to informed cyber defense strategies going forward.
