Looking at the distinctions between Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) and cyber risk - both with similar elements with supportive properties, but often misunderstood. Offering definition to aid practitioners, auditors, regulators and boards.
Some things are bent to suit. Some are broken in process. Some things just have to burn. The following are considerations for metaphorical implications.
At opposite ends of the intelligence spectrum, need-to-know (limited audiences) and need-to-share (expansive audiences) vie for dominance. Here we define these practices, associated concerns, and circumstances where one approach is likely preferable.
Using traditional intelligence models in private sector often doesn't account for the difference in audience and scope of responses available. By separating the focus between actors and actions, CTI practitioners can focus on delivering actionable intel to decision-makers thus also building the case for cyber as a value generating component of the P&L.
Cyber is commonly seen by businesses as a cost center. Changes are afoot that suggest it is increasingly a revenue generator. There are great gains in client relationships to be made if organizations that are not vendors of these services think in a similar way about offering value from their cyber teams' work.