The Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters (TLCTC) framework proposes a structured approach to categorizing cyber threats through ten distinct clusters. This naturally raises the question: "Why ten clusters?" This analysis explores the rationale behind this number, its implications for practical implementation, and its role in the evolution of cyber threat categorization.
The selection of ten clusters serves as a deliberate challenge to the cybersecurity community, particularly to major bodies like NIST and MITRE. It highlights the limitations of existing frameworks like STRIDE, which has served the industry well but struggles to address the full spectrum of modern cyber threats. The TLCTC framework demonstrates that a more comprehensive and logically consistent approach is possible, while remaining open to evolution as long as the fundamental axioms are not violated.
One of the framework's most practical benefits emerges when implementing security controls:
The framework's structure allows for evolution within certain clusters, particularly #8 (Physical Attack), #9 (Social Engineering), and #10 (Supply Chain Attack). For example, Physical Attack could legitimately be divided into two distinct top-level clusters based on different generic vulnerabilities:
See Chapter 16 in the TLCTC concept.
This potential for refinement is acknowledged and even encouraged, provided any changes maintain the framework's logical consistency and adhere to its foundational axioms.
The framework exhibits varying levels of certainty across its clusters:
The first seven clusters demonstrate strong logical consistency and clear differentiation in terms of their generic vulnerabilities and attack vectors. These categories have proven robust in practical application and align well with operational security needs:
These clusters represent the highest possible categorization for their respective domains:
While they might be refined further, their current position as top-level clusters is necessary for a complete threat landscape view. Their inclusion addresses critical gaps in existing frameworks, particularly MITRE ATT&CK, which has historically struggled to fully incorporate these aspects of cybersecurity.
The framework's future evolution depends significantly on major security organizations, particularly MITRE, expanding their scope to encompass the full spectrum of attack paths. Current frameworks often focus on specific aspects of cybersecurity while missing the broader picture. The TLCTC framework demonstrates how a more comprehensive approach could work, while remaining open to refinement and expansion within its logical structure.
Starting with ten clearly defined clusters offers several practical advantages:
The choice of ten clusters represents a pragmatic starting point rather than an immutable conclusion. The framework's strength lies not in the specific number of clusters but in its logical consistency and comprehensive coverage of the threat landscape. Organizations can confidently begin implementing the framework in its current form, knowing that any future refinements will maintain backward compatibility through adherence to the framework's foundational axioms.
The framework challenges the security community to think more systematically about threat categorization while providing a practical tool for immediate use. Whether it eventually expands beyond ten clusters is less important than its role in advancing the field's understanding and management of cyber threats.
This balance between current utility and future adaptability makes the TLCTC framework a valuable contribution to cybersecurity practice, regardless of whether it ultimately maintains exactly ten clusters or evolves to include more refined categorizations. The framework's success lies in its ability to provide a clear, actionable structure for understanding and managing cyber threats while remaining flexible enough to adapt to the evolving security landscape.
No additional updates are scheduled at this time.