Customer portal
Category

Opinion

"Why
Investigation, Opinion

Why Hackers Hack: Exploring What Motivates Cybercriminal Activity

Cybercrime continues to rise in scale, complexity and impact, affecting individuals, businesses and governments alike. While much attention is given to how attacks happen, it’s just as important to ask why they occur in the first place. Understanding what motivates attackers is a crucial part of building an effective defence.

So, why do hackers hack?

Some are driven by financial gain, while others act on behalf of a nation-state or in support of a political cause. There are those motivated by revenge or personal challenge, and others who simply exploit opportunities because they can.

In this post, we explore the key motivations behind cybercriminal activity, helping you better understand the intent behind the threat and its implications for your organisation’s security posture.

Financial Gain

For many cybercriminals, money is the primary motivator. The vast majority of cybercrime is financially driven, with threat actors seeking to extract value from individuals, businesses or governments through theft, fraud or extortion.

Ransomware is perhaps the most well-known example. Attackers encrypt a victim’s data and demand payment, usually in cryptocurrency, in exchange for the decryption key. The rise of Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) has made these attacks more accessible, allowing less technically skilled criminals to launch sophisticated campaigns using tools developed by others.

One of the most notorious examples of financially motivated cybercrime is Evil Corp, a Russia-based cybercrime group responsible for developing and distributing the Dridex banking Trojan and BitPaymer ransomware. The group, led by Maksim Yakubets, has been linked to attacks that have caused hundreds of millions of pounds in damages globally. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Yakubets was allegedly tasked by Russian intelligence to conduct espionage operations alongside his cybercriminal activities. He is known not just for the scale of his crimes, but also for flaunting his wealth—reportedly driving a Lamborghini with a personalised number plate that reads “THIEF”.

Phishing and business email compromise (BEC) are also common financially motivated attacks. These techniques are designed to trick victims into handing over login credentials, payment details or other sensitive information that can be monetised directly or resold on dark web marketplaces. The FBI has reported billions of dollars in losses from BEC schemes, which often involve attackers impersonating executives or suppliers to redirect large financial transactions.

What’s particularly concerning is how mature and professionalised the cybercriminal ecosystem has become. Online forums and marketplaces, often hosted on the dark web, serve as thriving hubs where criminals buy and sell tools, data and services. This includes malware, exploit kits, stolen credentials and even technical support for other attackers. Some actors specialise in initial access, others in data theft or extortion, and many operate purely as brokers or facilitators.

As a result, modern cyberattacks are rarely the work of a lone hacker. Instead, they often involve multiple actors working together across a decentralised and anonymous marketplace. For a relatively low cost, almost anyone can purchase the tools and expertise needed to carry out a breach.

With high rewards and limited risk in many jurisdictions, financially motivated cybercrime remains one of the most significant threats facing organisations today.

Ideological or Political Motivation (Hacktivism)

Not all cybercriminals are driven by profit. Some are motivated by political beliefs, social causes or ideologies. These individuals or groups, often referred to as hacktivists, use hacking as a form of protest, aiming to disrupt, expose or embarrass organisations and governments they oppose.

One of the most recognisable hacktivist collectives is Anonymous, a loosely organised group known for its cyber campaigns against governments, corporations and extremist groups. Their activities have ranged from distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on financial institutions, to leaking sensitive documents from law enforcement agencies and political bodies.

Hacktivism has also played a prominent role in modern conflicts. In the early days of the Russia–Ukraine war, groups on both sides of the conflict engaged in cyber operations. Ukrainian-aligned actors, including the so-called IT Army of Ukraine, targeted Russian government websites and media outlets with defacements and DDoS attacks. Meanwhile, pro-Russian hacktivist groups like Killnet have launched attacks against European infrastructure in retaliation for political support of Ukraine.

These operations are not always highly technical, but they can be disruptive and attention-grabbing. For example, in 2022, Killnet claimed responsibility for attacks on several websites belonging to airports, healthcare providers and public institutions across Europe, using basic but effective DDoS techniques.

Hacktivism can blur the line between political protest and criminal activity. While some view it as a legitimate form of dissent in the digital age, it often involves illegal access, data leaks or service disruption, and can escalate geopolitical tensions or cause collateral damage to innocent third parties.

For defenders, politically motivated attacks pose a unique challenge. They may not follow the typical patterns of financially driven crime, and their targets can shift quickly based on current events, perceived injustices or ideological trends.

State-Sponsored Espionage

Some of the most advanced and persistent cyber threats come not from criminals seeking profit, but from nation-states pursuing strategic objectives. These attacks are often aimed at gathering intelligence, disrupting rivals, or gaining long-term access to critical systems. Unlike financially motivated actors, state-sponsored groups tend to operate with significant resources, patience and stealth.

These threat actors—often referred to as Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs)—typically target government departments, defence contractors, critical national infrastructure, and major corporations. Their goal may be to steal sensitive data, conduct surveillance, interfere with democratic processes, or enable future sabotage.

A prominent example is APT29, also known as Cozy Bear, a group linked to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). They have been implicated in numerous high-profile intrusions, including the 2020 SolarWinds supply chain attack, which compromised several US federal agencies and global private sector organisations. The operation was notable for its sophistication and subtlety, remaining undetected for months.

Similarly, APT10, associated with China’s Ministry of State Security, was involved in an extensive global cyber espionage campaign targeting managed service providers (MSPs). By compromising these third-party IT providers, APT10 was able to access a wide range of downstream client networks, including government and corporate systems in the UK, US and beyond.

Unlike typical cybercriminals, these groups are often protected by their host governments and operate with impunity. They may also work in parallel with criminal organisations, blurring the lines between state and non-state activity. For example, some ransomware attacks have been linked to actors with suspected ties to nation-states, suggesting a dual-purpose intent: generating revenue while causing strategic disruption.

The motivations behind state-sponsored cyber operations are diverse, ranging from political influence and military advantage to intellectual property theft and economic gain. These campaigns are rarely random; they are calculated, well-resourced and long-term in nature.

For organisations, this means traditional defences may not be enough. Combating espionage-level threats requires a heightened focus on detection, incident response and threat intelligence, particularly for those in sensitive sectors.

Corporate or Industrial Espionage

Businesses, particularly those with valuable intellectual property and trade secrets, are prime targets for corporate or industrial espionage. Cybercriminals and competing organisations alike seek to gain an unfair advantage by stealing sensitive data related to research and development (R&D), product designs, strategic plans or proprietary technologies.

This type of espionage often overlaps with state-sponsored cyber operations, where nation-states target foreign companies to bolster their own industries or military capabilities. A notable example is the Operation Aurora campaign, uncovered in 2010, where threat actors believed to be linked to China targeted Google and dozens of other major companies. The attackers aimed to steal intellectual property and gain access to corporate networks.

Similarly, in 2021, the US Department of Justice indicted members of a Chinese hacking group known as APT41 for conducting widespread cyber intrusions into video game companies and technology firms, stealing source code and proprietary information to benefit commercial interests.

R&D-heavy sectors such as biotechnology, aerospace, automotive and software development face particularly high risks. The theft of trade secrets not only undermines a company’s competitive edge but can also result in substantial financial losses and damage to reputation.

Unlike typical financially motivated attacks, corporate espionage campaigns are usually stealthy and meticulously planned. Attackers may maintain prolonged access to compromised networks, gathering intelligence over months or even years to extract maximum value.

Organisations must therefore prioritise safeguarding their intellectual property through robust cybersecurity measures, employee awareness, and stringent access controls. Collaboration with industry partners and government agencies can also help in detecting and mitigating these sophisticated threats.

Personal Challenge or Prestige

For some hackers, the motivation is less about money or politics and more about curiosity, thrill-seeking, or the desire for recognition within their communities. These individuals often see hacking as a puzzle to be solved or a challenge to be conquered, gaining personal satisfaction and prestige among peers.

This motivation is particularly common among younger or amateur hackers, sometimes referred to as “script kiddies”, who may lack advanced skills but are eager to prove themselves by exploiting vulnerabilities or defacing websites. The hacking community online—including forums, social media groups and dark web marketplaces—can foster this behaviour, offering a platform for sharing exploits, bragging rights and reputation-building.

A notable example is the hacktivist group LulzSec, which gained international attention in 2011 through a series of high-profile attacks targeting organisations like Sony, the CIA, and PBS. Their actions were largely driven by the desire to embarrass their victims and entertain themselves, rather than for financial gain or political objectives.

Similarly, the case of Jonathan James, a teenage hacker from the United States, illustrates this motivation. At just 15 years old, James infiltrated several government systems, including NASA, stealing source code and causing significant disruption. His actions seemed motivated by the challenge and thrill of hacking rather than monetary rewards.

While these hackers might not always intend serious harm, their actions can have unintended consequences: disrupting services, compromising data, or exposing vulnerabilities that other malicious actors might exploit.

Revenge or Personal Grievances

Not all cyber threats originate externally—sometimes the greatest risks come from insiders motivated by personal grudges or feelings of revenge. Disgruntled employees, former staff or contractors with authorised access can deliberately cause harm to an organisation by leaking sensitive information, sabotaging systems or stealing data.

One of the most infamous cases involved Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor who leaked vast amounts of classified information, motivated by a personal belief that the public had the right to know about government surveillance programmes. Though his actions sparked worldwide debate on privacy, they also caused significant damage to intelligence operations.

In the corporate sphere, a UK-based case saw a former IT administrator take revenge after being dismissed by deleting critical files and disabling user accounts, resulting in days of downtime and financial loss.

Such incidents highlight the critical importance of internal controls, thorough monitoring and robust offboarding procedures. Regularly reviewing access rights, implementing the principle of least privilege, and monitoring unusual activity can help detect and prevent insider threats before they escalate.

Organisations must balance trust with vigilance, fostering a positive workplace culture while ensuring employees understand the consequences of malicious actions.

Opportunistic or Accidental Hacking

Not all cyberattacks are the result of carefully planned operations. Many stem from opportunistic or accidental hacking, where attackers use automated tools to scan large numbers of systems for common vulnerabilities. These attacks require minimal effort but can still cause significant damage, especially to organisations or individuals with poor basic cyber hygiene.

Automated bots and scripts regularly probe the internet for unpatched software, weak passwords, misconfigured devices, or open ports. Once a vulnerability is found, the attacker may exploit it to gain access, often without a specific target in mind. This “spray and pray” approach relies on volume rather than precision.

For example, the WannaCry ransomware outbreak in 2017 rapidly spread across the globe by exploiting a known Windows vulnerability. Many affected organisations had failed to apply critical patches, making them vulnerable to this widespread, indiscriminate attack.

These types of attacks highlight the importance of fundamental cybersecurity practices: regularly updating software, using strong, unique passwords, enabling multi-factor authentication, and maintaining good network hygiene. Even basic measures can significantly reduce the risk posed by opportunistic attackers.

While opportunistic hacking might lack the sophistication or motive of targeted attacks, its impact can be equally devastating if proper precautions are not taken.

Mixed Motivations

In reality, cybercriminal motivations are often complex and overlapping rather than clear-cut. Many attacks are driven by a combination of factors—financial, political, ideological, or personal—which can make attribution and defence especially challenging.

A common scenario involves financially motivated cybercriminal groups being hired or tolerated by state actors to carry out attacks that serve national interests. These groups operate with relative impunity in exchange for providing offensive cyber capabilities or disruptive services.

For example, the notorious ransomware group REvil (also known as Sodinokibi) has been linked to criminal operations that sometimes intersect with geopolitical objectives. While primarily motivated by profit through ransomware extortion, there are indications that some affiliates have conducted operations aligning with certain state interests or received indirect protection from their home governments.

Such hybrid motivations complicate the threat landscape, blurring the lines between organised crime and state-sponsored espionage or sabotage. For defenders, understanding these intertwined incentives is crucial for developing effective cyber defence strategies and threat intelligence.

Conclusion

Cybercriminals are motivated by a wide and varied range of factors—from financial gain and political agendas to personal grudges and the pursuit of prestige. Understanding these diverse motivations is essential for organisations seeking to build effective defences in an increasingly complex cyber threat landscape.

By recognising what drives threat actors, businesses and individuals can better anticipate potential attack vectors, prioritise security investments, and tailor their incident response strategies accordingly. A threat-informed defence approach goes beyond technical measures, incorporating intelligence, awareness and proactive risk management.

As cyber threats continue to evolve, adopting a comprehensive, informed security posture is no longer optional—it is vital. Organisations should take active steps to understand their adversaries, strengthen their defences, and cultivate a culture of vigilance to stay ahead in the ongoing battle against cybercrime.

Header Photo by Furkan Elveren on Unsplash

"Analysis
Investigation, Opinion

Mastering the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH): A Practical Framework for Clear Thinking

In an age of information overload, uncertainty, and complex decision-making, clear analytical thinking is more crucial than ever. The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) is a structured method designed to cut through ambiguity and support objective, evidence-based conclusions. Originally developed by Richards J. Heuer, Jr., a veteran of the U.S. intelligence community, ACH was created to help analysts systematically evaluate multiple hypotheses without falling prey to cognitive biases and premature conclusions.

At its core, ACH shifts the analytical focus from proving a favoured hypothesis to disproving less likely alternatives, ensuring that conclusions are reached through a process of elimination rather than assumption. This approach is especially valuable in fields where decisions must be made in the face of incomplete or conflicting data, such as intelligence, cybersecurity, business strategy, and investigative research.

In this article, we’ll explore the foundational principles of ACH, guide you through its step-by-step methodology, and illustrate how to apply it in real-world scenarios. Whether you’re an analyst, decision-maker, or simply someone seeking to sharpen your critical thinking skills, this practical framework offers a powerful tool for navigating complexity with clarity and rigour.

What is the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses?

The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) is a structured analytical technique that helps individuals and teams evaluate multiple possible explanations for an event, trend, or problem—all at the same time. Rather than focusing on finding evidence that supports a single favoured hypothesis, ACH encourages analysts to test all plausible alternatives and to prioritise disconfirming evidence over confirming data.

This method stands in contrast to traditional analysis, where there is often a tendency to latch onto the most obvious explanation early on and seek only evidence that backs it up. That approach, while intuitive, is prone to cognitive pitfalls such as confirmation bias, groupthink, and premature closure.

By explicitly laying out competing hypotheses and methodically evaluating each against the available evidence, ACH helps to minimise bias, highlight critical assumptions, and improve judgement, particularly in situations that are ambiguous, fast-moving, or laden with incomplete information.

Ultimately, ACH is less about finding the answer and more about narrowing down the field of possibilities through a process that is transparent, reproducible, and intellectually disciplined.

The ACH Process Step-by-Step

The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses is more than just a checklist—it’s a disciplined approach to structuring your thinking, challenging assumptions, and arriving at well-supported conclusions. Below is an expanded walkthrough of the seven core steps, each designed to promote clarity and rigour in decision-making.

1. Define the Question or Problem

A clear, unbiased problem statement is the foundation of effective analysis. This step is about narrowing the scope of inquiry and making sure the question does not contain built-in assumptions.

Tips for framing your question:

  • Avoid language that implies causality or blame
  • Be as specific as the data allows
  • Keep it neutral and open-ended

Example:
 Why did a system failure occur in a secure network?
 This framing encourages investigation without assuming intent, method, or actor.

A poorly worded question—e.g., “Who caused the attack on our network?”—limits thinking prematurely by assuming the event was malicious and externally driven.

2. List All Plausible Hypotheses

The goal here is to generate a comprehensive list of explanations for the issue. It’s critical to suspend judgment and avoid discarding possibilities too early, especially those that feel uncomfortable or less likely at first glance.

Use techniques like brainstorming, consultation with diverse stakeholders, and red teaming to uncover blind spots.

Example Hypotheses:

  • H1: Insider sabotage
  • H2: External cyberattack
  • H3: Configuration error
  • H4: Third-party service failure
  • H5: Power or environmental disruption

Even if some hypotheses seem implausible, including them ensures a more robust analysis, and sometimes the least obvious explanation turns out to be the correct one.

3. Identify Evidence and Arguments

At this stage, you gather all the information that could potentially support or contradict your hypotheses. This includes:

  • Observational data (logs, reports, witness accounts)
  • Technical indicators (malware signatures, access logs)
  • Expert assessments
  • Circumstantial clues

For each piece of evidence, evaluate two things:

  • Source reliability: How trustworthy is the origin (e.g., system logs vs. anonymous tips)?
  • Information credibility: How plausible or accurate is the content?

Also consider whether the evidence is:

  • Direct or indirect
  • Confirmed or unverified
  • Timely or outdated

Pro tip: Avoid cherry-picking. Include evidence that contradicts your initial instincts—this is where real insight often lies.

4. Analyse Consistency

This is the heart of the ACH method: building a matrix that compares each hypothesis against each piece of evidence.

You’ll mark whether each piece of evidence is:

  • Consistent with the hypothesis
  • Inconsistent (i.e., contradicts it)
  • Neutral (i.e., not relevant to that hypothesis)

Example Matrix:

EvidenceH1: Insider sabotageH2: External cyberattackH3: Configuration error
Admin account accessed remotely at 2am✔️ Consistent✔️ Consistent❌ Inconsistent
No malware signatures detected✔️ Consistent❌ Inconsistent➖ Neutral
Recent patch deployed without testing❌ Inconsistent➖ Neutral✔️ Consistent
No third-party access in logs✔️ Consistent❌ Inconsistent✔️ Consistent

This matrix helps you visualise the weight and distribution of evidence, especially in identifying which hypotheses have significant inconsistencies.

5. Refine the Matrix

Now that the matrix is populated, focus on evaluating the diagnostic value of each piece of evidence. Ask yourself:

  • Which pieces most clearly discriminate between hypotheses?
  • Are there patterns that suggest certain hypotheses are clearly weaker?

ACH places particular emphasis on inconsistencies rather than confirmations. A single strong inconsistency can eliminate a hypothesis, while consistent evidence might apply to multiple hypotheses and be less useful in narrowing options.

Refining may also involve revisiting earlier assumptions, adjusting hypotheses, or seeking new evidence to fill gaps.

6. Draw Tentative Conclusions

This is the interpretive phase—based on the refined matrix, identify which hypothesis is least burdened by inconsistent evidence. Remember, this doesn’t mean it has the most supporting evidence, but rather that it stands up better under scrutiny.

Be cautious not to overstate certainty. If multiple hypotheses remain viable, say so. ACH supports probabilistic thinking, not premature conclusions.

Key reminders:

  • Avoid selecting the “most comfortable” hypothesis
  • Document your reasoning and uncertainties
  • Stay open to revision as new evidence emerges

7. Identify Milestones or Indicators

ACH is not static. Situations evolve, and so should your analysis. Define a set of indicators—specific events, behaviours, or pieces of data—that, if observed, would confirm, challenge, or refine your conclusion.

Examples:

  • Discovery of malware indicating a known threat actor (would support H2)
  • Forensic evidence of misconfiguration traced to recent update (would support H3)
  • Repetition of similar failures in unrelated systems (might suggest a broader issue)

Establish a plan for ongoing monitoring. This step ensures your conclusions remain grounded in reality as the situation unfolds and prevents analytical drift over time.


Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Practical Example: ACH in Action

To demonstrate the practical value of the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, let’s walk through a realistic scenario involving a suspected cybersecurity incident at a mid-sized financial services firm. This example illustrates each step of the ACH process in context, showing how structured analysis can lead to clearer conclusions—even in the face of ambiguity.

Scenario: Unexpected System Downtime in a Secure Network

Background:
At 03:15 on a Tuesday morning, the firm’s primary transaction server went offline, causing a six-hour disruption to client services. The network is normally robust and protected by multiple layers of defence. Internal monitoring systems flagged the event, but initial diagnostics were inconclusive.

The CTO initiates an ACH analysis to determine what caused the failure.

Step 1: Define the Question or Problem

The team agrees to frame the central question as:

What is the most plausible explanation for the unexpected system outage on the secure transaction server?

This wording avoids assumptions about cause or intent and invites multiple lines of inquiry.

Step 2: List All Plausible Hypotheses

The team brainstorms and agrees on the following hypotheses:

  • H1: External cyberattack (e.g., malware, DDoS)
  • H2: Insider sabotage (malicious insider or misuse)
  • H3: Configuration or patching error
  • H4: Hardware failure or infrastructure fault
  • H5: Scheduled maintenance error or oversight

The list is deliberately inclusive to prevent tunnel vision.

Step 3: Identify Evidence and Arguments

The team compiles evidence from logs, interviews, monitoring tools, and server diagnostics. Notable pieces of evidence include:

  • E1: Server logs show a reboot command issued remotely at 03:14
  • E2: No malware signatures or IOCs (Indicators of Compromise) detected
  • E3: A new patch was installed the day prior without full regression testing
  • E4: No external traffic spikes or anomalies around the time of the incident
  • E5: Access logs show a junior administrator logged in remotely at 03:12
  • E6: Server hardware passed all post-incident diagnostics
  • E7: Change management calendar incorrectly listed maintenance for the wrong server

Each item is tagged with a confidence rating and source reliability to support judgment later.

Step 4: Analyse Consistency

The team creates a matrix to compare each hypothesis against the evidence.

EvidenceH1: CyberattackH2: Insider SabotageH3: Config ErrorH4: Hardware FaultH5: Maintenance Error
E1: Remote reboot at 03:14✔️ Consistent✔️ Consistent✔️ Consistent➖ Neutral✔️ Consistent
E2: No malware or IOCs found❌ Inconsistent✔️ Consistent➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral
E3: Patch installed the day before➖ Neutral➖ Neutral✔️ Consistent➖ Neutral➖ Neutral
E4: No external anomalies❌ Inconsistent➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral
E5: Junior admin logged in remotely➖ Neutral✔️ Consistent✔️ Consistent➖ Neutral❌ Inconsistent
E6: Hardware passed diagnostics➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral❌ Inconsistent➖ Neutral
E7: Calendar showed the wrong server➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral➖ Neutral✔️ Consistent

Step 5: Refine the Matrix

Focusing on disproving hypotheses, the team notes:

  • H1 (Cyberattack) has two clear inconsistencies (E2 and E4)
  • H4 (Hardware fault) is contradicted by E6
  • H5 (Maintenance error) is weakened by E5, as the admin wasn’t scheduled to access that system

H2 (Insider sabotage) and H3 (Configuration error) remain more viable. The presence of an unscheduled login and recent patching suggests a blend of human and technical causes.

The most diagnostic evidence appears to be E2 (no malware) and E3 (untested patch), which significantly affect H1 and H3, respectively.

Step 6: Draw Tentative Conclusions

H1 (Cyberattack) and H4 (Hardware fault) are largely ruled out.
H5 (Maintenance error) is possible but lacks strong support and includes an inconsistency.
That leaves:

  • H2 (Insider sabotage): Plausible, especially with unexpected admin access
  • H3 (Configuration error): Strongly supported by evidence, with few inconsistencies

Given that the administrator may have unknowingly pushed a faulty patch, H3 is deemed the most probable hypothesis, with H2 remaining a secondary consideration requiring HR review.

Step 7: Identify Milestones or Indicators

To confirm or disprove the working conclusion, the team outlines the following future indicators:

  • Confirmation of the patch’s fault during follow-up testing (would support H3)
  • HR interview with the admin reveals intent or confusion (could support or refute H2)
  • Any signs of privilege misuse or unusual access patterns (would raise concern for H2)
  • Vendor advisory on the patch’s known issues (further supporting H3)

The analysis will be updated once these indicators are assessed. In the meantime, patching procedures are temporarily suspended, and access controls are reviewed.


Final Conclusion

The structured application of ACH helped the team reach a reasoned, defensible conclusion while keeping alternate hypotheses in play. Rather than jumping to the common assumption of a cyberattack, the analysis revealed a more mundane but equally critical root cause: likely misconfiguration following a poorly tested software update.

Real-World Reference: The Lucy Letby Case

The power of ACH is underscored by its implicit use in high-stakes investigations such as the Lucy Letby trial. Prosecutors highlighted that Letby was the only staff member present during every critical incident involving infant patients—a fact established through careful analysis of shift patterns and timelines. By systematically evaluating competing hypotheses about who could have caused harm, investigators effectively used the same logic underpinning ACH: disproving alternative explanations and focusing on the hypothesis best supported by consistent evidence. This approach helped build a compelling, structured case based on opportunity and timing, demonstrating ACH’s practical application beyond intelligence into criminal justice.

Benefits and Limitations of ACH

The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) offers a powerful framework for navigating complex, ambiguous, or high-stakes problems. But like any method, it comes with both strengths and limitations. Understanding these helps practitioners apply it effectively and appropriately.

Benefits of ACH

1. Reduces Cognitive Bias
ACH is specifically designed to counteract common mental pitfalls, such as confirmation bias and premature conclusions. By forcing the analyst to evaluate all plausible hypotheses and focus on disconfirming evidence, it encourages objectivity and balance.

2. Encourages Structured Thinking
Rather than relying on intuition or fragmented information, ACH imposes a disciplined approach. Analysts must document each step, weigh evidence methodically, and justify conclusions. This structure makes reasoning transparent and defensible, especially important in intelligence, law enforcement, or regulatory settings.

3. Handles Ambiguity and Complexity Well
ACH is particularly effective when information is incomplete, uncertain, or contradictory. By assessing how each piece of evidence aligns (or doesn’t) with multiple hypotheses, it accommodates complexity without oversimplifying.

4. Improves Group Collaboration and Debate
In team settings, ACH helps avoid groupthink by providing a common analytical language and framework. It gives structure to collaborative analysis, enabling different perspectives to be tested against the same evidence matrix.

5. Highlights Gaps and Guides Collection
The process often reveals where evidence is weak or missing, helping analysts identify what further data needs to be gathered. Diagnostic indicators can also be flagged for future monitoring.


Limitations of ACH

1. Time-Consuming
ACH is not always suited to fast-moving or reactive situations. Building and refining matrices, especially for complex cases with numerous hypotheses, can be labour-intensive.

2. Dependent on Quality of Input
The effectiveness of ACH depends entirely on the quality and reliability of the evidence fed into it. Incomplete, misleading, or low-confidence data can skew conclusions, even if the process itself is rigorous.

3. May Oversimplify Nuance
Although ACH structures thinking, it can sometimes encourage a binary view of evidence (e.g. consistent/inconsistent/neutral). This may not capture subtleties, degrees of relevance, or contextual complexity unless analysts make an effort to interpret carefully.

4. Requires Analytical Discipline
The method assumes a willingness to challenge assumptions, avoid premature closure, and remain open to changing conclusions as new evidence arises. In practice, this intellectual discipline can be hard to maintain, especially under pressure.

5. Not a Substitute for Domain Expertise
ACH supports analysis, but it does not replace subject matter knowledge. Without expert insight to interpret evidence correctly, even a well-constructed ACH matrix can produce flawed conclusions.


ACH is a powerful complement to critical thinking, not a magic solution. Used thoughtfully, it strengthens the quality of judgment and provides a clear audit trail for how conclusions were reached.

Tools and Resources

While the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) can be applied using simple pen-and-paper methods, various tools can help structure the process, especially when working with complex datasets or collaborating with others. Below are some practical tools that support ACH-style analysis.

Manual Tools

Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, Google Sheets)
Spreadsheets remain a reliable and widely used method for building ACH matrices. Users can list hypotheses across the top, evidence down the side, and use consistent symbols or colour codes to mark whether each item of evidence is consistent, inconsistent, or neutral. This method offers full transparency and is easily adaptable for individual or team use.

Printable ACH Templates
Basic ACH grids are available as printable templates and can be useful in workshops, briefings, or offline environments. These encourage clarity of thought without requiring technical platforms.

Digital Tools

PARC ACH Tool
Developed by the Palo Alto Research Center, this free, downloadable tool guides users through the ACH process, including hypothesis generation, evidence scoring, matrix creation, and conclusion development. It’s well-suited for training and operational use.

IBM i2 Analyst’s Notebook
Though not purpose-built for ACH, Analyst’s Notebook allows for sophisticated mapping of relationships between people, events, and data, which can support structured hypothesis testing in investigative contexts.


Recommended Reading

  • Psychology of Intelligence Analysis – Richards J. Heuer Jr.
    The original source text on ACH offers both theory and practical examples. Essential reading for analysts across sectors.
  • Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis – CIA (declassified)
    A practical manual outlining ACH alongside other structured methods such as key assumptions checks and red teaming. Freely available online.

Conclusion

In a world increasingly defined by uncertainty, complexity, and competing narratives, the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) offers a methodical way to cut through ambiguity. Originally developed for intelligence professionals, its value extends far beyond, offering anyone engaged in investigative work, cybersecurity, risk assessment, or strategic decision-making a practical framework for clearer thinking.

By focusing on disproving rather than confirming, ACH helps analysts avoid cognitive traps and build conclusions on firmer ground. It doesn’t guarantee certainty, but it does promote discipline, transparency, and intellectual honesty — qualities that are increasingly vital in high-stakes environments.

While the process may require time and rigour, the payoff is well-structured, defensible conclusions. Whether you’re a security analyst examining network breaches, a business leader weighing strategic options, or a researcher interpreting complex data, ACH provides a repeatable model for navigating complexity with confidence.

Incorporating ACH into your analytical toolkit is more than a method — it’s a mindset shift towards structured scepticism, clarity of thought, and resilient decision-making. The more widely it’s adopted, the stronger our collective reasoning becomes.

Header photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash.

Photo by fabio on Unsplash.

"Understanding
Investigation, Opinion

Understanding SCATTERED SPIDER: Tactics, Targets, and Defence Strategies

In recent months, a wave of disruptive cyberattacks has swept across high-profile organisations in both the UK and the US, affecting sectors ranging from hospitality and telecommunications to finance and retail. Many of these incidents share a common thread: attribution to a threat actor known as SCATTERED SPIDER, a group now gaining notoriety for its aggressive use of social engineering and its partnership with the DragonForce ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operation.

Unlike traditional ransomware gangs that rely heavily on technical exploits or brute-force tactics, SCATTERED SPIDER stands out for its deeply manipulative approach. The group has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to impersonate employees, deceive IT support teams, and bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA) through cunning psychological tactics. Often described as “native English speakers,” they are suspected to operate in or have ties to Western countries, bringing a cultural fluency that makes their phishing and phone-based attacks alarmingly effective.

As law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals scramble to contain the fallout from recent attacks, one thing is clear: SCATTERED SPIDER is not just another ransomware affiliate. They represent a shift toward human-centric intrusion strategies, blending technical skill with social deception in a way that challenges even well-defended organisations.

This article takes a closer look at how SCATTERED SPIDER operates, the tools they use, including DragonForce RaaS and, most importantly, what practical steps individuals and organisations can take to reduce their exposure to this growing threat.

Image Credit: Crowdstrike

Who Is SCATTERED SPIDER?

SCATTERED SPIDER is the name given to a loosely affiliated cybercriminal group that has quickly gained attention for its highly targeted and persistent campaigns against major organisations. Believed to be active since at least 2022, the group is often classified as an Initial Access Broker (IAB) and affiliate actor, working both independently and in partnership with larger ransomware collectives, most notably the ALPHV/BlackCat operation.

What sets SCATTERED SPIDER apart is not just its technical acumen, but its expert use of social engineering, often executed in fluent English and with a level of cultural familiarity that suggests the group is likely based in or has strong ties to the US or UK. Unlike many ransomware actors operating out of Eastern Europe or Russia, SCATTERED SPIDER’s tactics are tailored to Western corporate environments, allowing them to convincingly impersonate staff, manipulate helpdesk personnel, and bypass traditional security barriers with unnerving ease.

The group’s motivation is primarily financial, but their techniques are unusually aggressive. Rather than simply deploying ransomware after gaining access, SCATTERED SPIDER takes the time to navigate internal systems, escalate privileges, and exfiltrate data, ensuring maximum impact and leverage during extortion. This has included threats to publicly leak sensitive data if ransoms aren’t paid, a tactic made easier by their ties to DragonForce RaaS, a ransomware service that offers data leak platforms and other tools to affiliates.

Notable incidents attributed to SCATTERED SPIDER include:

  • The 2023 attack on MGM Resorts, which saw large-scale IT disruption across casinos and hotels in the US, was reportedly caused by a simple phone-based social engineering ploy.
  • Intrusions into telecommunications and managed service providers, where they have targeted identity infrastructure such as Okta and Active Directory to pivot across networks.
  • Disruption and data theft in the financial and insurance sectors, where highly sensitive customer and operational data were exfiltrated and held to ransom.

These campaigns reveal a group that is not only technically capable but strategically manipulative, leveraging trust, urgency, and insider knowledge to achieve access that many automated tools would struggle to obtain.

The Tools of the Trade: DragonForce RaaS

One of the key enablers of SCATTERED SPIDER’s recent success has been their alignment with DragonForce, a relatively new entrant in the expanding Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) ecosystem. RaaS models have radically altered the cybercrime landscape. Much like SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) in the legitimate tech world, RaaS lowers the barrier to entry for less technically capable threat actors by offering turnkey ransomware toolkits, user-friendly dashboards, and profit-sharing agreements between developers and affiliates.

What Is DragonForce?

DragonForce is a commercially operated ransomware platform, complete with a slick user interface, customer “support” channels, and marketing-style updates promoting new features and obfuscation techniques. While it may not yet have the brand recognition of LockBit or BlackCat, it is gaining traction among cybercriminal groups for its reliability, speed, and aggressive encryption routines.

Its offerings typically include:

  • Highly customisable payloads: Affiliates like SCATTERED SPIDER can tweak encryption settings, file extensions, and ransom notes to suit their targets.
  • Data exfiltration modules: These facilitate double extortion, where files are stolen before encryption and used as additional leverage during ransom negotiations.
  • Dark Web leak portals: Victim data is published or threatened with publication unless payment is made.
  • Access to a central control panel: Affiliates can monitor infected machines, initiate encryption manually, and track ransom payments via cryptocurrency wallets.

These features allow threat actors to operate more like cybercrime startups than ad-hoc hacking collectives.

Why SCATTERED SPIDER Uses DragonForce

SCATTERED SPIDER’s strength lies in gaining initial access, often via phone-based social engineering or SIM-swapping tactics, rather than building their own ransomware from scratch. By outsourcing encryption and extortion capabilities to a RaaS provider like DragonForce, they focus on what they do best: manipulating people, navigating corporate networks, and extracting sensitive data.

In this partnership, DragonForce gains a capable affiliate who can deliver high-value access, and SCATTERED SPIDER gains a ready-made suite of tools to monetise their intrusions. This division of labour reflects a broader shift in cybercrime, one where specialisation and scalability are the name of the game.

DragonForce and the RaaS Economy

It’s important to understand that DragonForce is not an isolated actor. It is part of a wider criminal ecosystem where:

  • Access brokers sell stolen credentials or remote access.
  • Malware developers lease out payloads to trusted affiliates.
  • Negotiators and money launderers offer “aftercare” services.

This ecosystem enables threat actors to operate like businesses, complete with hierarchical roles, profit-sharing models, and even internal dispute resolution mechanisms. In this context, SCATTERED SPIDER is not just a lone wolf but a well-placed operator within a highly coordinated cybercrime supply chain.

Why This Matters

The use of DragonForce by SCATTERED SPIDER highlights two alarming trends:

  1. Professionalisation of ransomware: You no longer need deep technical knowledge to execute devastating attacks; just access, confidence, and a few phone calls.
  2. Faster time-to-impact: With everything from encryption to extortion automated and streamlined, the time between compromise and ransom demand is shrinking rapidly, leaving organisations with little time to detect and respond.

As DragonForce continues to evolve and attract new affiliates, we are likely to see more actors adopt this model of rapid-access, rapid-extortion ransomware operations.

Image Credit: Kaspersky

Anatomy of an Attack: How SCATTERED SPIDER Operates

Understanding how SCATTERED SPIDER executes its attacks is crucial for organisations looking to strengthen their defences. Unlike many ransomware operators who rely on brute-force tactics or mass phishing campaigns, SCATTERED SPIDER favours precision, patience, and psychological manipulation.

Here’s a typical flow of operations observed in their campaigns:

1. Reconnaissance and Target Selection

The group begins by identifying high-value targets, often large enterprises in sectors such as telecommunications, financial services, and IT. They may purchase access to credentials or endpoint telemetry from Initial Access Brokers (IABs) or scrape publicly available information from LinkedIn, press releases, and social media to build detailed profiles of staff and infrastructure.

What makes this phase effective:

  • Use of OSINT to identify staff names, departments, and third-party vendors.
  • Focus on companies with complex IT environments and high tolerance for operational risk—prime candidates for extortion.

2. Initial Access via Social Engineering

Once they’ve identified the right entry point, SCATTERED SPIDER often deploys vishing (voice phishing) or phishing techniques to impersonate internal staff. In some cases, they call help desks pretending to be employees locked out of their accounts, requesting MFA resets or password changes.

This is where their native English and cultural familiarity give them a dangerous edge; they sound credible, confident, and urgent.

Common tactics:

  • Impersonating IT staff or executives to pressure support teams.
  • SIM-swapping or MFA fatigue attacks to intercept or bypass two-factor authentication.
  • Spoofed email domains or compromised inboxes used for internal-style phishing.

3. Credential Harvesting and Privilege Escalation

Once inside, the group moves quickly to extract further credentials. Tools such as Mimikatz, Cobalt Strike, and legitimate Windows administration tools (e.g. PowerShell, PsExec) are used to escalate privileges and move laterally across the network.

They specifically look for access to:

  • Identity infrastructure (Active Directory, Okta, Azure AD)
  • Remote access tools (VPNs, RDP gateways, Citrix)
  • Data repositories containing sensitive customer or business data

This phase may last hours or days, depending on the target’s size and the level of access achieved.

4. Data Exfiltration and Pre-Ransom Preparation

Before deploying ransomware, SCATTERED SPIDER usually exfiltrates a trove of sensitive data. This forms the basis of their double extortion strategy; even if a victim can restore from backups, they may still pay to prevent the public release of confidential files.

Common methods:

  • Compressing and uploading files to cloud storage services or attacker-controlled servers
  • Encrypting and staging data to avoid detection by DLP or antivirus tools

In some cases, the group leaves behind backdoors or admin accounts to retain long-term access or re-extort victims in the future.

5. Ransomware Deployment via DragonForce

Once exfiltration is complete and the environment is primed, SCATTERED SPIDER deploys DragonForce ransomware across the compromised network. The ransomware is configured to encrypt files rapidly and disrupt operations, sometimes including domain controllers and backup servers, to maximise impact.

Victims then receive a ransom note directing them to a Tor-based portal for negotiations. If payment isn’t made within a specified timeframe, stolen data is posted on a leak site associated with DragonForce.


Key Takeaways:

  • SCATTERED SPIDER relies on human error as much as technical vulnerabilities.
  • The group’s knowledge of Western IT environments makes it easier for them to blend in and manipulate systems and staff.
  • Their multi-stage attack chain: access, escalation, exfiltration, encryption, is methodical and difficult to detect in real time.

Image Credit – Reeds Solicitors

Why SCATTERED SPIDER’s Approach Is Especially Dangerous

SCATTERED SPIDER doesn’t operate like a traditional ransomware crew. Their campaigns combine social engineering finesse with technical aggression, resulting in a hybrid threat model that blends cybercrime with tactics more often associated with espionage groups. Here’s why they stand out and why they’re so difficult to defend against.

1. Deep Impersonation and Real-Time Manipulation

Unlike typical phishing groups that rely on mass email blasts, SCATTERED SPIDER employs live, targeted deception. Their operators speak fluent, unaccented English and are adept at impersonating IT personnel, executives, or employees in distress.

They frequently call help desks or IT support lines, using:

  • Personalised information gathered through OSINT
  • Spoofed phone numbers and internal-sounding email addresses
  • Calm, confident delivery to manipulate support staff in real time

This level of human-centred deception is rarely seen in conventional cybercrime campaigns and poses a serious challenge for security teams.

2. Precision Targeting of Identity Infrastructure

SCATTERED SPIDER understands that identity is the new perimeter. Rather than merely compromising a system, they aim to take control of identity and access management tools like:

  • Okta
  • Active Directory
  • Azure AD
  • SSO and MFA services

By doing so, they’re not just accessing individual endpoints, they’re taking over the core trust fabric of the organisation. Once they own your identity systems, lateral movement and persistence become trivially easy.

3. Speed and Aggression Outpacing Detection

While many attackers spend weeks in a network quietly collecting data, SCATTERED SPIDER moves with urgency and intent. In many cases:

  • Initial access to ransomware deployment can take place in less than 48 hours.
  • They bypass traditional controls using legitimate tools (Living off the Land), leaving minimal forensic traces.
  • They often disable security tools, delete logs, or backdoor admin accounts to stay one step ahead.

Traditional defences based on known signatures, blacklists, or passive monitoring are often too slow or too blind to respond in time.

4. Blurring the Line Between Cybercrime and Nation-State Tactics

Although motivated by financial gain rather than geopolitics, SCATTERED SPIDER’s tradecraft exhibits a level of maturity and adaptation more typical of state-sponsored APT groups. This includes:

  • Tailored intrusion techniques for specific industries and environments
  • Multi-stage attacks with operational patience
  • Use of multiple extortion channels, including PR pressure and data leak sites

This hybrid operational model: part ransomware gang, part APT, means traditional classifications don’t fully capture the scope of their threat. For defenders, this creates both strategic confusion and escalating risk.

In short, SCATTERED SPIDER is dangerous not just because of what they do, but how they do it. Their blend of psychological manipulation, identity compromise, and rapid escalation makes them one of the most formidable threats facing organisations today.

Defending Against SCATTERED SPIDER: Practical Guidance

While SCATTERED SPIDER’s tactics are sophisticated, they often exploit basic lapses in process, communication, and identity management. That means there are precautions organisations can take to harden themselves against this type of threat, without needing to reinvent their entire security stack.

1. Reinforce Help Desk Security Protocols

Since SCATTERED SPIDER frequently targets help desks and support teams, ensure those teams are trained to:

  • Never reset MFA or passwords without high-assurance identity verification.
  • Use call-back procedures or out-of-band verification for unusual requests.
  • Flag repeated or urgent requests as potential social engineering.

Adding simple checklists and mandatory escalation paths for sensitive account changes can drastically reduce social engineering success rates.

2. Harden Identity and Access Management

Identity remains a prime attack surface. To reduce risk:

  • Enforce phishing-resistant MFA, such as hardware tokens or app-based push authentication with device binding (rather than SMS or email codes).
  • Implement just-in-time access and least privilege policies for administrative accounts.
  • Regularly audit inactive accounts, especially third-party vendors and former employees.

Integrate identity telemetry into your detection stack: suspicious logins, MFA resets, or logins from new devices should trigger alerts.

3. Monitor for Signs of Lateral Movement

Once SCATTERED SPIDER is inside a network, time is of the essence. Deploy tools and strategies to detect:

  • Unusual use of remote admin tools (e.g. PowerShell, PsExec)
  • Use of credential dumping tools or abnormal privilege escalation
  • Lateral movement attempts, especially to identity infrastructure like Active Directory or Okta

EDR/XDR platforms with good behavioural analytics can be critical here, especially when coupled with 24/7 monitoring or MDR services.

4. Protect Your Data, and Know Where It Is

Given the group’s focus on data theft prior to encryption, prevention isn’t just about backups:

  • Map your critical data locations, especially customer, financial, and IP-related data.
  • Use Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools to monitor exfiltration patterns.
  • Segment sensitive environments and restrict data access to only those who need it.

Ensure that backups are not just secure and segmented from your main network, but also tested regularly.

5. Prepare for the Human Side of a Crisis

Even strong technical controls can be undone by panic or poor decision-making in the moment. Prepare:

  • A ransomware playbook with clear response roles, legal guidance, and communications plans.
  • Crisis simulations or tabletop exercises that include scenarios involving data leaks and public extortion.
  • Training for executives and PR teams on how to manage the reputational and regulatory impact.

Remember: SCATTERED SPIDER succeeds by catching organisations off guard, so make sure your teams know exactly how to respond under pressure.


Security Culture Is Your Best Defence

At the end of the day, SCATTERED SPIDER’s tactics work because they exploit human trust, urgency, and complexity. Investing in detection tools is important, but fostering a culture of scepticism, verification, and shared responsibility across the organisation is what truly builds resilience.

Stay Vigilant, Stay Informed

SCATTERED SPIDER has proven that ransomware is no longer just about encrypted files and ransom notes — it’s about controlling identities, deceiving people, and outpacing traditional defences. Their campaigns demonstrate just how effective a threat actor can be when they combine technical proficiency with social engineering and real-time manipulation.

What makes them especially dangerous is not just the tools they use, but the tactics and mindset behind their operations. This is a group that studies its targets, adapts rapidly, and blends psychological and technical attacks with striking efficiency.

For organisations in the UK, the US, and beyond, the message is clear: security isn’t just a technology problem — it’s a people and process problem too. Preventing the next SCATTERED SPIDER-style breach means:

  • Educating and empowering support staff
  • Hardening identity infrastructure
  • Monitoring for the unexpected
  • And rehearsing how you’ll respond under pressure

Cybercriminals evolve constantly. So must we.

Header image > Photo by Егор Камелев on Unsplash.

"Seeing
Opinion, OSINT

Seeing Clearly: Understanding and Addressing Bias in OSINT

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) has become an essential part of modern investigations, threat analysis, and decision-making. By leveraging publicly available information from the surface web, social media, forums, and more obscure corners of the internet, OSINT practitioners can uncover insights without the need for intrusive or covert methods. But as with any form of intelligence gathering, the process is far from objective.

Bias — whether introduced by the analyst, the tools used, or the sources themselves — can significantly distort findings. In an age where data is vast, varied, and often unverified, understanding and mitigating bias is not just good practice, it’s a necessity.

In this blog post, we’ll explore the different types of bias that can affect OSINT, from unconscious assumptions to platform-driven distortions. We’ll also look at the real-world consequences of unchecked bias and offer practical steps to help analysts and organisations reduce its impact. Because when it comes to intelligence, clarity and objectivity are key — and bias is the silent threat that clouds both.

What Is Bias in OSINT?

Bias, in the context of OSINT, refers to any distortion or influence that affects how information is collected, interpreted, or presented. It can arise from a wide range of sources — the tools we use, the platforms we search, the assumptions we bring with us, and even the way we frame our intelligence requirements.

Importantly, bias isn’t always intentional. Much of it operates at a subconscious level, shaped by cultural norms, past experiences, professional habits, or institutional practices. And in OSINT — where we often deal with vast, unstructured, and fast-moving data — even small biases can significantly skew the outcome of an investigation.

Bias can enter the OSINT process at every stage. It may influence the types of sources we prioritise, the way we interpret ambiguous content, or the confidence we place in particular findings. Analysts may unconsciously favour information that supports a working theory, or dismiss data that doesn’t align with an expected narrative. Meanwhile, digital tools and search algorithms can subtly reinforce these patterns, feeding analysts what they’re likely to click on — not necessarily what’s most accurate or relevant.

Recognising the presence of bias is the first step in mitigating its effects. In the sections that follow, we’ll explore some of the most common types of bias in OSINT work, and how they can impact the quality and reliability of our intelligence.

Types of Bias Common in OSINT

Bias in OSINT can creep in at any stage of the intelligence lifecycle — from the moment an analyst frames a question, to the sources they choose, the tools they rely on, and how they interpret the information gathered. These biases, often unconscious, can impact the reliability, relevance, and objectivity of an intelligence product. Below are the most prevalent types of bias that OSINT practitioners should be aware of, alongside examples and mitigation tips.

Selection Bias

Selection bias arises when the information an analyst collects is not representative of the broader landscape, often because certain types of sources or platforms are favoured over others. This can be due to habit, language familiarity, ease of access, or time constraints.

Example:
An analyst researching political disinformation may rely heavily on Twitter data, missing coordinated narratives being pushed on Telegram or region-specific platforms like VK or Weibo.

Why it matters:
If the selected sources don’t reflect the full spectrum of available information, the resulting intelligence may be incomplete, misleading, or skewed towards a particular narrative or demographic.

How to reduce it:

  • Use a diverse set of platforms and media types (forums, blogs, videos, alt-tech sites).
  • Include regional and language-specific sources wherever possible.
  • Revisit and regularly reassess your go-to sources to prevent over-reliance.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to look for or interpret information in a way that supports an existing hypothesis or belief, while disregarding evidence that contradicts it. This is especially common when an analyst is under pressure to produce a “smoking gun” or validate a stakeholder’s expectations.

Example:
While investigating a suspected nation-state actor, an analyst focuses exclusively on TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) associated with that actor, ignoring signs that the activity could point to a different group or a false flag operation.

Why it matters:
Confirmation bias can lead to poor attribution, misinformed decisions, or ineffective mitigation strategies. It also limits an analyst’s ability to explore alternative hypotheses.

How to reduce it:

  • Apply structured analytic techniques such as the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH).
  • Collaborate with other analysts to test assumptions and encourage critical challenge.
  • Document reasoning and acknowledge uncertainty in assessments.

Language and Cultural Bias

Language barriers and cultural unfamiliarity can affect how information is gathered and interpreted. Analysts working in a second language — or relying on machine translation — may misread tone, sarcasm, or idiomatic expressions. Cultural norms can also impact how certain behaviours are perceived.

Example:
An English-speaking analyst may misinterpret the tone of Arabic-language social media posts due to literal translation, mistaking satire or frustration for calls to violence.

Why it matters:
Poor interpretation can lead to false positives, mischaracterisation of intent, or overlooking local context. This is particularly critical in geopolitical, extremist, or criminal investigations.

How to reduce it:

  • Use native speakers or trusted translation partners when possible.
  • Consult regional experts for cultural insight.
  • Avoid making assumptions based solely on automated translations or surface-level interpretations.

Tool and Platform Bias

The tools we use to collect and analyse data are not neutral. Search engines, social media platforms, and scraping tools all apply filters, ranking algorithms, and personalisation — often without the user’s awareness. This can prioritise certain types of content and bury others, skewing the analyst’s perception of what is prevalent or important.

Example:
Google search results vary depending on location, search history, and user profile. An analyst may believe a narrative is trending globally when in fact it’s only prominent in their localised feed.

Why it matters:
Platform bias can lead to a false sense of consensus or popularity. It also risks amplifying certain voices while suppressing dissenting ones.

How to reduce it:

  • Use multiple search engines and anonymised browsers (e.g. Tor or VPNs).
  • Test queries in incognito/private browsing modes.
  • Be aware of default settings in commercial tools — understand what’s being excluded or prioritised.

Data Availability Bias

Data availability bias refers to the over-reliance on information that is easiest to find, most recent, or most abundant. Analysts may gravitate towards high-volume data sources (like Reddit or Twitter) because they are continuously updated and easy to search — at the expense of smaller, less visible sources that may be more valuable.

Example:
An OSINT report on cybercriminal activity may cite dozens of tweets and blog posts but fail to include key discussions taking place in closed forums or encrypted messaging groups.

Why it matters:
The quantity of available data doesn’t always equate to quality or relevance. Prioritising what’s visible over what’s essential can distort the intelligence picture and give a false sense of completeness.

How to reduce it:

  • Establish clear intelligence requirements before collection begins.
  • Allocate time to seek out hard-to-find or niche sources.
  • Treat gaps in data as a signal — not just an absence.

Together, these biases form a web of influence that can compromise even the most well-intentioned investigations. 


Real-World Consequences of Bias in OSINT

Bias in OSINT isn’t just a theoretical concern — it has real-world implications. When unchecked, bias can lead to flawed assessments, damaged reputations, operational missteps, and even legal or ethical breaches. Whether you’re conducting corporate investigations, monitoring geopolitical events, or assessing cyber threats, the integrity of your findings depends on how rigorously you confront bias throughout the process.

Here are some key consequences of biased OSINT!

Flawed Decision-Making

Biased intelligence can feed directly into poor decisions, especially in fast-moving environments where leadership relies heavily on OSINT to shape strategy or response.

Example:
A security team monitoring social unrest misinterprets online sentiment due to over-reliance on English-language Twitter data. As a result, they misjudge the timing and location of protest activity, leading to inadequate resource allocation and reputational damage for the organisation.

Impact:
Misinformed decisions can result in financial losses, safety risks, or missed opportunities to intervene early in an emerging threat.

Inaccurate Attribution and Threat Profiling

In cyber threat intelligence, OSINT is often used to support attribution — linking incidents to actors or groups. Bias in source selection or interpretation can lead to false conclusions about who is behind an attack or what their motives might be.

Example:
An analyst attributes a phishing campaign to a well-known ransomware gang based on superficial similarities to a past incident, without exploring the possibility of copycat tactics. Later evidence reveals the activity was the work of a different actor altogether.

Impact:
Faulty attribution may lead to targeting the wrong group, damaging diplomatic relationships, or overlooking the true threat actor.

Overlooking Emerging Threats

Bias towards mainstream or high-visibility platforms can cause analysts to miss activity in fringe spaces where new narratives or tactics often emerge first.

Example:
While monitoring disinformation around an election, analysts focus on Facebook and YouTube but fail to detect early mobilisation efforts on fringe platforms like 4chan or niche messaging channels.

Impact:
Failure to detect early-stage planning or sentiment shifts can delay mitigation efforts and allow threats to escalate unchecked.

Offensive cyber threat intelligence

Reputational and Legal Risks

If an organisation bases public statements or internal actions on flawed OSINT, it could face reputational fallout — or worse, legal consequences.

Example:
A company issues a threat advisory naming a suspected actor based on an OSINT report later revealed to be based on misinterpreted data. The accused actor contests the findings publicly, leading to reputational damage and potential liability.

Impact:
Poorly substantiated claims can erode trust in your organisation’s intelligence capabilities and create significant legal exposure.

OSINT SOS Intelligence

Analyst Burnout and Operational Inefficiency

Constantly chasing data that confirms a pre-existing view can lead to tunnel vision and missed insight. It also increases cognitive load, as analysts struggle to reconcile contradictory findings with an inflexible narrative.

Example:
An intelligence team spends weeks reinforcing an incorrect assumption because early findings were never challenged. Late-stage doubts lead to rework and missed deadlines.

Impact:
Bias drains time, undermines analyst confidence, and reduces the overall efficiency of the OSINT process.

By understanding and acknowledging these consequences, OSINT professionals can treat bias not just as a theoretical flaw but as a practical risk — one that can and should be actively mitigated. In the next section, we’ll explore how to do exactly that: recognising bias in your own process, and adopting safeguards to reduce its impact.


How to Identify and Mitigate Bias in OSINT Investigations

Tackling bias in OSINT isn’t about eliminating it entirely — that’s virtually impossible. Instead, the goal is to recognise where bias may creep in, actively question your assumptions, and build safeguards into your processes to keep your intelligence as accurate, balanced, and reliable as possible. Below are key strategies for identifying and mitigating bias throughout the OSINT lifecycle.

Develop Self-Awareness and Encourage Critical Thinking

Awareness is the first step. Bias is often unconscious, so analysts must learn to reflect on their own thought processes and remain open to challenge.

Tips:

  • Ask yourself: “What assumptions am I making here?”
  • Encourage peer review within your team — a second set of eyes can catch blind spots you might miss.
  • Maintain a mindset of curiosity over certainty. Avoid becoming too attached to an early hypothesis.

Use Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs)

Structured Analytic Techniques are proven tools to help analysts explore alternative explanations, test assumptions, and reduce cognitive traps.

Recommended techniques:

  • Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH): List all possible explanations and evaluate evidence for and against each.
  • Red Teaming: Have a colleague deliberately challenge your assumptions and present counter-arguments.
  • Devil’s Advocacy: Take an opposing viewpoint to test the strength of your conclusions.

These methods are particularly valuable in high-stakes or high-uncertainty investigations where bias may have the greatest impact.

Diversify Sources and Tools

One of the most effective ways to reduce selection and tool bias is to cast a wide net. Avoid relying on a narrow set of familiar platforms or sources.

Tips:

  • Include mainstream, alternative, and fringe platforms in your data collection.
  • Use both commercial and open-source OSINT tools — each may present data differently.
  • Search in multiple languages where possible, or use translated queries to gain a broader view.

Regularly audit your sources and collection methods to ensure they remain appropriate for the task.

Separate Collection from Analysis

Where feasible, keep data collection and analysis distinct. This can help prevent your search strategy from being shaped by what you hope to find.

Tips:

  • Assign data gathering to one team member and analysis to another, if resources allow.
  • Use neutral search terms during collection to avoid biasing the dataset.
  • Create a clear intelligence requirement or question to guide your scope objectively.

This separation adds discipline to your workflow and supports a more neutral intelligence product.

Document Your Reasoning and Assumptions

Transparency in your process is essential — both for collaboration and for bias mitigation. Document how conclusions were reached, including what evidence was used, what was discarded, and why.

Benefits:

  • Makes your work more defensible in the event of challenge or scrutiny.
  • Helps you revisit past assessments to refine or revise conclusions with new evidence.
  • Supports better peer review and organisational learning.

Where possible, annotate your findings with source reliability ratings and confidence levels.

Build in Time for Reflection and Review

Tight deadlines often amplify bias, as there’s little opportunity to question results. Wherever possible, build in time to reflect on findings and review them with fresh eyes.

Tips:

  • Schedule a “cooling-off” period before finalising assessments, especially on complex or high-risk topics.
  • Use checklists to perform a final bias audit before dissemination.
  • Encourage cross-team or external feedback if time allows.

Bias in OSINT is inevitable — but it doesn’t have to define the quality of your work. With the right tools, habits, and organisational culture, it’s possible to create intelligence products that are more balanced, resilient, and actionable.

Embedding Bias Awareness into OSINT Workflows and Culture

Bias mitigation shouldn’t just be left to individual analysts — it must be baked into the wider workflows, processes, and culture of any team or organisation that relies on OSINT. When bias awareness becomes part of the operational fabric, the result is more reliable intelligence, better decision-making, and a stronger ethical foundation.


Here’s how teams can embed this mindset more broadly:

Establish Clear Intelligence Requirements

Start with a well-defined intelligence question. Vague or overly broad tasks increase the risk of confirmation bias or irrelevant collection.

What this looks like:

  • Define the “who, what, when, where, and why” before collection begins.
  • Break down large requests into smaller, more focused components.
  • Ensure tasking is reviewed and agreed by relevant stakeholders to reduce personal bias shaping direction.

Standardise Collection and Documentation Processes

Create workflows that encourage consistency and transparency at every stage of the OSINT cycle.

Steps to implement:

  • Use templates for reporting and note-taking that include fields for source evaluation, confidence levels, and assumptions.
  • Standardise how tools and sources are chosen and justify their use.
  • Make documentation a non-negotiable part of your intelligence output.

This not only reduces bias but also improves reproducibility and quality control.

Foster a Culture of Challenge and Peer Review

Healthy teams encourage respectful disagreement and regular feedback. Challenge should be seen not as confrontation, but as a key part of refining thinking.

How to build this in:

  • Hold regular review sessions or “intelligence stand-ups” where analysts discuss findings and alternative views.
  • Designate a “red team” or devil’s advocate role for larger projects.
  • Encourage cross-functional reviews involving technical, regional, or language specialists where possible.

Psychological safety — where analysts feel comfortable voicing concerns or dissent — is key to making this work.

Provide Ongoing Training and Awareness

Bias awareness isn’t a one-off exercise. Continuous professional development helps teams stay sharp, challenge assumptions, and stay updated with new tools or methods.

Training focus areas:

  • Cognitive bias and structured analytic techniques.
  • Source validation and reliability frameworks.
  • Diversity in online platforms and information ecosystems.

Don’t overlook the value of non-technical skills, such as critical thinking, logic, and media literacy.

Use Technology Thoughtfully, Not Blindly

Automated tools can speed up analysis, but they can also entrench bias if they’re not used carefully. Algorithms are only as objective as the data and assumptions behind them.

Best practices:

  • Understand the limitations of any tool, especially those that involve language processing, sentiment analysis, or trend detection.
  • Regularly assess whether tools introduce their own selection bias (e.g. geolocation limits, language barriers).
  • Avoid over-reliance on dashboards or outputs without context — always layer automated findings with human judgment.

Reflect and Evolve

Build regular retrospectives into your team’s rhythm. Reflect on where bias may have influenced past projects, and use that to refine future practice.

Prompts to consider:

  • Were any key perspectives or sources missed?
  • Were assumptions tested adequately?
  • How did the team handle dissent or uncertainty?

This institutional learning helps embed bias mitigation into your organisational muscle memory.

By putting these cultural and procedural supports in place, organisations move beyond individual effort and towards systemic resilience. When bias awareness becomes a shared value — not just a box-ticking exercise — the result is a more ethical, accurate, and credible OSINT function.

SOS Intelligence Ransomware Statistics October 23

The Value of Bias-Aware OSINT

Bias is an unavoidable part of human thinking, and by extension, of open-source intelligence. But acknowledging its presence isn’t a weakness — it’s a strength. When analysts and organisations recognise where bias can occur and actively work to reduce its influence, the result is not only better intelligence but also more ethical, credible, and impactful work.

Bias-aware OSINT isn’t about striving for some mythical state of total objectivity. Instead, it’s about developing good habits: questioning assumptions, diversifying sources, documenting reasoning, and creating space for challenge and reflection. It’s about embedding checks and balances into both individual workflows and team culture.

In an era where misinformation spreads quickly and decision-makers rely heavily on timely, accurate information, the stakes for getting OSINT right have never been higher. Building bias-aware practices into your investigations isn’t just good tradecraft — it’s an essential part of being a responsible intelligence professional.

By staying curious, critical, and collaborative, we can all do our part to ensure the intelligence we produce stands up to scrutiny and serves its intended purpose — helping others make better-informed decisions.

Header photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash.

"evaluating
Opinion, OSINT, Tips

Evaluating OSINT: Why It Matters and How to Do It Right

Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) has become a cornerstone of modern intelligence work — from cyber threat analysis to corporate due diligence and investigative journalism. With a wealth of publicly available information just a few clicks away, the real challenge no longer lies in accessing data, but in determining its value.

Not all sources are equal, and not all information should be trusted at face value. In an age of misinformation, spoofed identities, and manipulated content, the ability to critically evaluate OSINT is essential. Whether you’re conducting research for a security operation or building a threat profile, understanding how to assess the credibility, accuracy, and relevance of your findings is what turns raw data into actionable intelligence.

In this blog, we’ll explore why evaluation is such a crucial stage in the OSINT process, introduce key criteria and techniques for assessing intelligence, and provide practical advice to help you strengthen your evaluation skills.

Why Evaluation Matters in OSINT

The open nature of OSINT is both its greatest strength and its biggest vulnerability. While the accessibility of public data allows for rich and diverse intelligence gathering, it also means the information collected can be incomplete, misleading, outdated, or deliberately false. Without rigorous evaluation, even the most promising-looking data can lead analysts down the wrong path.

In security contexts, acting on flawed intelligence can have serious consequences — from reputational damage and wasted resources to operational failure or legal risk. A single unverified claim from an untrustworthy source can compromise an entire investigation or response effort.

It’s also important to distinguish between data, information, and intelligence. OSINT collection yields data — raw, unprocessed facts. When those facts are organised and given context, they become information. But it’s only through evaluation — the process of assessing accuracy, reliability, and relevance — that information is transformed into intelligence that decision-makers can act on with confidence.

In short, evaluation is what separates noise from insight. It’s not just a good practice — it’s a critical step that determines the overall value and credibility of your intelligence output.

Core Evaluation Criteria

Evaluating OSINT effectively requires a structured approach. Rather than relying on gut instinct or assumptions, analysts should assess each piece of information against a set of established criteria. This ensures consistency, reduces bias, and increases the likelihood that your final intelligence product will be trusted and actionable.

Here are five key criteria that can guide your evaluation process:

1. Relevance

Does the information directly relate to your intelligence requirement or objective? OSINT can be full of interesting but tangential details. Focusing only on what is relevant ensures your analysis remains targeted and efficient.

2. Reliability

Is the source trustworthy? Consider the origin of the data — is it a reputable website, a verified account, or a known organisation? Or is it an anonymous post on a forum with no verifiable backing? The credibility of the source often dictates the reliability of the information it provides.

3. Accuracy

Is the information factually correct? Has it been corroborated by other sources? Are there inconsistencies, errors, or signs of manipulation? Verifying accuracy is especially important when dealing with fast-moving events or user-generated content.

4. Timeliness

Is the data current? Outdated information can skew your analysis, particularly in areas like cybersecurity or geopolitical monitoring where things change rapidly. Always check publication dates and consider whether the information still reflects the present reality.

5. Objectivity

Is the content neutral, or does it show bias? Be wary of emotionally charged language, persuasive tone, or content designed to provoke. Identifying whether the source has an agenda can help you judge how much weight to give the information.

Using the Admiralty Code

One widely recognised method for evaluating sources and information is the Admiralty Code, also known as the NATO Source Reliability and Information Credibility grading system. It uses a two-part alphanumeric rating to assess:

  • Source Reliability (A–F) – how dependable the source is based on past performance, access to information, and known biases.
  • Information Credibility (1–6) – how believable the information is, based on corroboration, plausibility, and consistency with known facts.

For example, a rating of A1 indicates a highly reliable source providing confirmed information, while E5 might flag a questionable source offering unconfirmed or implausible content. While originally designed for military intelligence, the Admiralty Code can be adapted to OSINT workflows to provide a quick yet effective way of scoring confidence in your findings.

By combining the Admiralty Code with the core evaluation criteria above, analysts can create a more transparent, defensible assessment process that supports better decision-making.

Admiralty Code

Source Evaluation Techniques

Once you’ve identified what you’re looking for and established your evaluation criteria, the next step is to put those principles into practice. Evaluating sources effectively requires both critical thinking and a methodical approach. Below are some techniques that can help analysts assess the credibility, authenticity, and relevance of open source material.

1. Corroboration Across Multiple Sources

One of the most effective ways to validate information is through corroboration. Can the same information be found across multiple independent, reputable sources? If different, unrelated sources are reporting the same facts, confidence in the information naturally increases. Be mindful, however, of information echo chambers — where multiple outlets are simply republishing or citing the same original (and possibly flawed) source.

2. Trace the Original Source

Always seek the original source of information rather than relying on summaries, screenshots, or secondary reporting. When analysing a news story, forum post, or leaked document, trace it back to its origin to assess context, authenticity, and potential manipulation. Metadata, timestamps, and file properties can offer valuable clues in verifying source integrity.

3. Use of Source Grading Systems

Incorporating a formal source grading system, such as the Admiralty Code, adds structure to your evaluation. Assigning a reliability and credibility rating to each source not only helps prioritise information but also makes your intelligence product more transparent and defensible.

4. Evaluate Digital Footprints

For online content, take time to assess the digital presence of the source. Does a social media profile show a consistent identity over time, or does it exhibit signs of automation or inauthentic behaviour? Techniques such as reverse image searches, domain registration checks (WHOIS), and historical snapshots (via the Wayback Machine) can help verify source history and legitimacy.

5. Consider the Source’s Motivation and Bias

Understanding why a source is publishing certain information can help contextualise its reliability. Is the content investigative, promotional, political, or satirical? Is it user-generated or professionally produced? Analysing tone, language, and publication history can reveal bias or intent that may affect credibility.

Balance Automation with Human Judgement

6. Balance Automation with Human Judgement

While automated tools like browser plugins, scraping utilities, and AI classifiers can assist in sorting and filtering OSINT, human evaluation remains essential. Algorithms can flag suspicious patterns, but they may miss nuance, satire, or contextual subtleties. The most effective OSINT analysts use tools to support — not replace — critical thinking.

By applying these techniques consistently, analysts can reduce the risk of misinformation, increase the quality of their assessments, and build intelligence that decision-makers can trust. Evaluation isn’t just a stage in the process — it’s an ongoing discipline throughout the lifecycle of any OSINT investigation.

Practical Tips for Evaluators

Even with a solid framework and a set of reliable techniques, OSINT evaluation often comes down to the fine details — the subtle clues, the consistency checks, and the instinct honed by experience. This section offers practical, hands-on advice to help you refine your evaluation skills and avoid common pitfalls.

1. Keep an Evaluation Log

Maintain a record of how you’ve assessed each source — including decisions around credibility, context, and any verification steps taken. This is especially important in collaborative environments or when intelligence may need to be defended later. Tools like analyst notebooks, spreadsheets, or structured databases can help you track this clearly.

2. Use Source Checklists

Create a simple checklist to run through each time you assess a source. This could include prompts like:

  • Does the source have a known history or digital presence?
  • Is the information supported by others?
  • Can I identify any potential bias?
  • What’s the Admiralty Code rating?
     Having a repeatable checklist reduces oversight and builds consistency in your process.

3. Beware of Confirmation Bias

It’s easy to give more weight to information that aligns with your assumptions or desired outcomes. Make a conscious effort to challenge your own conclusions by seeking contradictory or alternative views. A good analyst considers what’s missing, not just what’s present.

4. Apply Lateral Reading

When evaluating websites or media content, use lateral reading — that is, open other tabs to research the author, domain, or claims from outside sources rather than staying within the original source’s ecosystem. This is especially useful when verifying unfamiliar outlets or detecting disinformation.

5. Factor in Context and Culture

Context matters. A piece of content that appears misleading may be satire, a mistranslation, or culturally specific. Understanding the context in which content was created — including language, location, and intended audience — can significantly impact how it should be interpreted and evaluated.

6. Treat OSINT Like Evidence

Approach OSINT evaluation with the same care and scrutiny as if you were handling physical evidence. Every claim should be backed by verification or flagged as unconfirmed. If there are gaps or assumptions, make them explicit. This rigour supports better intelligence products and protects your credibility as an analyst.

Tools That Support OSINT Evaluation

While critical thinking is at the heart of any good OSINT evaluation, the right tools can streamline your workflow, support verification, and uncover valuable context. These tools don’t replace human judgement — but they do enhance your ability to assess the reliability, credibility, and relevance of open source material.

Below is a selection of tools, grouped by function, that can support your evaluation efforts:

Source Verification and Reputation

  • WHOIS Lookup (e.g. Whois.domaintools.com, ViewDNS.info)
     Check domain registration details to assess how long a site has been active and who owns it.
  • Wayback Machine (archive.org)
     View historical versions of web pages to track changes or confirm the existence of content at a given time.
  • DomainTools Iris or RiskIQ PassiveTotal
     More advanced tools for investigating infrastructure, subdomains, and digital footprints of websites.

Media and Content Verification

  • Google Reverse Image Search / TinEye / Yandex
     Check whether images are original or reused across different contexts, possibly indicating misinformation.
  • InVID / WeVerify Toolkit
     Useful for verifying videos and images from social media, checking for manipulation or date/location mismatches.
  • Metadata Extractors (e.g. ExifTool)
     Analyse image and file metadata to identify origin, device, and timestamps — where available.

Social Media Evaluation

  • Account Analysis Tools (e.g. WhoisThisProfile, Social Searcher)
     Evaluate the activity and legitimacy of social media accounts by checking post history, bio details, and follower patterns.
  • Hoaxy
     Visualises how information spreads across Twitter — useful for identifying echo chambers, bots, or coordinated disinformation.

Information Cross-Referencing

  • Google Advanced Search / Operators
     Use search modifiers (like site:, intitle:, or filetype:) to hone in on credible or official sources.
  • OSINT Framework (osintframework.com)
     Not a tool itself, but a curated directory of tools and resources for various OSINT tasks — including evaluation and verification.

Structured Evaluation and Analysis

  • Maltego
     Helps visualise and map relationships between entities (people, domains, IPs, etc.), useful for contextualising source networks.
  • Hunchly
     A browser plugin that automatically captures and logs every page you visit, supporting transparency and traceability in your investigations.
  • IntelTechniques Workbook / Casefile
     Structured templates and tools from the OSINT community that support methodical evaluation and reporting.

Case Study: Misidentification in the Boston Marathon Bombing

The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing provides a powerful example of how poor OSINT evaluation can lead to serious consequences. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, online communities — particularly Reddit — attempted to crowdsource intelligence to help identify the perpetrators.

The OSINT Effort

Amateur investigators analysed photos, videos, and social media posts to spot “suspicious” individuals in the crowd. One person in particular, Sunil Tripathi, a missing university student, was misidentified as a suspect based on vague visual similarities and unverified assumptions.

Reddit threads, Twitter posts, and even some journalists picked up on the speculation, causing his name and photo to circulate rapidly online. This led to distress for his family, public confusion, and the further spread of misinformation.

What Went Wrong?

  • No Source Validation: The photos used were low-resolution and out of context. No effort was made to verify the original source or timestamp.
  • Lack of Corroboration: Claims were amplified without independent verification or official confirmation.
  • Confirmation Bias: Users were looking for someone who looked like they could be a suspect, rather than critically evaluating the data.
  • Absence of a Structured Framework: There was no use of a system like the Admiralty Code to assess source reliability or information credibility.

The Impact

Authorities later confirmed that Tripathi had no involvement in the bombing — he had sadly died by suicide prior to the attack. The incident highlighted how untrained use of OSINT and failure to properly evaluate information can lead to serious reputational harm, emotional trauma, and the derailment of actual investigations.

This case shows that while open source intelligence can be powerful, it must be used responsibly. Without evaluation, it’s just noise — and in high-stakes situations, that noise can do real damage.


Conclusion: Evaluation Is the Heart of Effective OSINT

Open source intelligence has become a cornerstone of modern investigations, from cybersecurity and law enforcement to journalism and corporate risk. But the sheer volume of available information means that gathering data is no longer the hard part — evaluating it is.

As we’ve seen, the effectiveness of OSINT hinges not on what you collect, but on how you assess it. Poorly evaluated intelligence can mislead, cause harm, or result in missed opportunities. In contrast, well-evaluated OSINT builds clarity, confidence, and strategic value.

Whether you’re using the Admiralty Code, applying structured frameworks, or leveraging specialised tools, the goal remains the same: to produce intelligence that is accurate, reliable, and actionable. Evaluation isn’t a final step in the OSINT process — it’s woven throughout.

In an age where misinformation spreads faster than truth, the ability to critically evaluate open source material isn’t just a skill — it’s a responsibility.

Header Photo by Mike Kononov on Unsplash, balance Photo by Jeremy Thomas on Unsplash and tools Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash.

"OPSEC
Opinion, OSINT, Tips

OPSEC in OSINT: Protecting Yourself While Investigating

Operational Security, or OPSEC, is a fundamental aspect of conducting Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) research safely and effectively. While OSINT often relies on publicly available data, the act of collecting and analysing this information can expose the researcher to unexpected risks. Whether you’re investigating threat actors, uncovering illicit activity on the dark web, or simply building a digital footprint for corporate due diligence, how you conduct your research matters as much as what you uncover.

Without careful OPSEC, researchers may unintentionally reveal identifying details such as IP addresses, user agent strings, or browsing habits. This exposure can lead to tracking, targeted surveillance, legal consequences—particularly when investigating sensitive or criminal topics—and, in more extreme cases, harassment or retaliation by the very subjects under investigation. The threat is not hypothetical; adversaries are increasingly capable and willing to monitor who is watching them.

To mitigate these risks, OSINT professionals must adopt robust OPSEC strategies. This includes using anonymisation tools like VPNs and virtual machines, masking digital fingerprints, compartmentalising identities, and maintaining strict control over what information is shared and when. In short, good OPSEC ensures that while you’re observing others, no one is observing you.

In this blog, we’ll explore the principles of OPSEC in the context of OSINT, examine real-world lapses, and provide practical guidance to help you operate securely in the digital shadows.

Understanding OPSEC in OSINT

Operational Security (OPSEC) refers to the practice of protecting sensitive information and activities from being observed or intercepted by adversaries. In the context of OSINT, OPSEC is not just a technical consideration—it’s a critical mindset. Researchers who gather intelligence from publicly available sources must do so without inadvertently exposing their identity, intent, or methods. Poor OPSEC can undermine investigations, put individuals at risk, or even lead to legal or reputational consequences.

Failing to maintain good OPSEC during OSINT investigations can result in a range of dangers: adversaries may detect your research and change their behaviour, criminal actors may attempt retaliation, or your digital footprint may become evidence in a legal investigation. In more serious cases, the safety of the investigator could be compromised entirely.

To minimise these risks, OSINT professionals should follow the five-step OPSEC process:

  1. Identify Critical Information
    What details could reveal who you are or what you’re doing? This might include IP addresses, usernames, browser details, time zones, or behavioural patterns.
  2. Identify Threats
    Who has the motivation and capability to detect or monitor your activity? This could include cybercriminal groups, nation-state actors, or even commercial entities.
  3. Assess Vulnerabilities
    Which tools or habits might unintentionally expose you? For example, using personal accounts, searching without anonymisation, or reusing digital identities.
  4. Analyse the Risk
    Consider the likelihood of exposure and the potential consequences. Could it result in misinformation, compromised evidence, or personal harm?
  5. Implement Countermeasures
    Adopt practical steps to reduce risk: use virtual machines, anonymising browsers, disposable accounts, and secure communications channels.

In essence, OPSEC in OSINT is about anticipating how your investigative trail could be traced and taking proactive measures to stay one step ahead.

Digital Exposure: What You Reveal When You Research

Even the most cautious OSINT practitioner can inadvertently leak critical information simply by browsing a website, clicking a link, or downloading a file. Every digital action leaves behind a footprint—and without proper safeguards, that footprint can be traced back to you.

One of the most obvious sources of exposure is your IP address. This numerical label can reveal your general location, time zone, and internet service provider, and it may persist across different sessions. OSINT researchers using their real IP—especially from a home or office connection—risk not only revealing their location but potentially linking their activity back to an employer, organisation, or specific identity. VPNs, proxies, and Tor are essential tools for masking this information, but even these come with their own sets of risks and limitations if not used correctly.

Next, consider your user agent string—automatically sent by your browser to every website you visit. This string includes your operating system, browser type and version, and often your device model and screen resolution. When combined with other data points like language preferences and time zone, it can be used to generate a browser fingerprint—a unique identifier that allows sites to track you across sessions even without cookies. Tools like the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Cover Your Tracks can help you understand just how unique your browser setup is.

Cookies and trackers pose an even more insidious threat. Websites often embed third-party tracking scripts, which can store persistent data about your behaviour, browsing history, and interactions. This can result in cross-site tracking, making it easy to reconstruct your research timeline or identify the researcher behind anonymous activity. Unless blocked or regularly cleared, cookies can persist across multiple browsing sessions, even exposing you to targeted ads or suspicion if you revisit a research target.

Other forms of exposure include:

  • DNS requests, which may reveal which websites you are querying, even when encrypted web traffic hides the content itself.
  • Embedded metadata in downloaded documents and images, such as author names, timestamps, GPS coordinates, and device identifiers.
  • Referrer headers, which can reveal the URL of the page you were previously on when you click a link—potentially exposing internal tools, Google dorks, or OSINT platforms you’re using.
  • Font, canvas, and WebGL fingerprinting, where your browser’s rendering capabilities are measured to build a more accurate identifier.

Finally, using your personal accounts, searching while logged into Google or social media, or reusing usernames or avatars across platforms can completely undermine your anonymity. Even the time you’re active online can be a clue—your working hours and posting habits might align too neatly with your time zone or lifestyle.

Digital exposure is not just theoretical. Adversaries—especially on the dark web or in threat actor communities—often monitor for unusual traffic, new viewers, or suspicious patterns. In some cases, they have used visitor logs to identify researchers or retaliate with doxxing, harassment, or counter-surveillance.

The key to minimising exposure is awareness and proactive countermeasures. Always assume that your target is capable of watching you as much as you’re watching them. By understanding the various technical signals your browser, device, and behaviour emit, you can begin to properly control your visibility—and protect your research, and yourself, from unnecessary risk.

Key OPSEC Measures for OSINT Investigators

When engaging in OSINT investigations, operational security (OPSEC) is paramount to ensure that your identity and activities remain undetected. To mitigate risks and safeguard both the investigator and the investigation, several key OPSEC measures should be adhered to:

Identity Protection

Maintaining anonymity is a cornerstone of OPSEC in OSINT investigations.

  • Using Aliases, Burner Accounts, and Separate Personas
    Always create and use aliases when conducting OSINT research. This prevents your real identity from being associated with your investigations. Utilising burner accounts—temporary, disposable accounts—further secures your identity, ensuring that no traceable link exists between you and the investigation. Additionally, creating separate personas for different investigations helps compartmentalise your work, reducing the likelihood of cross-contamination between investigations.
  • Avoiding Personal Identifiers in Research Logs, Interactions, and Online Profiles
    It is crucial to avoid including personal identifiers such as real names, locations, or personal details in research logs, emails, or social media interactions. Even seemingly innocuous details can be used to piece together your identity, putting your security at risk. Always remain vigilant about what is shared or logged, and ensure that your online profiles are scrubbed of any personal information.

Secure Infrastructure

A secure and isolated infrastructure is essential for protecting the integrity of your OSINT activities.

  • Using Dedicated OSINT VMs (TAILS, Whonix, Linux Setups)
    To ensure that your investigative activities are secure, consider using dedicated virtual machines (VMs) such as TAILS or Whonix, or Linux setups specifically configured for OSINT. These systems are designed to preserve anonymity by routing traffic through secure channels, reducing the risk of exposing personal information through vulnerable operating systems.
  • Employing VPNs, Proxies, and Tor to Mask IP Addresses
    One of the most effective ways to protect your identity during OSINT investigations is by masking your IP address. Use VPNs (Virtual Private Networks), proxies, or the Tor network to anonymise your internet traffic. These tools obscure your true location and prevent tracking, ensuring that your investigation remains confidential.
  • Configuring Secure Browsers to Prevent Tracking and Fingerprinting
    Configuring secure browsers—such as using the Tor browser or Firefox with privacy enhancements—helps to block tracking mechanisms and prevent digital fingerprinting. Secure browsers often come with features designed to limit data collection, such as blocking cookies or limiting the information shared with websites, significantly enhancing your anonymity.

Safe Communication

Communication in OSINT investigations should always be conducted with a high level of security to prevent eavesdropping or identification.

  • Using Encrypted Messaging and Email (PGP, ProtonMail, Signal)
    When communicating about investigations, utilise encrypted messaging platforms such as Signal or ProtonMail, and employ PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption for emails. These tools ensure that the content of your messages remains private and inaccessible to third parties, preserving the confidentiality of both the investigator and the subject.
  • Avoiding Direct Interactions with Targets
    To prevent detection or retaliation, it is important to avoid direct interactions with your investigation targets. Communicating through intermediaries or using automated research methods reduces the risk of revealing your identity or intentions. Maintaining a strict distance from the subject of your investigation enhances your security and the success of your work.

Avoiding Digital Fingerprinting

Digital fingerprinting occurs when your online activity can be traced back to you based on your unique behavioural or technical patterns. Protecting against this is vital to maintaining OPSEC.

  • Using Privacy-Focused Browsers and Plugins (Firefox with Hardened Settings, Brave, uBlock Origin, NoScript)
    Privacy-focused browsers, such as Brave or Firefox with hardened settings, offer strong protections against tracking and fingerprinting. In addition, using browser plugins like uBlock Origin and NoScript can help block unwanted scripts and trackers that attempt to collect personal data during web browsing. These tools minimise the data exposed to websites and reduce the chances of your activities being traced.
  • Disabling JavaScript and WebRTC When Necessary
    Disabling JavaScript and WebRTC can prevent certain types of data leakage, such as IP address exposure through WebRTC vulnerabilities. While some websites rely on JavaScript for functionality, disabling it when not needed can help protect your identity and prevent websites from exploiting browser vulnerabilities to identify you.
  • Randomising User Agent Strings and Browser Configurations
    Randomising your user agent string (the identifying details sent to websites about your browser and device) and browser configurations is another way to avoid digital fingerprinting. By altering these details, you make it much more difficult for websites to track your behaviour or link your activities across different sessions.

By implementing these key OPSEC measures, OSINT investigators can maintain a higher level of security and ensure that their investigations are not compromised by exposure or tracking.

Common OPSEC Mistakes in OSINT Investigations

When conducting OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) investigations, maintaining a strict operational security (OPSEC) protocol is crucial. Unfortunately, even experienced investigators can fall into common traps that compromise the integrity of their work. Here are some of the most frequent OPSEC mistakes made during OSINT investigations:

Logging into Personal Accounts

One of the most critical mistakes is logging into personal accounts while conducting OSINT. Whether it’s social media, email, or other online platforms, using personal accounts exposes investigators to the risk of linking their real identity to the investigation. This can inadvertently reveal personal information or trigger automatic responses, such as notifications or location tracking, which could jeopardise the investigation. Always use dedicated accounts that are separate from your personal life to ensure anonymity and protect the investigation’s integrity.

Using the Same Digital Persona Across Multiple Investigations

While it may seem convenient, using the same digital persona across multiple OSINT investigations can lead to cross-contamination. This tactic makes it easier for adversaries to identify patterns or connect different investigations to the same source. To mitigate this risk, investigators should use distinct digital identities for each investigation, ensuring that no links are made between them. This compartmentalisation is key to protecting both your safety and the quality of the intelligence being gathered.

Failing to Compartmentalise Devices and Networks

Another frequent mistake is failing to compartmentalise devices and networks. Mixing personal and investigation-related activities on the same devices or network can expose investigators to a variety of risks. Devices used for OSINT should be isolated from personal devices to prevent leaks of information. Similarly, using the same network for personal browsing and investigation activities can reveal patterns that can be traced back to you. Invest in separate devices and use VPNs or secure networks to ensure that your online activity remains isolated and anonymous.

Overlooking Metadata in Shared Documents, Images, and Emails

Metadata can be a silent yet significant leak of sensitive information. Documents, images, and emails often contain hidden data such as file creation dates, author names, and GPS coordinates embedded in images. If overlooked, this metadata could expose details about your investigative process, including the tools you’ve used or your location at the time of the investigation. Always scrub metadata from files before sharing or publishing them to maintain anonymity and avoid inadvertent exposure.

Forgetting About Behavioural Fingerprinting

Finally, investigators often overlook the concept of behavioural fingerprinting. Each individual’s online actions, such as unique search habits, browsing patterns, and even the types of content they engage with, can form a distinctive behavioural fingerprint. If you’re conducting OSINT investigations under the same persona, these habits can be tracked and identified, making it easier for others to link your activities. To avoid this, be mindful of the types of searches you conduct and ensure that your online behaviours are randomised or obscured, ideally using tools that mask your online footprint.

By avoiding these common OPSEC mistakes, you can significantly improve the security and integrity of your OSINT investigations. Staying vigilant and implementing robust operational security measures will help ensure that your work remains anonymous and that sensitive information is protected.

Essential OPSEC Techniques and Tools

Strong Operational Security (OPSEC) is not a matter of chance; it requires careful planning, reliable tools, and consistent discipline. In OSINT research, where even a minor slip-up can jeopardise your anonymity or compromise your investigation, it is crucial to adopt a layered and well-considered OPSEC strategy. Below is an expanded overview of key techniques and tools, along with practical tips to help maintain the privacy and security of your research activities.

Anonymisation Tools

Your first line of defence is ensuring your real-world location and online activity remain hidden. VPNs, Tor, and proxies are essential for masking your IP and encrypting your data. A trusted VPN routes traffic through a secure tunnel, concealing your identity and data. Choose providers with no-logs policies, ideally based outside intelligence-sharing alliances like Five Eyes, and look for features such as multi-hop or obfuscation to help bypass VPN detection.

For high-risk operations, Tor provides superior anonymity by routing your traffic through volunteer-run relays. Pair it with Tails OS, a live operating system that leaves no trace on the host machine, for enhanced security. Proxies are useful for changing IP addresses or accessing region-specific content, but they are generally less secure than VPNs or Tor, so reserve them for less sensitive tasks or use them in controlled environments like virtual machines.

Tip: Never log into any account—real or fake—using your personal IP. A single mistake could compromise your identity.

Virtual Machines and Isolated Workspaces

Virtual Machines (VMs) offer a safe way to isolate your research environment and restore it to a clean state when necessary. By running different personas or investigations in separate VMs, you can prevent cross-contamination. For example, one VM could be used for social media research, another for dark web monitoring, and a third for website scraping.

Tools like VirtualBox and VMware are ideal for VM setups, while Whonix or Kali Linux can be added for specific OSINT or anonymity requirements. For maximum isolation, run VMs on a dedicated host machine that is not used for personal tasks. Regularly take snapshots of your VMs to allow for easy recovery after risky activities.

Hardened and Privacy-Focused Browsers

Your browser can expose far more than you might realise through tracking scripts, fingerprinting, and third-party cookies. Use dedicated browsers for each identity or research environment, and never use your personal browser or log into personal accounts during investigations. Firefox, with hardening settings, or LibreWolf are excellent choices for privacy-conscious research. Enhance your browser’s security with privacy extensions like:

  • uBlock Origin (for blocking ads and scripts)
  • NoScript (for blocking JavaScript selectively)
  • Privacy Badger (for blocking invisible trackers)
  • CanvasBlocker or Trace (to prevent fingerprinting)

Make it a habit to clear cookies and site data regularly, or use browser containers to isolate sessions.

Compartmentalised Identities (Sock Puppets)

Developing and managing separate research identities, or sock puppets, is a crucial OPSEC practice. Each identity should have its own:

  • Unique email address and username
  • Distinct backstory and online behaviour
  • Consistent browser and system fingerprint

Store identity details securely in password managers like KeePassXC or Bitwarden, and ensure you keep track of metadata such as account creation dates and activity logs. Never reuse profile images or language across identities, as adversaries often search for these links.

Reminder: Never access a sock puppet account from a device or network connected to your real identity.

OPSEC in OSINT: Protecting Yourself While Investigating

Secure and Anonymous Search

Your search engine and browsing habits can inadvertently expose you. Opt for non-tracking search engines like DuckDuckGo, Mojeek, or Startpage. If you’re engaging in targeted searches or scraping, avoid clicking direct links from search results; instead, copy and paste them into a sandboxed browser to minimise referrer exposure.

For web content gathering, tools like HTTrack (for offline website analysis), wget/cURL (for pulling specific files), and Puppeteer/Selenium (for advanced scraping behind login walls) can be invaluable. Always sanitise downloaded content by removing metadata and analysing files in isolated environments before opening them.

Planning, Logging, and Investigation Hygiene

Good OPSEC starts with proactive planning. Before each investigation, create an OPSEC checklist to guide your actions:

  • Which identity will you use?
  • What tools will you need?
  • What potential risks exist, and how will you mitigate them?

Keep detailed logs of tools, access times, and persona activity to reduce the risk of cross-contamination between investigations. Regularly rotate identities and infrastructure to avoid creating identifiable patterns of behaviour.

Communication and Collaboration Security (COMSEC)

When communicating with sources or collaborators, use encrypted, secure tools to protect your conversations. For messaging, consider apps like Signal, Session, or Element (Matrix). For email, use secure services such as ProtonMail or Tutanota, or encrypt Gmail using PGP. For collaborative work, opt for CryptPad, Etherpad (self-hosted), or secure Git repositories.

Avoid linking any personal identifiers in your communications—this includes email addresses, work domains, and even subtle writing style cues that could give away your identity.


By embedding these techniques into your routine, you can establish robust OPSEC practices that minimise the risk of exposure or investigation compromise. The key to success is consistency; treat every step of your research process as if it could be scrutinised by an adversary, because in OSINT, even the smallest mistake can have far-reaching consequences.

No tool alone will keep you safe. Strong OPSEC comes from how you combine tools, understand risks, and develop habits that reduce exposure over time. Use virtual machines to contain your work, anonymisation tools to mask your identity, encrypted communications for any sensitive sharing, and a hardened browser to minimise fingerprinting. Every layer you add makes it harder for an adversary to trace your steps.

Case Studies: OPSEC Failures and Lessons Learned

Case Study 1: The Arrest of Ross Ulbricht (Dread Pirate Roberts)

In 2017, Ross Ulbricht, the operator of the notorious Silk Road marketplace, was apprehended largely due to operational security (OPSEC) lapses that left critical digital traces. Ulbricht operated under the pseudonym “Dread Pirate Roberts,” but his downfall came from several mistakes that made it possible for law enforcement to link his activities to his true identity.

Key OPSEC Failures:

  1. Reused Aliases and Email Addresses: Ulbricht had posted in online forums using the handle “altoid,” where he sought developers for a “venture-backed Bitcoin startup.” Additionally, he used the email address [email protected], which was directly linked to his real identity. This reuse of personal identifiers across different platforms allowed investigators to connect his pseudonymous actions to his real-world identity.
  2. Consistent Online Personas: Ulbricht’s writing style remained consistent across various online platforms. Linguistic analysis played a pivotal role in matching his known writings to those attributed to “Dread Pirate Roberts,” leading to further confirmation of his identity.
  3. IP Address Exposure: Ulbricht accessed the Silk Road site from an IP address that, when traced, led investigators to a location near his residence. This geographic information was a critical clue in narrowing down his whereabouts.
  4. Digital Footprints in Cloud Services: Ulbricht stored important documents on cloud storage services linked to his personal email. These documents contained details about Silk Road’s operations and were seized by investigators, providing direct evidence.

OPSEC Lessons for OSINT Researchers:

  • Compartmentalisation: Always keep personal and professional online activities separate. Use different devices, accounts, and networks to avoid linking your real identity with investigative activities.
  • Anonymity Tools: Consistently use VPNs, Tor, and other tools to mask your IP address and encrypt your traffic. These should always be active before engaging in sensitive online activities.
  • Unique Operational Personas: Create non-attributable personas for each investigation. Never reuse email addresses, usernames, or other identifying information that could link back to your real identity.
  • Secure Data Handling: Use encrypted formats to store sensitive information and avoid linking personal accounts to cloud storage. Regularly audit your data for any potential exposures.

Ulbricht’s arrest highlights how even small OPSEC oversights can lead to disastrous consequences. For OSINT researchers, it’s essential to adhere strictly to OPSEC practices to protect both their identity and the integrity of their work.

Case Study 2: The Exposure of AlphaBay’s Administrator, Alexandre Cazes

Link to article.

In 2017, Alexandre Cazes, the operator behind AlphaBay, a major darknet marketplace, was arrested. Cazes operated under the pseudonym “Dread Pirate Roberts 2” and employed various anonymisation tools. However, his OPSEC mistakes led to his identification and eventual capture by law enforcement.

Key OPSEC Failures:

  1. Reused Aliases and Email Accounts: Cazes used the email address [email protected] to send AlphaBay’s welcome emails. This personal email was directly linked to his real identity, and it provided law enforcement with a crucial lead in his identification.
  2. Digital Fingerprinting Through User Habits: Cazes’ online behaviour, including his writing style, operational timing, and other patterns, revealed connections between his real-world activities and his persona on AlphaBay. These behavioural patterns allowed investigators to build a digital fingerprint that matched his offline identity.
  3. Lack of Sufficient Anonymity Measures: Despite using Tor and other anonymising tools, Cazes failed to fully conceal his administrative activities. He inadvertently left behind digital traces that law enforcement agencies could track and exploit.

OPSEC Lessons for OSINT Researchers:

  • Compartmentalisation: Like Ulbricht, Cazes’ failure to separate his personal and professional online identities contributed to his downfall. Researchers should avoid reusing identifiers, such as email addresses, that could create links to their real identity.
  • Anonymity Tools Are Not Foolproof: While tools like Tor can be effective in anonymising online activities, they are not infallible. They must be used in conjunction with other OPSEC measures to ensure complete anonymity.
  • Monitor Digital Footprints: It’s crucial to regularly monitor and assess the digital traces you leave behind, including metadata in emails, communication patterns, and behavioural habits. These can inadvertently expose your identity if not carefully controlled.

Cazes’ case highlights the importance of comprehensive and consistent OPSEC practices. Even with anonymising tools, failure to properly manage one’s digital footprint can lead to exposure.

Key OPSEC Failures Across Both Cases

Both of these cases demonstrate that OPSEC is a multi-layered discipline. While both Ulbricht and Cazes used pseudonyms and attempted to protect their identities through anonymity tools, their failures highlight several critical lessons for OSINT practitioners:

  1. The Importance of Compartmentalisation: Both cases emphasise the necessity of keeping personal and professional online activities strictly separate. Any overlap, whether through reused email addresses or consistent online personas, creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by investigators.
  2. The Need for Robust Anonymity Tools: Tools like Tor and VPNs are crucial in masking one’s online activities, but they must be used correctly and in combination with other measures. In both cases, the lack of adequate anonymisation or failure to consistently use these tools led to identifiable digital footprints.
  3. The Danger of Reused Identifiers: Reusing email addresses, usernames, and other identifiers across different platforms opens the door to linking a pseudonymous identity to a real-world one. This was a common failure in both cases and is a clear warning for those engaging in online investigative work.
  4. The Impact of Behavioural Patterns: Online behaviour, from language use to timing and actions, can leave a digital fingerprint that links an alias to an actual person. This underlines the importance of careful monitoring of how one behaves online and minimising any patterns that could be traced back.

In summary, these cases underscore the critical importance of maintaining strict OPSEC to protect one’s identity and investigative work. For OSINT researchers, the lessons from Ulbricht and Cazes serve as stark reminders that even small lapses in operational security can have significant consequences.

Conclusion

In the world of open-source intelligence, protecting your identity and maintaining operational security is crucial. OSINT research often involves accessing a vast array of publicly available information, but it’s important to remember that these resources can come with risks. Without proper OPSEC measures, your research could expose your personal details, reveal sensitive information, or even put you in harm’s way.

The key to staying secure while conducting OSINT investigations lies in a combination of thoughtful strategy and the use of the right tools. Whether you’re operating from a secure virtual machine, anonymising your browsing with Tor, or communicating via encrypted messaging platforms like Signal, these measures help ensure that you remain untraceable. By following the five-step OPSEC process—identifying critical information, assessing threats, understanding vulnerabilities, analysing risks, and implementing countermeasures—you can build a robust security framework that protects both your research and your personal security.

Remember, in OSINT, the pursuit of knowledge should never come at the cost of your privacy or safety. By integrating these best practices into your investigative work, you’ll significantly reduce the risks associated with data exposure and stay one step ahead of adversaries. Stay vigilant, use the tools at your disposal, and always prioritise your OPSEC to conduct safe, secure, and successful OSINT research.

Header photo by Catrin Johnson on Unsplash.

Anonymous Photo by Chris Yang on Unsplash.

"Using
Opinion, OSINT

Using OSINT and Dark Web Intelligence for Proactive Threat Detection

In today’s rapidly evolving threat landscape, staying one step ahead of cybercriminals requires a proactive approach. By integrating Dark Web intelligence into a broader OSINT (open-source intelligence) strategy, organisations can enhance their ability to detect emerging threats early, mitigate risks, and safeguard their digital assets. This blog post explores how Dark Web monitoring complements OSINT for threat detection, highlights real-world use cases, and provides actionable tips for incorporating it into your organisation’s threat intelligence program.

The Role of Dark Web Intelligence in OSINT

Dark Web intelligence is an indispensable part of a robust OSINT strategy, offering unparalleled insights into emerging cyber threats. Unlike the surface web, the Dark Web operates within encrypted networks like Tor and I2P, providing anonymity for users. This makes it a hub for illicit activities, including the trade of stolen credentials, malware distribution, and discussions of planned attacks. For organisations, monitoring these hidden spaces is critical for staying ahead of cybercriminals.

Why It’s Good to Use

The Dark Web serves as an early warning system. Threat actors often test and trade stolen data or breach exploits here long before they are detected in broader contexts. By identifying leaked information—such as customer records or intellectual property—organisations can mitigate risks before they escalate. Moreover, this intelligence provides insights into adversarial tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), enabling organisations to bolster defences.

How to Integrate Dark Web Intelligence into OSINT

  1. Set Clear Intelligence Goals
    Begin by defining your objectives. Are you searching for stolen credentials, insider threats, or potential data leaks? Tailored intelligence requirements help focus monitoring efforts and ensure actionable results.
  2. Deploy Specialised Monitoring Tools
    Given the encrypted nature of the Dark Web, navigating it safely and effectively requires purpose-built tools. Platforms designed for secure Dark Web exploration provide automated monitoring while protecting your operational security and ethical standing.
  3. Combine with Broader Data Sources
    The Dark Web is just one component of a comprehensive intelligence strategy. Correlating data from surface web sources, social media, and internal threat detection systems ensures a holistic view of potential risks.
  4. Operationalise the Intelligence
    Raw data is only as useful as its application. Integrate Dark Web intelligence into your existing workflows, such as SIEMs or threat intelligence platforms, to enhance detection and response capabilities.
  5. Strengthen Cross-Team Collaboration
    Share Dark Web findings with key stakeholders across departments—such as legal, compliance, and IT security—to ensure a coordinated response. For example, if stolen credentials are identified, collaborate with IT to enforce password resets and multi-factor authentication.
  6. Monitor Regularly and Proactively
    The Dark Web is dynamic, with information appearing and disappearing quickly. Continuous monitoring ensures you stay ahead of potential threats and respond in near real-time.

Real-World Benefits

When integrated effectively, Dark Web intelligence amplifies the value of OSINT. It enables organisations to move from a reactive to a proactive security posture, identifying threats before they materialise. By doing so, businesses can protect their data, mitigate financial losses, and uphold their reputation in an increasingly volatile cyber landscape.

Dark Web intelligence is not just about uncovering hidden risks—it’s about building resilience in an unpredictable digital world.

Case Studies: Proactive Threat Detection in Action

Detecting a Supply Chain Data Breach (Marriott International)

In 2020, threat actors targeted Marriott International’s supply chain, exposing millions of guests’ personal data. Prior to public disclosure, Dark Web monitoring by third-party researchers identified chatter in underground forums about the stolen data, including sensitive details such as reservation information and account credentials. This early detection enabled Marriott to initiate an investigation, disclose the breach to affected customers promptly, and mitigate potential damage. The case underscores how active Dark Web monitoring can flag breaches in progress, allowing organisations to react faster.

Uncovering Credentials Theft (LinkedIn Data Leak)

In 2021, LinkedIn faced a massive leak of user data, with over 700 million records posted on Dark Web forums. Before the dataset became widely available, Dark Web monitoring tools flagged small-scale posts advertising a “sample” of the records. Analysts determined that the data could be used for credential-stuffing attacks and phishing campaigns. Proactive notification from monitoring tools enabled LinkedIn users to secure their accounts and prompted the platform to bolster its defences against credential abuse.

Insider Threat Detection (Tesla)

In 2020, Tesla thwarted an insider threat that could have resulted in a ransomware attack. The company became aware of discussions on a Dark Web forum about a planned infiltration involving bribing an employee to install malware on Tesla’s network. Armed with this intelligence, Tesla’s security team conducted internal investigations, identified the employee involved, and cooperated with the FBI to prevent the attack. This example highlights how Dark Web intelligence can reveal insider risks and prevent potential crises.

These examples, grounded in publicly documented incidents, demonstrate the tangible benefits of integrating Dark Web monitoring into a proactive threat detection programme.

Actionable Tips for Integrating Dark Web Monitoring

  1. Define Your Intelligence Requirements
    Establish clear goals for what you aim to achieve with Dark Web monitoring. Are you looking for stolen credentials, potential insider threats, or mentions of your organisation in underground forums? Having well-defined objectives ensures your monitoring efforts are focused and effective.
  2. Use Reliable Tools and Expertise
    Dark Web monitoring requires specialised tools and expertise to navigate safely and gather relevant data. Partnering with trusted providers or leveraging purpose-built platforms ensures you collect actionable intelligence while maintaining operational security.
  3. Integrate Insights with Broader Threat Intelligence
    Dark Web intelligence should not exist in isolation. Integrate it with your overall threat intelligence programme, correlating data from the surface web, social media, and internal security systems to create a unified picture of potential threats.
  4. Establish a Response Plan
    Proactively determine how your organisation will respond to threats identified through Dark Web monitoring. Whether it’s notifying affected stakeholders, engaging law enforcement, or strengthening internal policies, having a clear plan ensures swift and effective action.
  5. Maintain Compliance and Ethics
    While monitoring the Dark Web, it is essential to remain compliant with laws and ethical guidelines. Ensure your activities respect privacy laws and do not inadvertently support or encourage illegal activity.

How SOS Intelligence Can Support Your Dark Web Investigations

At SOS Intelligence, we provide a comprehensive platform designed to empower organisations with proactive threat intelligence solutions. Combining advanced Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) capabilities with secure and effective Dark Web monitoring, we help businesses detect and respond to emerging cyber threats before they escalate.

Our platform offers a suite of features tailored to meet the evolving needs of modern organisations:

  • Dark Web Monitoring: We uncover critical insights by tracking stolen data, compromised credentials, and illicit activities in hidden online forums and marketplaces.
  • Customisable Threat Dashboards: Our user-friendly dashboards consolidate vital information, enabling organisations to visualise risks and prioritise responses.
  • Automated Alerts and Notifications: Stay informed with real-time updates about threats targeting your organisation, ensuring swift action and enhanced security.
  • Secure and Ethical OSINT Tools: We prioritise compliance and ethical standards while equipping businesses with the tools to collect, analyse, and utilise intelligence effectively.
  • Tailored Integrations: Our solutions integrate seamlessly with existing security frameworks, making it easier to bolster protection without disrupting workflows.

Our services are designed to meet the needs of businesses across industries, from SMEs to large enterprises. With SOS Intelligence, organisations can reduce exposure to risks, enhance resilience, and remain one step ahead of adversaries in a constantly evolving threat landscape.

Conclusion

Integrating Dark Web intelligence into your OSINT strategy can transform your organisation’s approach to threat detection. By identifying risks early and acting decisively, you can protect your business from potentially devastating cyber incidents. With the right tools, expertise, and processes in place, proactive threat detection is not only achievable but also essential in today’s interconnected world.

Why not get in touch now? A conversation can go a long way.

Web Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

""/
Opinion, OSINT, Tips

OSINT Essentials: Planning, Recording, and Evaluating Intelligence

Introduction

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) involves the collection and analysis of publicly available information to derive actionable insights. From cybersecurity professionals monitoring emerging threats to investigators uncovering fraud, OSINT has become a cornerstone of modern intelligence gathering. It enables organisations and individuals to stay informed, make data-driven decisions, and mitigate risks in an increasingly interconnected world.

Despite its accessibility, successful OSINT is far from straightforward. Effective planning and preparation are fundamental to achieving meaningful results. Without a clear strategy, researchers can find themselves overwhelmed by the sheer volume of available data or risk compromising their operations due to poor security practices. Thoughtful preparation not only streamlines the intelligence-gathering process but also ensures that findings are accurate, relevant, and ethically obtained.

This blog serves as a practical guide to the essential steps of OSINT planning and preparation. Whether you are a seasoned analyst or new to the field, it will equip you with the tools and techniques needed to set your investigation on the right path. We’ll explore how to define your intelligence requirements, create a robust collection plan, and utilise secure tools for effective research. Additionally, we’ll delve into best practices for recording your findings and evaluating the reliability of your sources.

By the end of this post, you’ll have a solid framework for conducting efficient, ethical, and secure OSINT investigations, ensuring your efforts deliver valuable results while minimising risks. Let’s get started...

Establishing Intelligence Requirements

The foundation of any successful OSINT investigation lies in clearly defining your intelligence requirements. This process ensures your efforts are purposeful, efficient, and focused on delivering actionable insights. By taking the time to outline what you need to achieve, you can avoid unnecessary data collection and concentrate on gathering the most relevant information.

Defining Objectives

The first step is to ask yourself: Why am I conducting OSINT? Understanding the purpose of your investigation is critical. Are you looking to assess a potential security threat, monitor the reputation of your organisation, or gather competitive intelligence? Clearly defining the expected outcomes will help shape the scope of your research. Objectives should be specific, measurable, and aligned with the broader goals of your organisation or project. For example, rather than simply aiming to “monitor social media,” you might define a goal like “identify potential phishing campaigns targeting employees on LinkedIn.”

Gap Analysis

With your objectives established, conduct a gap analysis to determine what you already know, what is missing, and what you need to discover. This step involves reviewing existing information to identify gaps that need filling. For example:

  • What do I already know? You may already have access to internal reports or historical data.
  • What information is missing? Perhaps you lack details about the methods or timing of an anticipated cyberattack.
  • What do I need to know? Define the specific data points or insights required to address these gaps, such as identifying potential attackers or understanding their tactics.

This structured approach helps ensure your efforts remain focused and prevents the collection of irrelevant or redundant data.

Prioritising Questions

Once gaps have been identified, break down your objectives into smaller, actionable questions. These questions should directly address your intelligence needs and provide clarity on what to investigate. For example, if your objective is to assess a threat actor, your questions might include:

  • What digital footprints are associated with this actor?
  • Are there any recent mentions of their activity on forums or social media?
  • Which tools or methods do they commonly use?

By prioritising your questions, you can allocate resources effectively, tackling the most critical issues first while ensuring that secondary queries are not overlooked. This process transforms broad objectives into a structured framework for investigation, forming the backbone of a well-executed OSINT operation.

Creating an Intelligence Collection Plan

A well-crafted intelligence collection plan is essential for translating objectives into actionable steps. This plan provides a structured approach to gathering the required information while ensuring efficiency and adherence to ethical and legal standards.

Mapping the Requirements to Sources

The first step in creating a collection plan is to map your intelligence requirements to relevant sources. Begin by identifying where the needed information is most likely to be found. For instance:

  • The surface web (e.g., websites, social media, and public databases) is ideal for gathering general information or monitoring public discourse.
  • The deep web (e.g., subscription services, private forums) can provide more specialised data.
  • The Dark Web may be necessary for investigating illicit activities, such as cybercrime or data breaches.

It’s also crucial to categorise your information as primary or secondary. Primary sources include first-hand data, such as official statements or original documents, while secondary sources involve analysis or interpretations of primary data, such as news articles or reports. Prioritising primary sources can enhance the reliability of your findings.

Setting a Timeline

A clear timeline is vital for maintaining momentum and ensuring timely results. Break down the collection process into stages, such as identifying sources, gathering data, and reviewing findings, and assign deadlines to each stage. This structure prevents delays and keeps the investigation aligned with overarching objectives.

Allocating Resources

Effective OSINT requires the right tools, personnel, and technical support. Identify and assign the resources needed for the task. For example:

  • Tools: Use specialised software such as Maltego for data analysis or Shodan for network reconnaissance.
  • Personnel: Allocate roles based on expertise, such as assigning experienced analysts to sensitive tasks.
  • Technical requirements: Ensure you have secure systems and access to the necessary platforms.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

Adhering to legal and ethical guidelines is non-negotiable in OSINT. Research should comply with applicable laws, such as data protection regulations and restrictions on accessing certain types of information. Additionally, ethical considerations, such as respecting privacy and avoiding harm, should underpin your approach. A robust plan ensures that collection methods are both effective and responsible.

By aligning your collection activities with these steps, you can build a systematic and ethical framework for gathering intelligence, ultimately supporting informed decision-making.

Ensuring Safe and Secure OSINT Practices

Conducting OSINT comes with inherent risks, ranging from inadvertently revealing your identity to alerting the subject of your investigation. To mitigate these risks, it is vital to adopt safe and secure practices. These measures protect both your personal information and the integrity of your investigation.

Essential Tools

Several tools and technologies are fundamental for maintaining security during OSINT operations:

  • VPN (Virtual Private Network): A VPN is essential for masking your IP address and encrypting your internet traffic, ensuring anonymity and protecting against data interception. Choose a reputable, no-logs provider to maximise privacy.  VPNs can also help to reach different intelligence sources; search engines will typically return results tailored to your location, so utilising a VPNs ability to change you location may deliver different results.
  • Virtual Machines (VM): Using a virtual machine isolates your OSINT activities from your primary operating system, minimising the risk of malware or other threats affecting your main environment.
  • Browser Containers and Privacy Extensions: Tools such as browser containers or extensions like uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger prevent tracking, block ads, and compartmentalise browsing activities, keeping your research secure and untraceable.
  • Sock Puppet Accounts: Create fake, plausible online identities (sock puppets) to access forums, social media, or other platforms without exposing your true identity. Ensure these accounts are credible, with consistent behaviour and relevant profiles.

Operational Security (OPSEC)

Maintaining strong operational security is critical to avoid tipping off targets or compromising your investigation. Key OPSEC practices include:

  • Separating identities: Never link your personal accounts or systems to your OSINT activities. Use dedicated devices or accounts to maintain clear boundaries.
  • Minimising digital footprints: Avoid actions that might leave behind traces of your research. This includes disabling auto-fill forms, clearing cookies, and using tools that limit tracking.
  • Being cautious with communication: If engaging with others, ensure your interactions do not reveal your true intent or identity. Use encrypted communication channels where necessary.
  • Avoiding direct engagement with targets: Observing from a distance is usually safer and less likely to alert subjects.

By leveraging the right tools and adhering to strict OPSEC principles, you can minimise risks, protect sensitive information, and ensure your OSINT efforts remain secure. These practices enable you to gather intelligence effectively without compromising your safety or the investigation’s success.

Recording Your Research

Proper documentation is a cornerstone of effective OSINT, ensuring that your findings are well-organised, reliable, and easily retrievable. Adopting structured recording practices enhances consistency, maintains accountability, and supports the analysis process.

Documentation Standards

Consistency is key when recording OSINT research. Use structured formats to organise your data in a way that is easy to understand and follow. For instance, spreadsheets or templates can help standardise entries, ensuring that all relevant details are captured.

Include metadata with every piece of information you collect. Metadata provides essential context and should include:

  • Time: When the information was collected or observed.
  • Source: The origin of the information, such as a website URL or social media post.
  • Method of collection: How the information was obtained, e.g., through manual research or automated tools.

This structured approach ensures that your records are clear and verifiable, which is particularly important when sharing findings or conducting further analysis.

Organising Information

Effective organisation is essential for managing the often vast amounts of data generated during OSINT investigations. Tools such as Evernote, Airtable, or specialised OSINT platforms can be invaluable for tagging, categorising, and retrieving information. Use tags to group similar data points or highlight key themes, and create categories based on factors such as relevance, reliability, or type of source.

Visual tools like mind maps or flowcharts can also help illustrate connections between different pieces of information, making patterns easier to identify.

Version Control

Maintaining version control is another critical aspect of documentation. Tracking changes ensures that your records remain accurate and provides an audit trail for accountability. Use tools that support version histories, such as Google Sheets or Git-based platforms, to monitor edits and maintain earlier versions of your work.

By implementing strong version control practices, you can preserve the integrity of your data and address discrepancies if new information arises or errors are discovered.

Recording your research systematically not only keeps your findings organised but also strengthens the reliability and credibility of your OSINT investigations. With clear documentation, you’ll be better prepared to analyse data, collaborate with others, and draw actionable insights from your efforts.

Evaluating Sources of Intelligence

Evaluating the quality and credibility of sources is a critical component of effective OSINT investigations. Without proper scrutiny, intelligence may be flawed, leading to misinformed decisions or wasted effort. This section explores key techniques for assessing source reliability, identifying and addressing bias, and maintaining ongoing validation of information.

Source Reliability and the Admiralty Code

One widely used framework for evaluating intelligence sources is the Admiralty Code, which grades both the reliability of the source and the credibility of the information. This two-part approach provides a structured way to assess the dependability of data:

  • Source Reliability: Assign ratings based on the track record of the source. For instance, a reputable organisation or individual with a history of providing accurate information might be considered highly reliable, while an unverified or unknown entity could be less so. Labels such as “reliable,” “usually reliable,” or “unreliable” are commonly applied to reflect varying degrees of confidence.
  • Information Credibility: Evaluate the content itself for accuracy and relevance. Factors such as internal consistency, corroboration with independent sources, and alignment with known facts are critical. Credibility is often categorised as “confirmed,” “likely,” or “doubtful.”

By combining these two elements, the Admiralty Code ensures a systematic evaluation process that highlights both trustworthy sources and credible data. However, this framework works best when supported by cross-referencing information with other independent sources.

Addressing Bias

Bias is an inherent risk in OSINT, as every source is influenced by its perspectives, interests, or agendas. Recognising and mitigating bias is essential to prevent skewed interpretations:

  • Identify Potential Biases: Consider the source’s motivations, affiliations, and target audience. For example, a corporate press release may emphasise favourable aspects while omitting negative details.
  • Use Diverse Sources: Balance viewpoints by consulting a range of materials, including those from opposing or neutral perspectives. Diversity helps counteract potential one-sided narratives.
  • Analyse Presentation: Be alert to emotionally charged language or selective data presentation, which may indicate an attempt to sway opinion rather than present facts.

Continuous Validation

Intelligence is rarely static. As new information becomes available, previously gathered data must be re-evaluated:

  • Reassess Regularly: Schedule periodic reviews of key findings, especially in dynamic situations where information evolves.
  • Update Records: Incorporate fresh data into your intelligence framework while documenting how it affects existing conclusions.
  • Corroborate New Insights: Validate emerging information against known facts to avoid reliance on unverified updates.

Through these practices, you can ensure your intelligence sources remain reliable, balanced, and up to date, supporting robust and informed decision-making.

Review and Adjust

The process of OSINT is not static; it requires continuous evaluation and adaptation to ensure the investigation remains effective and relevant. Regularly reviewing progress, adjusting the strategy, and conducting post-mortem analysis are key steps to refine your approach and maximise the value of your intelligence efforts.

Assessing Progress

Regular assessment is essential to determine whether the intelligence requirements are being met. This involves comparing the initial objectives with the findings gathered so far. Key questions to consider include:

  • Are the intelligence requirements being addressed? Review whether the collected data aligns with the original goals and whether any critical gaps remain.
  • Is the information actionable? Intelligence should be practical and contribute to decision-making processes, not just a collection of raw data.
  • Are resources being used efficiently? Consider whether tools, time, and personnel are being effectively allocated to achieve the desired outcomes.

Periodic reviews ensure that efforts stay on track and help identify areas requiring improvement before significant time or resources are wasted.

Adapting the Plan

Flexibility is vital in OSINT investigations. Findings may reveal unexpected insights, uncover new challenges, or highlight inefficiencies in the collection strategy. In response, the plan must be adjusted dynamically:

  • Refine Objectives: If new priorities emerge or initial assumptions prove incorrect, redefine your intelligence requirements to better reflect the evolving situation.
  • Optimise Tools and Methods: Evaluate whether the current tools and techniques are delivering the desired results. If not, consider integrating alternative platforms or approaches.
  • Address Challenges: Identify and mitigate obstacles, such as limited access to sources, technical difficulties, or unforeseen biases in the collected data.

By regularly adapting the plan, you ensure that the investigation remains relevant and responsive to changing circumstances.

Post-Mortem Analysis

Once the OSINT project is complete, conducting a thorough post-mortem analysis provides valuable insights for future investigations. This reflective step allows teams to identify successes, address shortcomings, and refine their processes:

  • Evaluate What Worked: Document tools, methods, and strategies that proved effective, so they can be replicated or enhanced in subsequent projects.
  • Analyse Challenges: Review obstacles encountered during the investigation, such as time delays, unreliable sources, or gaps in information. Develop strategies to mitigate these in future efforts.
  • Gather Feedback: Solicit input from all team members involved in the investigation to gain diverse perspectives on what could be improved.

A robust review process not only strengthens the current project’s outcomes but also contributes to building a more efficient and effective framework for future OSINT operations. With continuous improvement as a guiding principle, your OSINT efforts will evolve to meet the demands of an ever-changing landscape.

Conclusion

Thorough planning and preparation are the cornerstones of successful OSINT investigations. As this guide has outlined, establishing clear intelligence requirements, creating a structured collection plan, evaluating sources meticulously, and maintaining secure practices are all essential components of a robust approach. These steps not only ensure that your findings are relevant and actionable but also help mitigate the risks associated with open-source intelligence gathering.

Each phase of the OSINT process is interconnected, forming a cohesive framework that enhances the efficiency and reliability of your investigation. From defining objectives and identifying gaps in knowledge to validating sources and adapting strategies, every element builds on the last, reinforcing the integrity of your efforts. Skipping or neglecting any step can lead to inefficiencies, inaccuracies, or even ethical lapses, emphasising the need for a comprehensive and methodical approach.

Moreover, OSINT is a dynamic discipline that requires ongoing evaluation and adaptability. The ability to reassess progress, refine strategies, and learn from past experiences ensures that your efforts remain relevant and effective in an ever-changing landscape. By adopting a continuous improvement mindset, you not only achieve better results but also build a foundation for long-term success in intelligence gathering.

As you embark on your OSINT endeavours, remember to prioritise security, ethical considerations, and the quality of your data. The tools and techniques may vary depending on the specific context, but the principles of careful planning, rigorous evaluation, and disciplined execution are universal. A methodical and secure approach not only enhances your outcomes but also fosters confidence in your findings, enabling you to make informed decisions and drive meaningful action.

By integrating these best practices into your workflow, you can unlock the full potential of OSINT while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and integrity.

Photos by Jon Tyson Roman Kraft Hayley Murray on Unsplash

"MSSP
Opinion, OSINT

OSINT and Ethics: Navigating the Challenges of Responsible Intelligence Gathering

Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) has become an invaluable tool across cybersecurity, business intelligence, and law enforcement. By leveraging publicly available information from sources like social media, websites, and public records, OSINT enables organisations to monitor emerging threats, analyse competitor activity, and gain insights without resorting to intrusive or covert methods. With the rapid growth of digital information, OSINT offers unprecedented access to data that can inform decision-making and risk assessments.

However, this access to information comes with significant ethical and legal challenges, particularly concerning privacy and data handling. Unlike traditional intelligence methods, OSINT relies on openly available data, which can blur the lines of ethical responsibility. Practitioners must consider whether the information they gather could infringe upon individuals’ privacy, especially when it involves personal data or data that, while accessible, may not be ethically sound to exploit. Additionally, OSINT activities often cross international borders, complicating compliance with different countries’ data protection regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU.

The goal of this discussion is to provide guidance on how to conduct OSINT responsibly. By adhering to ethical principles and respecting legal frameworks, OSINT professionals can ensure their intelligence-gathering activities remain respectful of privacy while effectively supporting organisational objectives. Responsible OSINT practices not only help to mitigate legal risks but also uphold the trustworthiness and integrity of the profession in an era where data accessibility is at an all-time high.

What is OSINT and Why Are Ethics Important?

OSINT  is the process of collecting and analysing information from publicly accessible sources, including social media, news sites, forums, and online databases. OSINT allows organisations to gather actionable insights without the need for invasive methods, drawing on the vast and diverse information available on the internet. It has become an essential tool for sectors like cybersecurity, business intelligence, and governmental operations, enabling organisations to gain valuable information about potential threats, market conditions, and broader geopolitical developments.

For cybersecurity, OSINT aids in monitoring for potential data leaks, phishing threats, or signals of a planned attack, enhancing an organisation’s preparedness and defence capabilities. In the business world, OSINT enables companies to stay informed about competitor moves, market trends, and customer sentiment, giving them an edge in a highly competitive landscape. Meanwhile, governmental bodies leverage OSINT to support law enforcement and intelligence operations, tracking issues like disinformation campaigns or border security threats.

However, as powerful as OSINT is, it raises important ethical questions. Given its reliance on publicly accessible data, OSINT operates in a grey area where information, while legally available, may still be ethically sensitive. For instance, gathering personal information from social media could potentially breach an individual’s privacy, even if the content is technically public. Additionally, different jurisdictions have varying regulations on data use, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU, which aims to protect individuals’ privacy rights. These complexities make it critical for OSINT practitioners to conduct intelligence gathering responsibly, balancing their goals with a commitment to ethical standards.

The importance of ethics in OSINT cannot be overstated. Ethical considerations ensure that intelligence practices respect privacy and remain compliant with legal frameworks. By maintaining responsible OSINT practices, organisations not only mitigate potential legal risks but also build trust and credibility, reinforcing the responsible use of publicly available data in a way that benefits both their objectives and the public at large.

Key Ethical Challenges in OSINT

OSINT operates within an ethical landscape shaped by the ease of access to publicly available information, presenting unique challenges for responsible practice. These challenges include balancing privacy with public access, ensuring accuracy, and navigating issues of consent and transparency.

One of the core ethical tensions in OSINT is the balance between privacy and public access. While the data collected in OSINT activities is publicly accessible, individuals may not be aware that their information could be repurposed for intelligence gathering. Just because data is available online does not automatically justify its unrestricted use. This tension raises important ethical questions about respecting individuals’ privacy while still leveraging OSINT’s benefits. Practitioners must assess each case individually, considering the context of the data and its potential impact on individuals’ privacy before using it.

Another ethical challenge is the responsibility to ensure accuracy and verification. OSINT can often include information from varied sources, some of which may be incomplete, biased, or outdated. The ethical obligation to verify information is crucial to avoid the risk of spreading misinformation, which can lead to serious consequences for individuals or organisations implicated by unverified intelligence. OSINT practitioners are ethically bound to rigorously check and corroborate sources before sharing information or using it in decision-making.

Lastly, the issues of consent and transparency are complex in the digital age. Although information may be publicly available, that does not imply individuals have consented to its use for intelligence purposes. The assumption that public access equates to ethical use oversimplifies the reality of digital consent. People may share information without intending for it to be monitored or analysed by third parties. Transparency in OSINT practices—clearly communicating how and why data is gathered and handled—helps address these complexities, fostering ethical integrity.

Legal Implications of OSINT

OSINT  can offer invaluable insights, yet it must operate within complex legal frameworks to ensure compliance and protect individual rights. Key considerations include adherence to data protection laws, managing cross-border legal challenges, and balancing security needs with privacy rights.

managed service provider (MSP) CTS has suffered a significant cyberattack as a result of CitrixBleed

One of the primary legal obligations for OSINT practitioners is adhering to data protection laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the US. These regulations set strict guidelines on the collection, processing, and retention of personal data, designed to protect individual privacy rights. OSINT activities that involve personal information must follow these laws closely to avoid legal repercussions and potential fines. GDPR, for instance, mandates data minimisation and purpose limitation, meaning that personal data collected should be directly relevant and necessary for the purpose it was obtained.

Cross-border legal issues further complicate OSINT practices, as data gathered may span multiple jurisdictions, each with its own data protection laws. Some countries have strict rules about how personal data can be used, even if it is publicly accessible. This can create legal ambiguity for OSINT practitioners, who must navigate a patchwork of global regulations. Ensuring compliance requires a comprehensive understanding of both local and international data protection requirements.

Finally, OSINT practitioners must balance the need for security with respect for privacy, especially in sensitive areas like crime prevention or investigative journalism. While gathering intelligence is critical for identifying and mitigating risks, it is essential to respect individual privacy rights and limit data collection to what is ethically and legally appropriate. This balance is vital in preserving public trust and ensuring that OSINT activities contribute positively to security without infringing on personal freedoms.

Best Practices for Ethical and Responsible OSINT

Effective and ethical OSINT requires a well-defined approach that prioritises respect for privacy and accountability. Adopting best practices, including establishing a clear ethical framework, maintaining operational security (OPSEC), and ensuring transparency, helps to safeguard both the integrity of intelligence activities and the privacy rights of individuals.

A clear ethical framework is essential for guiding OSINT activities. Organisations should establish detailed guidelines that define when, how, and why information is collected. This framework should outline permissible sources, data retention policies, and limitations on personal data usage. By setting clear boundaries and ethical principles, practitioners can avoid unnecessary data collection and mitigate risks related to privacy infringements or misuse. Having a structured ethical policy also provides a standardised approach, ensuring consistency and compliance across all OSINT activities.

Operational Security (OPSEC) is another critical aspect, as it helps protect both the organisation conducting OSINT and the individuals involved. Practitioners should use secure methods for gathering, storing, and sharing information to prevent sensitive data from being exposed or misused. This includes anonymising searches where appropriate, securely storing information, and protecting the identities of individuals involved in sensitive intelligence work. Effective OPSEC safeguards ensure that OSINT activities do not unintentionally compromise the security of individuals or the organisation itself.

Transparency and accountability are essential in maintaining ethical OSINT practices. Keeping a thorough record of OSINT activities, including sources, decision-making processes, and any limitations placed on data usage, supports accountability and aids in addressing any ethical concerns that may arise. Documenting activities and decisions also provides a reference for evaluating practices against legal or regulatory requirements, fostering a culture of transparency.

Managing Privacy Concerns in OSINT Work

Privacy is a primary concern in OSINT, as intelligence activities often involve handling sensitive and personal information. Best practices, including data minimisation, anonymisation, and responsible data retention, help mitigate privacy risks while maintaining effective intelligence gathering.

Data minimisation and anonymisation are essential principles in responsible OSINT. Practitioners should collect only the information necessary to meet the intelligence objectives, avoiding extraneous data that could infringe upon privacy rights. By focusing on essential data and anonymising any personal information wherever possible, OSINT professionals reduce the risk of unnecessary privacy breaches and align their activities with data protection regulations.

Handling sensitive information securely is also crucial throughout the OSINT lifecycle. This includes implementing secure storage solutions, restricting access to authorised personnel, and using encryption when storing or sharing sensitive data. Practitioners should establish protocols to handle particularly sensitive information carefully, ensuring it is protected against unauthorised access or leaks that could harm individuals or compromise organisational integrity.

Data retention and disposal are equally important for privacy management. Setting clear guidelines on how long data will be retained, with periodic reviews, ensures that information is only kept as long as it is useful and relevant. When data is no longer needed, secure deletion and disposal processes should be followed to prevent the potential misuse of archived information. These practices help maintain the privacy of individuals and uphold ethical standards in OSINT.

Adapting to Emerging OSINT Technologies and Ethical Considerations

As new technologies emerge, the OSINT community must continuously evolve its ethical practices to address potential privacy and security concerns. Staying informed about advances in OSINT tools and techniques, particularly in AI, is essential for maintaining responsible intelligence practices.

Ongoing education is crucial for understanding how new tools may impact ethical practices in OSINT. Technologies such as AI for data analysis can increase efficiency and reveal deeper insights, but they also pose unique ethical questions, including potential biases in data interpretation and the risk of excessive data collection. Practitioners should stay informed of new developments and continuously assess the ethical implications of their tools.

Regularly reviewing and updating ethical guidelines ensures they remain relevant as technology and privacy norms change. Guidelines must be adaptable, reflecting current technologies and emerging privacy concerns, such as the increased collection and processing of personal data. Regular updates also help organisations align with evolving data protection laws, maintaining compliance and ethical standards.

The role of AI in OSINT, in particular, demands a high level of transparency, fairness, and accountability. As AI tools become more common in OSINT, practitioners must address ethical challenges related to potential biases, data accuracy, and automated decision-making. Using AI responsibly in OSINT involves transparent methods and a commitment to fairness, ensuring that AI-based insights are accurate and do not unintentionally harm individuals or communities. By proactively addressing these ethical considerations, OSINT professionals can adapt effectively to the changing technological landscape.

Conclusion

The practice of ethical and responsible OSINT is essential to maintaining credibility and trust in the field. By prioritising privacy, accuracy, and transparency, organisations can ensure that OSINT serves its purpose effectively while respecting individual rights and adhering to legal standards. These principles are especially critical as OSINT continues to expand in scope and as technological advancements push the boundaries of data collection and analysis.

A commitment to ongoing ethical review is vital, as societal standards and privacy laws evolve in response to new challenges. Organisations that regularly assess and adapt their ethical frameworks can stay ahead of emerging issues, ensuring that their intelligence practices remain responsible and compliant. This proactive approach not only protects individuals’ privacy but also reinforces the organisation’s reputation as a trusted, responsible entity in the intelligence community.

Industry collaboration is key to promoting best practices in OSINT. By working together, organisations, professionals, and regulators can develop and share guidelines that uphold ethical standards across the field. Collaborative efforts to create clear, adaptable practices and to address emerging ethical questions will support a sustainable and responsible future for OSINT. As the landscape of open-source intelligence grows more complex, this shared commitment to ethics will be essential for building a secure and trustworthy intelligence ecosystem that benefits all stakeholders.

CCTV Photo by Tobias Tullius on Unsplash

"Case
Case Study, Opinion, OSINT

Case Study: OSINT and Ethics – Balancing Information and Responsibility

Introduction

In an era where information is accessible at unprecedented levels, Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) has emerged as a critical tool for both private and public sectors. OSINT encompasses the collection and analysis of publicly available information to support decision-making, threat assessment, and strategic planning. Yet, with great accessibility comes great responsibility. The ethical dimensions of OSINT, particularly in relation to privacy and data security, have raised challenging questions about where to draw boundaries. This case study explores how ethical frameworks guide OSINT practices and examines a real-life scenario that highlights the critical need for ethical boundaries in OSINT activities.

Ethical Considerations in OSINT

OSINT allows practitioners to investigate and gather detailed information from publicly accessible sources, but ethical considerations must always be at the forefront. Just because information is accessible does not mean it is ethical—or even legal—to use it indiscriminately.

Key ethical considerations in OSINT include:

  1. Privacy – OSINT practitioners must be mindful of personal privacy, balancing legitimate investigation needs with individuals’ right to privacy.
  2. Proportionality – Information gathered should align with the goals of the investigation, avoiding excessive or unnecessary data collection.
  3. Legality – Laws governing data protection, like the UK’s Data Protection Act, set boundaries that practitioners must observe. Failing to follow these laws can lead to penalties and reputational damage.
  4. Purpose Limitation – OSINT should be applied within clear parameters, ensuring that data is only used for its stated purpose and minimising the risk of misuse.

Case Example: Cambridge Analytica and Data Ethics in OSINT

The Cambridge Analytica scandal, one of the most well-known examples of data misuse, highlights the ethical risks inherent in OSINT when privacy and transparency are overlooked. In 2014, the political consulting firm gained access to data from up to 87 million Facebook users worldwide. The data was acquired through an app developed by a researcher who paid users to take a personality quiz. While participants willingly shared their information, they were unaware that their friends’ data would also be collected without explicit consent.

The Mechanism of Data Collection

The researcher’s app, called “thisisyourdigitallife,” collected data on users who took the quiz, but due to Facebook’s then-lax privacy policies, it also gained access to extensive information about the friends of these users. This included demographic details, Facebook likes, and social networks, allowing Cambridge Analytica to build detailed psychological profiles on millions of individuals. Although Facebook’s terms of service permitted this type of data gathering at the time, most users were unaware of the extent of data being shared or how it would be used.

This example reveals a loophole where technically “public” or “shared” data was collected in ways that stretched ethical norms. Cambridge Analytica justified its actions by citing the “public” nature of social media interactions, yet the approach lacked transparency and infringed upon users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.

Ethical Violations in Data Exploitation

Cambridge Analytica’s use of OSINT, while technically permissible under Facebook’s policy, sparked intense criticism due to several ethical failings:

  1. Lack of Informed Consent – Although individuals had agreed to the terms of the app, they had not been clearly informed of how their data—and, crucially, the data of their friends—would be utilised. This lack of informed consent created a situation where users unknowingly became part of a sophisticated data-mining operation.
  2. Manipulative Intent – Cambridge Analytica used the data to tailor political messaging to influence voters’ behaviour in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the UK’s Brexit referendum. This manipulation raised ethical concerns about OSINT’s role in influencing democratic processes, as voters received highly targeted messages based on detailed psychological insights.
  3. Privacy Invasion Beyond Initial Scope – The extensive profiling exceeded the expectations users would typically have when engaging with social media. Cambridge Analytica essentially crossed a line from open-source intelligence gathering into invasive surveillance, blurring boundaries between voluntary data sharing and unwarranted data exploitation.

Legal and Reputational Fallout

The fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal was swift and severe. Facebook faced a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for failing to protect user data and was compelled to implement new data protection measures. Cambridge Analytica itself faced international scrutiny, ultimately filing for bankruptcy amidst ongoing investigations. Beyond legal repercussions, the incident led to a wave of distrust in social media platforms and increased public demand for transparency in data practices.

Legal firms need cyber threat intelligence

This case serves as a crucial reminder that ethical OSINT is not just about adhering to legal guidelines; it also requires transparency and accountability. For OSINT practitioners, the scandal emphasises the need to handle personal data with respect for privacy and clear communication about how information will be used.

Lessons Learned for OSINT Practitioners

The Cambridge Analytica case underscores several key takeaways for responsible OSINT:

  • Prioritise User Awareness: Users should be aware of data collection practices. In cases where OSINT gathers data from social platforms, practitioners must ensure they respect users’ privacy boundaries.
  • Minimise Data Collection: Only gather information that is necessary and relevant. Over-collection, even if permissible, may cross ethical lines, especially when dealing with sensitive data.
  • Safeguard Democratic Integrity: OSINT practitioners should be cautious in using personal insights to influence decision-making, particularly in contexts where it may affect democratic processes or individual autonomy.

By examining Cambridge Analytica’s missteps, OSINT practitioners can better understand the consequences of unrestrained data collection and the need for ethical frameworks. A commitment to ethical OSINT practices not only protects individual privacy but also strengthens public trust in the field.

Implementing Ethical OSINT Practices

Organisations using OSINT should consider developing and enforcing a clear ethical framework, including:

  • Transparent Data Use: Always inform individuals if their data is being collected and explain its intended purpose.
  • Clear Consent Mechanisms: Consent should be obtained whenever feasible, even if data is publicly available.
  • OPSEC (Operational Security): Safeguard the methods and tools used in OSINT to prevent exploitation or misuse of information.
  • Regular Ethical Audits: Conduct periodic audits of OSINT practices to ensure they meet both legal and ethical standards.

Conclusion

The Cambridge Analytica case offers a cautionary tale for the OSINT community, reminding practitioners that while the accessibility of information can be a powerful tool, it must be wielded responsibly. Ethical OSINT practices not only protect individuals but also uphold the reputation of organisations that rely on this intelligence. As OSINT continues to evolve, so too must our ethical frameworks, ensuring that we balance innovation with integrity.

Photos by Dayne Topkin Mario Mesaglio on Unsplash

1 2 3 4 5
Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from - Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from - Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from - Google
Spotify
Consent to display content from - Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from - Sound