Understanding Cyber Threat Intelligence - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

As cyberattacks evolve into high-stakes showdowns, Cyber Threat Intelligence can emerge as your organisation's most trusted lookout - if you know how to sift through the hype.

Don’t waste bullets on false positives

5 min read  |  Reflare Research Team

If you're involved in the cybersecurity industry, you've probably noticed the explosion of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) products and services over the last several years. From traditional antivirus companies adding threat intelligence capabilities to new startups promising sophisticated actor tracking and "actionable intelligence," the CTI market has become increasingly crowded. Major cybersecurity conferences now dedicate entire tracks to threat intelligence, and job postings for threat analysts have surged across both private and public sectors.

But beneath the marketing hype and vendor promises, what exactly is CTI, and why has it gained such prominence in the security landscape?

What is CTI?

Think of CTI as your organisation's digital reconnaissance team. Instead of waiting for attacks to happen, CTI helps you understand what's coming before it hits. It's the difference between being blindsided by a threat and seeing it coming from miles away, giving you time to prepare and protect yourself.

At its core, CTI is about gathering and analysing information about potential cyber threats. This isn't just about collecting data – it's about understanding the story behind the threats. Who are the attackers? What motivates them? What are their favourite tactics? These insights help organisations make smarter decisions about their security.

How does it work?

The process starts with identifying what information your organisation actually needs. There's no point in drowning in data about threats that aren't relevant to your business. Once you know what you're looking for, you can gather intelligence from various sources, including technical data from your own systems, open-source information from the internet, or even insights from the dark web.

Raw data alone isn't intelligence, though. The magic happens when skilled analysts start connecting the dots. They transform this flood of information into actionable insights that can actually help protect your organisation. This might mean identifying patterns in attack methods, understanding new types of malware, or recognising when your industry is being targeted by specific threat actors.

Who is it for?

CTI manifests differently across an organisation. For executives, it provides the big picture trends affecting business strategy and risk management. For security teams on the ground, it offers practical insights about immediate threats. For everyone in between, it bridges the gap between high-level strategy and day-to-day security operations.

When your security team understands what to look for, they're much more likely to spot an attack in progress. And when something does slip through, having context about the threat helps them respond more effectively. Instead of fumbling in the dark, they can take targeted action based on real intelligence. This proactive approach helps organisations use their security resources more efficiently, focusing on the threats most likely to affect them rather than trying to defend against everything.

However, despite its promising benefits, the field has become oversaturated with vendors making grandiose claims while delivering questionable value.

What are its limitations?

A primary concern centres on the "intelligence" itself. Many commercial CTI feeds primarily consist of lists of IP addresses, domains, and file hashes that are often stale, lack context, or generate excessive false positives. Security teams frequently find themselves drowning in alerts about indicators that are no longer relevant or accurate. This approach to threat intelligence appears to be little more than a rebranding of traditional IoC (Indicators of Compromise) sharing, dressed up in fancy marketing language about "actionable intelligence."

The quality of analysis in many CTI products raises serious questions. While vendors tout sophisticated analysis capabilities, many reports simply aggregate publicly available information without providing genuine insights. Many threat intelligence reports are merely repackaged news articles or publicly available malware analysis, marked up with significant price tags. This "intelligence inflation" undermines the real value these services claim to provide beyond what organisations could gather from open sources themselves.

Attribution claims made by CTI vendors warrant particular attention. The cybersecurity community often points out that vendors make definitive attribution claims about threat actors without sufficient evidence. These claims sometimes appear driven more by marketing needs and media attention than solid technical analysis. Accurate attribution requires capabilities typically only available to government intelligence agencies, yet commercial CTI providers regularly make bold claims about threat actors' identities and motivations.

The industry's pricing models and return on investment have also come under scrutiny. Many organisations find themselves paying substantial subscription fees for intelligence feeds and platforms, yet struggle to demonstrate concrete security improvements from these investments. The costs can be particularly burdensome for smaller organisations, suggesting that CTI has become a luxury only large enterprises can meaningfully benefit from.

Don’t believe the hype

Some CTI vendors' "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD) marketing tactics have drawn increasing attention. Vendors often exaggerate threats and promote worst-case scenarios to drive sales, contributing to security fatigue and potentially distracting organisations from more fundamental security measures.

The lack of standardisation and quality metrics in the CTI industry presents another challenge. Unlike other cybersecurity domains, there are few agreed-upon standards for measuring the quality and effectiveness of threat intelligence. This makes it difficult for organisations to objectively evaluate and compare different CTI products and services, leading to purchasing decisions based more on marketing promises than demonstrated value.

Given these complex realities of CTI, organisations need to approach it with careful consideration rather than rushing to adopt expensive solutions. Success requires starting with fundamental questions: What specific threats does your organisation face? What intelligence gaps need filling? What resources can you realistically dedicate to analysing and acting on threat intelligence?

Act rationally

A pragmatic approach might begin with leveraging existing security investments and community resources before considering commercial CTI products. Many organisations find value in participating in industry-specific information-sharing groups or working with their existing security vendors to enhance threat visibility. This approach allows them to evaluate the practical benefits of threat intelligence without significant upfront investment in dedicated CTI platforms.

The cybersecurity landscape is continuously evolving, and threat intelligence can play a valuable role in defending against emerging threats. However, organisations should remain clear-eyed about its limitations and costs. Rather than viewing CTI as a silver bullet, consider it one component of a comprehensive security strategy built on solid fundamentals.

If you decide to invest in CTI, start small and focus on specific use cases that align with your security goals. Test vendors' claims thoroughly, demand concrete metrics for success, and be prepared to adjust your approach based on real-world results. Remember that even the most sophisticated threat intelligence is only as valuable as your organisation's ability to act on it effectively.