Quick Reference
IOC = Indicator of Compromise — evidence an attack occurred (malicious IP, file hash, domain). IOA = Indicator of Attack — evidence an attack is in progress (behavioral patterns). STIX = structured language for describing threat intel. TAXII = transport protocol for sharing STIX data. MITRE ATT&CK = knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. ISAC = Information Sharing and Analysis Center — sector-specific threat intel sharing communities.

What Is Threat Intelligence?

Threat intelligence (TI) is evidence-based knowledge about existing or emerging threats — including context, mechanisms, indicators, implications, and actionable advice about a threat. The goal is to make security decisions faster and with better information by knowing what adversaries are doing before (or while) they attack you.

Raw threat data (an IP address, a domain name, a file hash) isn't intelligence by itself. Intelligence requires context — who is using this IP, what campaigns has this domain been linked to, what malware family uses this hash. The process of turning raw data into actionable intelligence is the threat intelligence lifecycle: Plan → Collect → Process → Analyze → Disseminate → Feedback.

⚠️ IOC vs IOA — Know the Difference

Indicator of Compromise (IOC): Artifact left after a compromise — a malicious file hash, a known C2 IP address, a suspicious registry key, a domain associated with malware. IOCs are reactive: by the time you find them, you may already be compromised.

Indicator of Attack (IOA): Behavioral patterns that suggest an attack is happening right now — unusual process spawning, lateral movement, privilege escalation attempts. IOAs are proactive: you can detect an attack in progress even without known IOCs.

Types of Indicators of Compromise

IOC TypeExampleUse Case
File HashMD5, SHA-1, SHA-256 of a malicious binaryBlock execution of known malware; match against threat feeds
IP AddressKnown C2 server, TOR exit node, attacker scannerBlock in firewall, alert in SIEM if internal host connects to it
Domain / URLPhishing domain, malware distribution URLDNS sinkholing, proxy blocking, phishing detection
Email IndicatorsMalicious sender address, subject line pattern, attachment typeEmail filtering, phishing detection rules
Registry KeyPersistence mechanism added by malware (run key)Host-based detection, EDR rules
Mutex / ArtifactNamed mutex created by malware to prevent re-infectionMemory forensics, malware analysis
Network PatternSpecific User-Agent string, beacon interval, protocol anomalyIDS/IPS signatures, network monitoring

STIX and TAXII

For threat intelligence to be useful at scale, organizations need a standard way to express it and a standard way to share it. That's where STIX and TAXII come in — they're complementary standards developed by MITRE and now maintained by OASIS.

📄
STIX
Structured Threat Information eXpression
A language and serialization format for describing threat intelligence. Defines how to express threat actors, campaigns, indicators, malware, vulnerabilities, TTPs, etc. in a structured, machine-readable way (JSON). Think of STIX as the "what" — the format of the intel.
📡
TAXII
Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information
A transport protocol that defines how to share STIX data over HTTPS. Defines two services: Collection (a group of CTI objects) and Channel (publish/subscribe). Think of TAXII as the "how" — the transport mechanism for the intel.
📝 Exam Tip — STIX vs TAXII

STIX and TAXII are almost always tested together. The key distinction: STIX is the format/language (what threat data looks like), TAXII is the transport (how that data gets shared). You describe a threat actor using STIX; you share that STIX data using TAXII. A common wrong answer is to conflate the two or assign the wrong role to each.

Threat Intelligence Sources

Threat intelligence comes from a variety of sources, ranging from open and free to closed and expensive. The Security+ exam distinguishes between source types:

Source TypeDescriptionExamples
OSINTOpen Source Intelligence — publicly available information gathered and analyzed for threat contextShodan, VirusTotal, AlienVault OTX, government advisories, CVE databases
Closed / ProprietaryPaid, subscription-based feeds with curated, validated intelligence — higher quality, less noiseCrowdStrike Falcon Intelligence, Recorded Future, Mandiant Threat Intelligence
ISACsInformation Sharing and Analysis Centers — sector-specific communities that share intel between member organizationsFS-ISAC (financial), H-ISAC (healthcare), E-ISAC (energy), IT-ISAC
GovernmentOfficial government threat intelligence, advisories, and sharing programsCISA, FBI, NSA advisories; US-CERT; NCSC (UK)
Dark WebMonitoring underground forums, marketplaces, and criminal communities for early warningThreat actors advertising new exploits, stolen credentials for sale
InternalIntelligence generated from your own environment — logs, incidents, honeypots, EDR telemetryYour SIEM alerts, previous incident reports, honeypot interactions

MITRE ATT&CK Framework

MITRE ATT&CK (Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge) is a globally accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. It's organized as a matrix where columns represent tactics (the adversary's goal — the "why") and rows within each column represent techniques (how they achieve it — the "how").

💡 MITRE ATT&CK Tactics (Enterprise)

The 14 ATT&CK Enterprise tactics in kill-chain order: Reconnaissance → Resource Development → Initial Access → Execution → Persistence → Privilege Escalation → Defense Evasion → Credential Access → Discovery → Lateral Movement → Collection → Command and Control → Exfiltration → Impact. Each tactic contains multiple techniques and sub-techniques — over 400 in total.

ATT&CK is primarily used for three purposes in a security operations context: threat hunting (using known adversary techniques as hunt hypotheses), detection engineering (building SIEM and EDR rules for specific techniques), and red team exercises (simulating specific adversary techniques to test defenses). When a threat intelligence report says an APT group uses "T1566.001" (Spearphishing Attachment), that's an ATT&CK technique ID.

Pyramid of Pain

The Pyramid of Pain, developed by security researcher David Bianco, illustrates the relative difficulty for adversaries when defenders block different types of indicators. Higher up the pyramid = more pain for the attacker when you detect or block that indicator.

TTPs (Tactics, Techniques & Procedures)Extremely hard — forces complete behavior change
Tools (malware, utilities)Significant — forces tool replacement
Network / Host ArtifactsAnnoying — forces C2 or script changes
Domain NamesAnnoying — must register new domains
IP AddressesEasy — trivial to change IPs
Hash ValuesTrivial — one bit change defeats hash matching

The practical implication: blocking file hashes and IPs is cheap for defenders but also cheap for attackers to evade. Detecting and disrupting adversary TTPs (the techniques they use) is much harder for attackers to work around — they have to fundamentally change how they operate. This is why MITRE ATT&CK focuses on techniques rather than indicators.

Threat Actor Categories

🏴‍☠️
Nation-State (APT)
Advanced Persistent Threats. Sophisticated, well-resourced, long-term operations. Motivation: espionage, sabotage, IP theft. Examples: APT28 (Russia), APT41 (China), Lazarus Group (North Korea).
💰
Cybercriminal
Financially motivated. Ransomware, BEC, fraud, credential theft. Operate as businesses — Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) models. Often sophisticated despite not being nation-state.
Hacktivist
Ideologically motivated. DDoS, defacement, data leaks to embarrass targets. Typically less sophisticated but can cause significant reputational damage. Examples: Anonymous.
😈
Insider Threat
Already has access. Can be malicious (disgruntled employee), negligent (accidental data leak), or compromised (credentials stolen). Most damaging due to legitimate access levels.

Exam Scenarios

A security analyst wants to share information about a new malware campaign with peer organizations in the healthcare industry. What standard should they use to format the data, and what mechanism should they use to share it?
STIX to format the data; TAXII to share it. STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) is the language/format for describing the malware, indicators, and TTPs. TAXII (Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information) is the transport protocol over which the STIX data is exchanged. The healthcare-specific sharing community would be the H-ISAC (Health Information Sharing and Analysis Center).
Your threat intelligence team identifies that an adversary consistently uses a specific lateral movement technique involving WMI. According to the Pyramid of Pain, how difficult is it for the adversary to change this behavior?
Very difficult — this is a TTP, at the top of the Pyramid of Pain. TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) are the hardest for adversaries to change because they represent fundamental behaviors and skill sets. Blocking an IP (bottom of the pyramid) is trivial to evade, but forcing an adversary to abandon a technique they've mastered and replace it with something equally effective requires significant effort and retooling.
A SIEM alert fires because an internal workstation connected to a known malicious IP address that appears in a threat feed. What type of indicator triggered this alert?
An Indicator of Compromise (IOC) — specifically an IP address-based IOC. The known malicious IP address is a reactive indicator: its presence in a threat feed indicates a connection to a previously identified threat. The connection from an internal workstation to this IP suggests the workstation may be compromised or beaconing to a C2 server.
A threat intelligence report attributes a campaign to a nation-state actor that modified their malware's compilation timestamp but kept all other techniques the same. According to the Pyramid of Pain, did this defensive measure cause significant disruption?
No — the attacker made a trivial modification at the bottom of the Pyramid of Pain. Changing a compilation timestamp affects the file hash (bottom level — trivial for attackers). The adversary kept all their TTPs, tools, and infrastructure the same. Defenders who rely only on hash-based detection would miss the new sample, while those detecting based on techniques and behaviors would still catch it. This illustrates why hash-only detection is insufficient.

Related Articles