English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Cyber threat intelligence feeds the focus on atomic and computed indicators of compromise. These indicators are the main source of tactical cyber intelligence most organizations benefit from. They are expressed in machine-readable formats, and they are easily loaded into security devices in order to protect infrastructures. However, their usefulness is very limited, specially in terms of time of life. These indicators can be useful when dealing with non-advanced actors, but they are easily avoided by advanced ones. To detect advanced actor’s activities, an analyst must deal with behavioral indicators of compromise, which represent tactics, techniques and procedures that are not as common as the atomic and computed ones. In this paper, we analyze why these indicators are not widely used, and we identify key requirements for successful behavioral IOC detection, specification and sharing. We follow the intelligence cycle as the arranged sequence of steps for a defensive team to work, thereby providing a common reference for these teams to identify gaps in their capabilities.

Key Requirements for the Detection and Sharing of Behavioral Indicators of Compromise