From the Field: Naming Convention

๐Ÿ”Ž ๐—™๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ฑ โ€” Real-World Findings from Security Assessments

๐Ÿ’ฅย ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฏ.๐Ÿด%ย of environments I assessed ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—ป๐—ผ ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐˜๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€

Sounds like a boring โ€œadmin hygieneโ€ topicโ€ฆ but it becomes a real security problem fast.

๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜?

1๏ธโƒฃ Operationsย โ€“ you immediately know what a system/account is and where it belongs.

2๏ธโƒฃ Logs & incident responseย โ€“ when SOC needs answers fast, โ€œSRV07โ€ and โ€œAdmin2โ€ slow everything down.

3๏ธโƒฃ Automationย โ€“ scripts, filters, GPO targeting, reportingโ€ฆ naming is the foundation for all of it.

๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—œ ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—น๐—น ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ผ ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป:

โŒ Servers namedย SRV01โ€“SRV20ย (no clue what runs where)

โŒ Accounts likeย Admin,ย ServerAdmin,ย Service Adminย (no owner, no purpose)

๐—” ๐˜€๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ๐˜€:

๐Ÿ‘ฅ Users (make them personal + use prefixes or suffixes):

โ–ช๏ธ Standard:ย dhorak

โ–ช๏ธ Tier admin:ย t1-dhorak

โ–ช๏ธ Tier service:ย t1s-app01

๐Ÿ–ฅ๏ธ Devices (encode what you need to operate + secure them):

โ–ช๏ธ I like:ย Location + Prod/Test + App/Role + Type + Number

โ–ช๏ธ Example:ย PRGP-AD-DC01

โ–ช๏ธ (Prague, Production, Active Directory, Domain Controller, 01)

Yes, some regulated environments ๐—บ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜†๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฒ ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜€ โ€” fair.

But if you donโ€™tย haveย toโ€ฆ donโ€™t hide behind IDs. It doesnโ€™t add real security, it mostly adds confusion.

Do you have a naming convention in place?ย If yes, what format do you use?