Managed threat intelligence
Intelligence requirements agreed with you, collection tuned to those requirements, and every finding assessed by an analyst before it reaches your inbox. You get fewer things to read and more things worth acting on.
The problem
Very few organisations are short of threat data. They are subscribed to feeds, receiving sector alerts, and pulling in open source — and the volume means the material that genuinely applies to them arrives alongside a great deal that does not.
The result is predictable. Alerts get skimmed, then filtered to a folder, then ignored. When something relevant does land, it looks exactly like the eighty items that preceded it. Nobody can tell the difference at a glance, so nothing changes as a result of any of it.
The fix is not more sources. It is deciding in advance what you actually need to know, collecting against that, and having a person assess relevance before anything reaches you.
How it works
We work with you to define what you need to know and why — the decisions the intelligence is meant to inform, who makes them, and what would change as a result. Requirements are documented and reviewed, not inferred from a sector label.
Collection is built around your requirements, your sector, your technology estate, your third parties and your jurisdiction. Sources are assessed for reliability rather than counted.
Every finding is assessed by an analyst before it reaches you. Nothing is auto-forwarded. If something does not meet a requirement or does not stand up on examination, it does not get sent — and that discipline is the point of the service.
Working-level reporting for the people who act on it, and periodic assessment written for the people who fund decisions. Both carry explicit confidence levels, and both distinguish assessment from fact and from assumption.
Requirements are revisited on an agreed cycle. Business changes, estates change, and adversary interest changes — a requirement set that never moves is a requirement set nobody is using.
What you receive
If you are running or preparing for a TLPT, the intelligence requirements defined here carry directly into the engagement, and the picture stays current between tests rather than being rebuilt from scratch every cycle. See targeted threat intelligence.
Questions
A platform gives you somewhere to put data. This gives you an analyst who decides what is worth your attention and writes down why. The two are complementary, but buying a platform without analyst capacity is how most organisations end up with a filtering problem in the first place.
Not necessarily. Feeds are a collection source. This service defines what you need, uses appropriate sources including any you already hold, and assesses what comes out. In some cases the review shows an existing subscription is not earning its cost.
Where indicators are relevant and reliable, yes. But indicators age quickly and rarely change a decision on their own — the value sits in the assessment of who is interested in you and what they are likely to do next.
The requirements phase needs real input from you, because the service is only as good as the requirements it runs against. After that the commitment is a periodic review and whatever time you spend acting on what arrives.
For smaller teams, effectively yes — the service can operate as an embedded intelligence capability rather than a subscription, including representing the intelligence function in internal governance.
Also relevant
Contact
Thirty minutes, no pitch deck. Tell us what you're currently receiving and we'll tell you honestly whether we'd improve on it.