Common Threat Actors

Understanding who attacks organizations—and why—shapes effective defense. Different threat actors possess different capabilities, pursue different objectives, and require different defensive responses. Knowing your adversaries helps prioritize security investments.

Nation-State Actors

Governments worldwide operate sophisticated cyber capabilities. These nation-state actors have effectively unlimited resources, strategic patience, and access to zero-day exploits and custom-developed tools that other actors can't match.

Motivations include espionage (intelligence gathering from foreign governments, industries, and organizations), sabotage (disrupting critical infrastructure), and influence operations (manipulating public opinion or elections). Unlike criminals, nation-states pursue strategic objectives rather than immediate profit.

Notable groups include APT28 and APT29 (Russia, focused on political and military targets), APT1 and APT41 (China, targeting technology, aerospace, and defense), Lazarus Group (North Korea, combining espionage with financial theft), and APT33 and APT34 (Iran, regional and political targets).

For most organizations, nation-state defense focuses on detection rather than prevention. If sufficiently motivated, nation-states will eventually gain access. The goal becomes limiting damage through detection, segmentation, and rapid response.

Cybercriminals

Organized cybercrime has industrialized. Modern criminal operations run like businesses, with specialists handling development, operations, money laundering, and customer service (for ransomware victims). Ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) enables less technical criminals to deploy sophisticated attacks.

Motivations are straightforward: money. Ransomware operators extort payments, threatening data destruction or public exposure. Data thieves sell stolen credentials and personal information on dark web markets. Business email compromise fraudsters trick organizations into wiring funds to criminal accounts.

The economic model means criminals pursue easy targets. Organizations with adequate security become less attractive when easier victims exist. Security investment has measurable deterrent effect against criminal actors—unlike nation-states, criminals will move to easier targets.

Hacktivists

Hacktivists conduct attacks motivated by ideology, politics, or social causes. They range from loosely affiliated collectives like Anonymous to organized groups aligned with specific movements.

Tactics often emphasize publicity. Website defacements announce the attack. Data dumps expose information hacktivists believe the public should see. Distributed denial-of-service attacks take sites offline. The goal is attention and impact rather than long-term access.

Hacktivists often telegraph intentions, threatening targets publicly before attacking. Organizations facing controversy or operating in sensitive industries can anticipate increased hacktivist attention.

Insider Threats

Not all threats come from outside. Insiders—employees, contractors, or partners with legitimate access—can cause tremendous damage precisely because they're already trusted.

Motivations vary widely: financial gain (selling information or accepting bribes), revenge (disgruntled employees sabotaging systems), ideology (leaking information they believe should be public), or simple negligence (well-meaning people making costly mistakes).

Detecting insider threats requires different approaches than external threat detection. Behavioral analytics identify unusual access patterns. Data loss prevention catches unauthorized transfers. Separation of duties limits what any individual can do unilaterally.