4 ms·
“Threat actors”. What’s wrong with the word “perpetrator” or simply “criminal”?
by hestefisk 8y ago
“Threat actors”. What’s wrong with the word “perpetrator” or simply “criminal”?
- xyzzy123 8y ago“Threat actor” is super vague but more specific than the words you proposed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_actor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_actor I agree the jargon isn’t great, I’ve seen “attacker” and “malicious user” used in pentest reports and neither of those seems quite right either.
- doitLP 8y agoAlso, they aren’t technically criminals if the attackers are state-sponsored and conducting an act of war. “Threat-actor” seems exactly like the type of legalese a government relies on when crafting the story around its own retaliation or justification for future aggression. I think it’s just entered the lexicon when talking about these types of incidents.
- buttcoinslol 8y agoI agree, there are no criminals at the nation-state level, only other actors.
- anigbrowl 8y agoBecause increasingly state actors are involved and it's not simple crime.
- jMyles 8y agoI don't think that's the reason; if someone who happens to be employed by a government commits a crime in their jurisdiction, they're still a perpetrator and a criminal. "Threat actor" is actually more specific; it refers to someone behaving in a threatening manner without regard to their legal status or jurisdiction.
- antpls 8y agoIn addition to other comments : I guess "threat actors" includes non-human autonomous hacking systems ("AI"), and humans (or organizations) who are neither good or bad intended, but whose actions happen to have negative consequences.