3 ms·

I think you misunderstand the use of nation-state in the context of threat actors then. It simply means government backed, as opposed to a private entity like a

I think you misunderstand the use of nation-state in the context of threat actors then. It simply means government backed, as opposed to a private entity like a ransomware gang or NSO Group. Splitting hairs about nationalities is irrelevant when talking about who is behind a cyberattack.

KoftaBob 5y ago
> It simply means government backed, as opposed to a private entity like a ransomware gang or NSO Group. I would be incredibly surprised if Israel's intelligence didn't make use of NSO tech, especially since their founders came right out of Unit 8200, their military intelligence cyber warfare division.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
chrisseaton 5y ago
If you don't mean 'nation-state' then why use that very specific technical word instead of just saying 'country'? It's like saying 'I saw a 2019 Ford Focus in blue' and then when someone points out it was actually a green Dodge saying 'well I just meant any car why are you splitting hairs'.
- ssklash 5y ago
  In cybersecurity, and in the attribution of cyberattacks especially, nation-state actor is a very specific technical word. Words mean different things in different fields, and in this case the word is very clear and obvious in conveying what is intended, which is a government backed threat actor.
- rvnx 5y ago
  https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/uploads/securityprod/2021/10/nation-state-actors-map.png https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/uploads/securityprod... From this map, you can clearly see that Microsoft uses nation-state and country interchangeably
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > If you don't mean 'nation-state' then why use that very specific technical word Nation-state has at least two specific uses in its field of origin (political science), which are closely linked conceptually though very different. It can mean either a state that is approximately one-to-one with a nation as became something of a European norm after after the Peace of Westphalia, or it can be the structural kind of sovereign that became the norm in the same space after the peace of Westphalia (a synonym for the latter sense is “Westphalian sovereign”). When the context is more legal/structural the latter use dominates, when it leans more to the social the former use does. The cybersecurity use matches the latter use.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Is this the first time you've heard the term "nation-state" in cybersecurity context? Used as an adjective, "nation-state adversary" flows better/sounds cooler than "government-backed adversary" or "country-level adversary". You may be right in poli-sci class, but that's just how it is in cybersecurity. To use your framework, it would be like me colloquially asking "do you have a car?" and someone responding "yeah, a Jeep Wrangler". Car = automobile. But I wouldn't be that casual when filling out my auto's title information.
maigret 5y ago
Indeed, in security this term works well because it means often “not explicitly related national agents acting for the state”. This loose coupling allows the responsible states to deny accusation while harming their target through unofficial partners (national or not).

KoftaBob 5y ago

> It simply means government backed, as opposed to a private entity like a ransomware gang or NSO Group. I would be incredibly surprised if Israel's intelligence didn't make use of NSO tech, especially since their founders came right out of Unit 8200, their military intelligence cyber warfare division.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

If you don't mean 'nation-state' then why use that very specific technical word instead of just saying 'country'? It's like saying 'I saw a 2019 Ford Focus in blue' and then when someone points out it was actually a green Dodge saying 'well I just meant any car why are you splitting hairs'.

ssklash 5y ago
In cybersecurity, and in the attribution of cyberattacks especially, nation-state actor is a very specific technical word. Words mean different things in different fields, and in this case the word is very clear and obvious in conveying what is intended, which is a government backed threat actor.
rvnx 5y ago
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/uploads/securityprod/2021/10/nation-state-actors-map.png https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/uploads/securityprod... From this map, you can clearly see that Microsoft uses nation-state and country interchangeably
dragonwriter 5y ago
> If you don't mean 'nation-state' then why use that very specific technical word Nation-state has at least two specific uses in its field of origin (political science), which are closely linked conceptually though very different. It can mean either a state that is approximately one-to-one with a nation as became something of a European norm after after the Peace of Westphalia, or it can be the structural kind of sovereign that became the norm in the same space after the peace of Westphalia (a synonym for the latter sense is “Westphalian sovereign”). When the context is more legal/structural the latter use dominates, when it leans more to the social the former use does. The cybersecurity use matches the latter use.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Is this the first time you've heard the term "nation-state" in cybersecurity context? Used as an adjective, "nation-state adversary" flows better/sounds cooler than "government-backed adversary" or "country-level adversary". You may be right in poli-sci class, but that's just how it is in cybersecurity. To use your framework, it would be like me colloquially asking "do you have a car?" and someone responding "yeah, a Jeep Wrangler". Car = automobile. But I wouldn't be that casual when filling out my auto's title information.

maigret 5y ago

Indeed, in security this term works well because it means often “not explicitly related national agents acting for the state”. This loose coupling allows the responsible states to deny accusation while harming their target through unofficial partners (national or not).