Services

Threat Intelligence

Threat intelligence is useful exactly to the degree that it's specific. A feed of generic indicators that could apply to anyone tells you almost nothing you can act on. What actually helps is knowing which threat actors target organizations like yours, what techniques they're currently using, and what that means for the specific systems you run.

That means the work starts with your context, not with a vendor's dashboard. Industry, geography, the technology you run, and your actual attack surface all shape what's worth paying attention to. A retailer and a defense contractor should not be consuming the same threat feed with the same priority weighting.

What this looks like in practice

I track what's relevant to your specific risk profile and translate it into something your team can actually use — not a raw IOC list, but an answer to "does this affect us, and what do we do about it." That might mean flagging a new technique being used against your industry before it shows up in your logs, or confirming that a widely reported vulnerability doesn't actually touch anything you run, which is just as valuable to know.

Intelligence that doesn't change a decision isn't worth collecting. The test I apply to anything I bring you is simple: does this change what you patch, what you monitor, or what you tell your board this quarter? If not, it's noise, however interesting it looks.

Where it connects to the rest of your program

Threat intelligence is most valuable when it feeds directly into detection rules, patch prioritization, and incident response planning — not sitting in a report nobody reads after the first week. I build it to connect to whatever you're already running, rather than becoming one more disconnected feed.

If you want intelligence that's actually tied to your environment instead of generic noise, let's talk.