<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>CTI on Suspicious Bytes</title><link>/en/categories/cti/</link><description>Recent content in CTI on Suspicious Bytes</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="/en/categories/cti/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Building a Threat Actor Profile</title><link>/en/posts/building-a-threat-actor-profile/</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>/en/posts/building-a-threat-actor-profile/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Cyber threat intelligence is only useful when it changes a decision. A good actor
profile turns scattered observations into something a defender can act on this
week, not just read.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="structure-beats-prose"&gt;Structure beats prose&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A profile that reads like a story is hard to operationalise. Capture it as
structured fields instead:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Aliases and overlapping clusters&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Targeted sectors and regions&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Observed techniques (mapped to ATT&amp;amp;CK)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Known infrastructure patterns&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Intelligence without a confidence level is just a rumour with good formatting.
State what you know, how well you know it, and how you&amp;rsquo;d be proven wrong.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>