Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove Roaming Mantis #561

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

ninoseki
Copy link

@ninoseki ninoseki commented Jul 2, 2020

Remove Roaming Mantis from threat-actor definitions because Roaming Mantis is not a name of a group / an actor

Remove Roaming Mantis from threat-actor definitions because Roaming Mantis is not a name of a group / an actor
@adulau
Copy link
Member

adulau commented Jul 3, 2020

Thank you. So this blog post is incorrect then https://securelist.com/roaming-mantis-part-3/88071/ ?

@ninoseki
Copy link
Author

ninoseki commented Jul 3, 2020

@adulau please read the article carefully.
It says that "Kaspersky Lab published two blogposts about Roaming Mantis sharing details of this new cybercriminal campaign".
So "Roaming Mantis" is a name of a campaign, not a name of a threat actor.

Note: I am one of the authors of this Botconf presentation.

@adulau
Copy link
Member

adulau commented Jul 3, 2020

That was my understanding too. But the threat-actor galaxy also include campaigns (and Kaspersky is also using the term group to make it more confusing). Maybe we will keep it and update the meta-data. I'll have a look. Thanks a lot for your feedback.

@ninoseki
Copy link
Author

ninoseki commented Jul 4, 2020

@adulau Hmm. Then should I close this PR?

@adulau adulau closed this in ba46bb6 Jul 7, 2020
@adulau
Copy link
Member

adulau commented Jul 7, 2020

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I updated the Roaming Mantis metadata to update its classification as a campaign only. We will update also the standard document to add those description. If you have any additional ideas for the meta-field. Let us know.

threat-actor-classification meta field

There is an old and persistence issue in attribution world and basically no-one really agrees on this. So we decided to start a specific metadata threat-actor-classification on the threat-actor to define the various types per cluster entry:

  • operation:
    • A military operation is the coordinated military actions of a state, or a non-state actor, in response to a developing situation. These actions are designed as a military plan to resolve the situation in the state or actor's favor. Operations may be of a combat or non-combat nature and may be referred to by a code name for the purpose of national security. Military operations are often known for their more generally accepted common usage names than their actual operational objectives. from Wikipedia
    • In the context of MISP threat-actor name, it's a single specific operation.
  • campaign:
    • The term military campaign applies to large scale, long duration, significant military strategy plans incorporating a series of inter-related military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war. The term derives from the plain of Campania, a place of annual wartime operations by the armies of the Roman Republic. from Wikipedia
    • In the context of MISP threat-actor-name, it's long-term activity which might be composed of one or more operations.
  • threat-actor
    • In the context of MISP threat-actor-name, it's an agreed name by a set of organisations.
  • activity group
    • In the context of MISP threat-actor-name, it's a group defined by its set of common techniques or activities.
  • unknown
    • In the context of MISP threat-actor-name, it's still not clear if it's an operation, campaign, threat-actor or activity group

The meta field is an array to allow specific cluster of threat-actor to show the current disagreement between different organisations about the type (threat actor, activity group, campaign and operation).

For more info: #469

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants