Barnes Projects

MFA Bombing (also known as MFA Fatigue or MFA Push Spam) is an authentication bypass technique where an attacker, having already obtained valid user credentials, repeatedly triggers Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) ...

This CVE analysis employs the Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters (TLCTC) framework, which provides a standardized approach to categorizing cyber threats based on their underlying generic vulnerabilities. The TLCTC framework enables precise mapping of vulnerabilities to specific threat clusters, focusing on the root cause rather than the outcome. This analysis specifically applies the TLCTC's axiom that "each distinct attack vector is defined by the generic vulnerability it initially targets," along with its client-server interaction model for understanding vertical stack vulnerabilities. [CVE 2 TLCTC Mapper and Analyzer]

The cybersecurity landscape suffers from what we might call a "circular reference nightmare." Standards bodies and organizations like NIST, ISO, ENISA, ETSI, BSI, OWASP, and MITRE have created an intricate web of cross-references without establishing fundamental definitions.

Despite its focus on cyber security and structured threat information sharing, ETSI TR 103 331 neither provides a definition of what constitutes a cyber threat nor offers a structured categorization of cyber threats - Linking STRIDE does not help. This fundamental disconnect between title and content reflects a broader issue in the cybersecurity standards landscape.

FAIR lacks a cyber threat categorization framework, but combined with TLCTC's precise threat clusters, it creates a powerful toolset for both identifying and quantifying your cyber risks.

See how the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters (TLCTC) framework enables enhanced comparison of threat actors, including APTs. Based on CrowdStrike's 2024 Threat Hunting Report, this interactive visualization reveals capability patterns across different adversary groups.

"Why ten clusters?" From STRIDE to MITRE ATT&CK, frameworks have struggled to fully capture the cyber threat landscape. Explore how the Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters framework provides a provocative answer - offering both immediate utility and room for evolution. Learn why starting with ten creates the perfect foundation for modern cyber defense.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Based on my analysis of the ENISA Cyber Resilience Act Requirements document, I agree that it lacks a clear categorization of cyber threats. The document focuses primarily on defining security requirements and vulnerability handling processes for products with digital elements, but does not provide a structured framework or taxonomy for categorizing different types of cyber threats

This diagram illustrates the current fragmentation in the cybersecurity landscape and the transformative potential of implementing the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters.

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 claims to provide "guidance to industry, government agencies, and other organizations to manage cybersecurity risks." However, an analysis of the framework and its supporting documents reveals several significant gaps in how it addresses cyber threats specifically.

Since cybersecurity has found its place on the title page of the 2022 version, we should examine how ISO approaches cyber threat categorization. While ISO standards provide valuable frameworks for information security management, there are opportunities to enhance their approach to cyber threat categorization - particularly in bridging operational security and threat intelligence.

This article explores the critical differences between "security" as an ideal state and "risk" as a measurable event. It emphasizes the need for precise language in cybersecurity, moving beyond the buzzword of "security" to a threat-centric approach.

The 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters in Card Style. Overview with per Card: Definition, Generic Vulnerability, Sub-Threat Examples, Key Control Examples. I also made a JSON maybe someone will use it.

The STRIDE model, developed by Microsoft in the early 2000s, has long been a cornerstone of threat modeling in cybersecurity. Standing for Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, and Elevation of Privilege, STRIDE was ...

Integrating the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters into MITRE ATT&CK and STIX Frameworks

The cybersecurity landscape faces a critical challenge: fragmented threat intelligence that fails to effectively connect strategic risk management with operational security execution. While frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK and STIX enable detailed threat intelligence sharing, they lack a standardized high-level threat categorization system that aligns threat intelligence with risk management and security operations.

@MITRE & STIX: please integrate my concept. A proposal POC with JSON example

This analysis examines Cobalt Strike from the perspective of the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters, demonstrating how its functionality maps to each cluster and enables various attack paths.

Das FINMA Rundschreiben 23/01 versucht, die Beaufsichtigten im Management von Cyber-Risiken anzuleiten, stößt dabei aber auf fundamentale konzeptionelle Schwierigkeiten.

While the DORA RTS introduces important requirements for threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) in the financial sector, it reveals significant gaps and limitations that could hinder its effectiveness in achieving true digital operational resilience.

Under DORA, financial entities must report all significant ICT-related incidents, malicious or not. Barnes Projects examines these new reporting requirements and explains how organizations need to adapt their risk management strategies

The NIS2 Directive aims to address cybersecurity threats, but its definitions potentially broaden the scope to include a wider range of IT and operational risks

Project Cyber Threat Clusters (07/2024)

Watch my intro video on the 10 Cyber Threat Clusters