Alert icon Keyboard navigation enabled.
Alert icon TAB or Shift+TAB to navigate across. Down ↓ to open menu. ESC to close menu.
Alert icon Down ↓ to select section. Right → to activate. Up ↑ / Down ↓ / Tab to traverse all. ESC to exit.
BeyondTrust
Skip to content Use space or enter to skip.

What can we help you find today?

Instant Results
  • Website Results
  • Technical Documentation

Filter Options

Focus your search

Filtering by

Your recent searches:

Contact Us Chat with Sales Get Support
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • français
  • español
  • 한국어
  • português
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • The Power of Good Server and Endpoint Naming Conventions current page
Link copied

The Power of Good Server and Endpoint Naming Conventions

Jul 28, 2022
Author:
Morey Haber Headshot 2024
Morey J. Haber
Chief Security Advisor
Blog banner default
The Power of Good Server and Endpoint Naming Conventions
Morey Haber Headshot 2024
Morey J. Haber
Chief Security Advisor

Endpoint & Server Naming - Standards Needed

White chain icon to symbolize the ability to copy a link
Link copied
Check mark to visually show text has been copied

When I first started in information technology, one of the more humorous aspects was the host naming conventions customers chose for endpoints – servers and workstations alike. For example, one customer chose starship names from Star Trek, and another customer picked characters from Disney movies. While silly, it was easy to remember “Enterprise” was a file and print server, and “Hercules” was a Domain Controller.

Unfortunately, for many organizations as they began to add dozens, hundreds, and thousands of systems naming conventions became less intuitive, there where fewer names to choose from, and figuring out DS9 was a database server became more obtuse.

I remember one customer being served a legal notice to stop using trademarked names within their organization to designate assets. This was a disaster because, as a consultant, we needed to rename everything – including taking systems off the domain. This entailed renaming them, fixing broken applications (like MS SQL one at the time), and rejoining them to the domain. This was separate from all the entitlement and permission problems. As a result, the customer had to adopt a new naming standard for host names and user accounts and nearly start over.

Today, as information technology has evolved, naming standards are critical and impact everything from unique traits in applications to cloud resources and DevOps. Picking a good naming convention that has longevity for future growth is a crucial first step in any deployment and initial design. Getting it right can be the difference between having a sustainable deployment or a management nightmare. This includes considerations for DNS as well, and names that are readable and able to be remembered by humans.

For a privileged access management (PAM) deployment (and many other information technology disciplines), there is a need to stabilize and solidify the nomenclature chosen for hostnames and credentials. This includes DNS references and differentiators in credentials that designate administrators, standard users, service accounts, and application to application (A2A) accounts. If these are standardized, and not random names (Spock, Wreck_it_Ralph, or Prometheus), rules for automated management, onboarding, and account identification are relatively straightforward. For example, all administrator accounts are designated with a “admin-“prefix or all web servers contain “*web*” in their hostnames and DNS entries.

The downside of an explicit naming is easy identification to threat actors. However, this risk is offset by the consistent application of security best practices and internal ease of use.

IT Server, Endpoint, & Account Naming Conventions - Best Practices for Privileged Access Management (PAM)

White chain icon to symbolize the ability to copy a link
Link copied
Check mark to visually show text has been copied

For a successful BeyondTrust PAM deployment, there are up to eight additional naming convention traits that need standardization for PAM architectural components. Some examples are:

1. Workernode or Resource Broker Name: The agent name assigned to a distributed worker node (on premise deployment) or resource broker (cloud deployment) . This is inherited from the asset host name and may require its own nomenclature schema per location, network segmentation, and per serviced client.

2. Workgroup Name: The unique ownership classification assigned to assets and users to distinguish IP or hostname collision domains. For a single organization, there is typically only one workgroup name, but if multiple worker nodes are implemented or a multitenant deployment is configured, multiple workgroup names will be required.

3. Organization Name: A collection of workgroup names to designate an organization. This is only designated in a multitenant implementation and organization names may be obfuscated to account numbers or other designations to protect the managed identities.

4. Policy Name: The name designated to any privileged policy for context and application access by asset (computer),user (account), or directory services.

5. Smart Group Name: The name logically grouping assets or accounts within BeyondInsight and Password Safe Cloud. This name is visible to end users with the proper permissions and provides role-based access and reporting capabilities by group.

6. Smart Rule Name: The name assigned to an automated rule. Smart Rules can drive automated actions or logical groups (Smart Groups) and be designated for assets, accounts, or risk within the solution.

7. Functional Account Name (Alias): The privileged account on a platform used for management of other accounts, including password rotation. Typically, these are domain accounts, but may exist locally per platform for the management of end user accounts

8. Privileged Account Discovery: This reference name is displayed in BeyondInsight, Password Safe Cloud, and the BeyondTrust Platform for asset, account, and attribute discovery.

From a solution best-practice perspective, keeping this in line with existing standards just makes sense. For example, Workgroup names may be geolocation, VLANs, or ownership-based and may look like “New York Workgroup”, “DMZ X1”, or “Boca Raton Development Lab”, and functional accounts may look like “WinFunctional-Corp.Domain” or “Linux-PCI-Functional”.

A good nomenclature standard specifies any prefix, suffix, and content by word for the naming convention. This can include granularity down to the number of characters and potential combinations of the characters, like the first three letters designating the operating system or the containing solution owner information in a rule or group name. If you are looking for additional guidance, consider the NIST document from 1989 (oldie but relevant goodie), Choosing a Name for Your Computer - https://tsapps.nist.gov/public...

While we consider what a successful privileged access management deployment may look like in your environment, it is important to consider what policies and procedures may need to be enhanced to deploy a sustainable solution. Having standard nomenclature for the unique traits of privilege management will certainly help to streamline the implementation and management beyond your initial deployment.

For assistance in planning your privilege management deployment, contact us today for a strategy session.

Latest Posts
  • Hooked on Identity (Part 2): Abusing OAuth Trust Boundaries in Okta
    Jun 12, 2026 Hooked on Identity (Part 2): Abusing OAuth Trust Boundaries in Okta
    Blog
    7m
  • Hooked on Identity: Abusing SAML Assertion Inline Hooks in Okta
    Jun 9, 2026 Hooked on Identity: Abusing SAML Assertion Inline Hooks in Okta
    Blog
    6m
  • Joining Project Glasswing: Securing the Privilege Backbone of the AI Era
    Jun 8, 2026 Joining Project Glasswing: Securing the Privilege Backbone of the AI Era
    Blog
    5m
  • The Most Common & Most Dangerous Types of Shadow IT
    Jun 5, 2026 The Most Common & Most Dangerous Types of Shadow IT
    Blog
    19m
  • 14 Password Management Best Practices
    May 28, 2026 14 Password Management Best Practices
    Blog
    12m
Related
  • Microsoft Vulnerabilities Report 2015 – What you need to know
    Feb 16, 2016 Microsoft Vulnerabilities Report 2015 – What you need to know
    Blog
    1m
  • The State of GDPR Compliance 1 Year In, & How To Improve Your Data Privacy Controls
    May 28, 2019 The State of GDPR Compliance 1 Year In, & How To Improve Your Data Privacy Controls
    Blog
    1m
Share this Article
  • Link
Stay up to Date
Get the latest news, ideas, and tactics from BeyondTrust. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Keep up with BeyondTrust

Customer Support Get Started
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Add BeyondTrust as a preferred source on Google
  • Privacy
  • Security
  • Manage Cookies
  • Do Not Sell My Data
  • WEEE Compliance

Copyright © 2003 — 2026 BeyondTrust Corporation. All rights reserved. Other trademarks identified on this page are owned by their respective owners. BeyondTrust Corporation is not a chartered bank or trust company, or depository institution. It is not authorized to accept deposits or trust accounts and is not licensed or regulated by any state or federal banking authority.

Prefers reduced motion setting detected. Animations will now be reduced as a result.