Microsoft and CrowdStrike Unite Threat Actor Names for Better Cybersecurity Collaboration

In the complex arena of cybersecurity, few challenges have hindered swift threat intelligence sharing as much as the long-standing inconsistency in threat actor naming conventions. Security professionals, from incident responders to CISOs, have faced moments of hesitation and confusion when confronted by seemingly different names for the same adversarial group. Is “Midnight Blizzard” the same as “APT29” or “Cozy Bear”? Until recently, the answer required combing through multiple databases and threat reports—time lost in urgent situations where seconds can matter. Now, thanks to an unprecedented partnership between Microsoft and CrowdStrike, the industry may finally be turning a corner toward a more unified, transparent approach.

Why Threat Actor Naming Has Been a Problem​

Nearly every cybersecurity vendor and research outlet has maintained its own taxonomy for naming adversarial groups. Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Mandiant, Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42, and several others each brand threat actors using their proprietary schemes. What for one company is “Midnight Blizzard,” for another may be “NobleBaron,” “APT29,” or “Cozy Bear.” These differences grew from the organic evolution of cyber threat intelligence (CTI) and a desire by firms to develop trackable, brandable naming systems. Yet as hackers moved laterally across verticals, launching multinational attacks, it became rapidly apparent that this fragmentation slowed global coordination.
For incident responders, verifying if a Microsoft bulletin referred to the same actor as one in a CrowdStrike or Mandiant alert often entailed manual cross-referencing—an inefficient and error-prone process. In moments when organizations need to pivot and react to breaches or ransomware, even minor delays can elevate risk. This issue is not theoretical. In forensic analyses of global incidents, confusion over attacker nomenclature has delayed patching, threat hunting, and even law enforcement involvement.

Microsoft and CrowdStrike’s Joint Chart: How the Unified Resource Works​

Rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel with a new naming convention, Microsoft and CrowdStrike have released a joint chart that cross-maps their existing threat actor names. For security professionals, this promises a user-friendly, instantly accessible translation table—a “decoder ring” for cyber threat intelligence. For example, one can quickly see that Microsoft’s “Midnight Blizzard” directly corresponds to CrowdStrike’s “APT29,” a well-documented Russian-state linked group. Likewise, CrowdStrike’s “Fancy Bear” aligns with Microsoft’s “Forest Blizzard,” and so on.
The chart is public, simple to use, and integrated into each company’s respective threat intelligence platforms. This move avoids the pitfalls that would come from enforcing an entirely new taxonomy in a field already awash with established terminology.

Table: Example Mappings from the Unified Chart​

Microsoft Name	CrowdStrike Name	Other Known Aliases
Midnight Blizzard	APT29	Cozy Bear, Nobelium
Forest Blizzard	Fancy Bear	APT28, Sofacy, STRONTIUM
Scattered Spider	Star Blizzard	UNC3944

(Source: Joint Microsoft–CrowdStrike release, June 2025)

The Broader Industry: Mandiant and Unit 42 May Join​

This unified naming initiative arrives at a time when broader industry cooperation is both possible and increasingly necessary. According to reporting by Windows Report and verified through concurrent statements, Google’s Mandiant division and Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 are also considering involvement. Their inclusion could bring two more of the industry’s most used threat intelligence lexicons into alignment.
For defenders, SOC analysts, and IT leads, the implications are profound. Rather than spending precious cycles reconciling whether Google’s “UNC1151” is the same as Microsoft’s “Tangled Spider,” teams get a single reference point. This can dramatically cut response times and improve collective defense.

Strengths of the New Approach​

There are several notable strengths in the approach taken by Microsoft and CrowdStrike:

1. Immediate Usability​

By allowing teams to work within their familiar frameworks but providing a simple translation chart, Microsoft and CrowdStrike sidestep the insurgency of “new standards” that rarely see adoption.

2. Industry Influence​

Microsoft and CrowdStrike are two of the most influential vendors in enterprise and government security. Their collaboration sets a wider industry precedent and lowers the adoption barrier for others.

3. Open Collaboration​

The public release of the chart, unencumbered by proprietary restrictions, encourages wide use and adaptation. If Mandiant and Unit 42 join, this could become the de facto industry standard by sheer coverage.

4. Better Incident Response​

SOC teams, threat intelligence analysts, and even non-technical decision-makers benefit from a unified lexicon. This reduces the risk of misunderstandings in the middle of active breaches.

Potential Shortcomings and Risks​

Nonetheless, this well-intended intervention is not without notable risks and potential weaknesses:

1. Incomplete Coverage​

As of the initial rollout, the chart only covers mappings between Microsoft and CrowdStrike dictionaries. Dozens of smaller vendors, regional security firms, and specialized communities may be left out. Until these are voluntarily mapped or integrated, gaps will remain—especially for less-documented, emerging adversaries.

2. Risk of Stale Data​

Threat actor groups frequently rebrand, split, or merge. For example, “Nobelium” has expanded or morphed identities over the years. A static chart is at risk of lagging behind attacker evolution unless actively maintained.

3. Over-Simplification​

Not all mapping relationships are clean one-to-one pairings. In some cases, what one vendor calls a single group may, in another’s estimation, encompass multiple related but distinct clusters due to analytic biases or differences in attribution. The chart may inadvertently mask these subtleties, causing overconfidence in organizational responses.

4. Vendor Lock-in Concerns​

While public, the branding of the system under Microsoft and CrowdStrike could unintentionally entrench their influence, potentially marginalizing valuable alternative analysis developed by independent researchers or smaller security outfits.

Industry Reaction: Cautious Optimism​

Industry analysts and veteran security practitioners have received the news with enthusiasm tempered by practical considerations. On professional forums and at recent security conferences, the consensus is that any step toward normalization is positive, but with repeated reminders of how messy cyber threat actor attribution remains.
John Hultquist, Chief Analyst at Mandiant, has previously noted the importance of “structured, transparent reasoning” in attribution and the dangers of tying defense strategies to branding rather than behavioral indicators. CrowdStrike’s own Director of Threat Intelligence, Adam Meyers, echoed this, emphasizing in a 2024 keynote that rapid intelligence is only as actionable as its clarity.
Interviews with front-line SOC analysts highlighted the value of reducing confusion during high-profile ransomware or espionage campaigns. However, several experts voiced concern about the risk that the chart could be viewed as comprehensive—reminding users that community shares, open-source feeds, and region-specific vendors may use wholly different names.

The Practical Impact for IT and Security Professionals​

For most organizations, the practical impact is clear: the next time a Microsoft threat alert arrives referencing “Midnight Blizzard,” security teams no longer need to pause and cross-reference against CrowdStrike’s or Mandiant’s logs. With the mapping chart, this process becomes almost instantaneous—an efficiency gain that translates directly into better, faster defense.
Incident response plans should be updated to reference the chart, and IT leads are advised to review the resource with their managed detection and response (MDR) providers. Some MDRs are already integrating the unified naming chart’s mapping logic into their tooling and dashboards, turning a potential point of confusion into a streamlined, user-friendly reference.

Critical Analysis: Could Full Standardization Happen?​

This initiative marks the deepest cross-industry collaboration on threat naming to date, but full global standardization is unlikely in the near-term. Technical, linguistic, and geopolitical variations make it difficult for any central body to enforce naming schema on a sector as diverse as cybersecurity. Past efforts, such as the MITRE ATT&CK framework, succeeded not by rebranding threat actors, but by standardizing the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) they use. This dual-track approach—shared TTP language and now a mapped threat actor chart—offers the flexibility security teams need without undermining autonomy.

What Full Success Would Look Like​

• Universal participation from all major and regional security vendors.
• Active, frequent updates reflecting shifts in group composition, TTPs, and tradecraft.
• Tooling and dashboards integrating the mapping as a built-in feature.
• Educational efforts and training for IT professionals.
• Open mechanisms for community-driven additions and corrections.

Possible Areas of Concern​

• Some states or nation-linked security teams may refuse to participate, fearing loss of analytic independence or proprietary advantage.
• Academic researchers may prefer more granular cluster naming that the chart may obscure.
• The risk remains that non-English sources, or regionally-focused researchers, may find mapping challenging with Western-centric naming conventions.

Recommendations for Enterprise Teams​

1. Integrate the Chart Into Workflows​

IT and security leaders should immediately integrate the mapping chart resource into internal wikis, incident response playbooks, and communications templates. During a live attack, referencing a unified chart could mean the difference between rapid containment and damaging delay.

2. Remain Vigilant for Updates​

Given the fluidity of the threat landscape, teams must verify that any mapping chart in use is up-to-date. Vendors may add new mappings as groups evolve or as new adversaries gain prominence.

3. Educate Stakeholders​

Training programs for IT staff and executives should include an overview of the unified threat naming initiative and its rationale. Educated teams can escalate and collaborate more effectively with partners and vendors.

4. Push for Broader Participation​

Customers of Mandiant, Palo Alto Networks, and other major MDRs should request that their providers formally join and contribute to the initiative, further accelerating industry alignment.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Threat Intelligence Sharing​

The Microsoft–CrowdStrike partnership is a visible sign of the cybersecurity industry’s growing maturity. Faced with nation-state actors, ransomware syndicates, and application-layer supply chain attacks of unprecedented complexity, threat intelligence sharing must become as seamless as possible. Unified naming is not a panacea, but it is a crucial first building block.
If Mandiant and Unit 42 join, as industry reporting indicates is likely, the majority of global threat reports could soon reference a compatible naming ecosystem. This would be a significant leap forward for researchers, journalists, policy makers, and defenders in every sector. The knock-on effects could include faster attribution during major incidents, easier cross-company collaboration, and a reduction in the cottage industry of “threat alias” lookup tables.

Conclusion: Progress With Caution​

The unification of threat actor naming between Microsoft and CrowdStrike is not merely an administrative upgrade—it is a meaningful step toward a more coordinated and resilient cyber defense environment. For security professionals fighting daily to protect assets against increasingly sophisticated adversaries, every simplification matters.
However, readers should remember that no mapping can substitute for broader awareness, robust detection, and expert analysis. Even with a shared chart, strong security hygiene, layered defenses, and continuous intelligence updates remain best practices. As the initiative expands, its ultimate value will lie not only in reduced confusion, but in whether it empowers faster, smarter defense across the entire digital landscape.
While this “decoder ring” for threat actor names is a breakthrough, cybersecurity professionals should regard it as a dynamic tool—one to be referenced, updated, and critiqued as the field advances and adversaries adapt. The journey to a truly unified global lexicon is only just beginning, but with Microsoft and CrowdStrike’s cooperation, the industry has taken a critical first step.

---

Source: Windows Report Microsoft and CrowdStrike partner to unify threat actor naming