Threat Intelligence Mapping

Direct definition: Map threat intelligence to ATT&CK coverage expectations, validation evidence, and operational detection outcomes.

Not to be confused with: Feed aggregation alone. Intelligence mapping governance tracks whether mapped threats are detectably covered.

Best for teams who: Need to turn intelligence priorities into measurable detection decisions.

SecuMap applies Detection System of Record (DSoR) governance so CTI priorities remain connected to coverage expectations, validation evidence, and operational outcomes.

Threat intelligence mapping ensures threat hypotheses connect to specific detection expectations, owners, and evidence paths.

SecuMap governs this mapping loop so teams can prove which priority adversary behaviours are operationally detectable right now.

Product evidence: CTI analysis and victimology

Campaign intelligence starts in the CTI Analysis view: threat assessment, actor and campaign analysis, business model context, and victimology with impact scoring. This is where analysts decide whether a campaign is relevant to your watchlist industries, geographies, and risk posture before any detection work begins.

Product screenshot of SecuMap: CTI Analysis tab showing threat assessment, actor and campaign analysis, business model, victimology and impact assessment, and intelligence attribution. — What you are seeing: CTI Analysis for a priority campaign — threat level and confidence, sophistication and resource level, target industries and countries, and impact assessment with risk score. Why it matters: victimology and impact scoring turn generic threat labels into environment-specific prioritisation. Decision enabled: whether this campaign belongs on the watchlist and warrants governed detection planning.

Product evidence: campaign-to-detection workflow

From CTI analysis, SecuMap moves through gap analysis, campaign associations and procedures, ATT&CK navigator-style attack coverage with BAS overlays, and simulation results over time. At each stage you can act on gaps — pipeline quick wins, create detection rules for rule gaps, tune prevention, or reassess after BAS. Campaigns import and export via STIX in the UI, or integrate through webhooks for repeatable CTI-to-detection workflows across teams and external platforms.

Product screenshot of SecuMap: Gap Analysis tab with detection coverage overview and technique, infrastructure, malware, and software gap panels including pipeline rules and create detection rule actions. — What you are seeing: Gap Analysis — overall coverage summary plus technique, infrastructure, malware, and software gaps with pipeline quick wins and rule-gap actions. Why it matters: campaign context makes each gap type actionable — quick-win pipeline rules versus medium-term rule creation. Decision enabled: where to deploy or develop detection logic for uncovered campaign entities.

Product screenshot of SecuMap: Associations tab with STIX identifiers, associated threat groups, and ordered kill-chain procedures mapped to techniques, software, and observables. — What you are seeing: Associations — STIX ID and provenance, associated groups such as G1024 Akira, and ordered procedures with techniques, software, and observables. Why it matters: kill-chain-style procedures connect intelligence narrative to concrete detection engineering targets. Decision enabled: which procedures and techniques to trace through coverage, validation, and rule development.

Product screenshot of SecuMap: Attack Coverage tab with ATT&CK navigator-style matrix showing campaign techniques plus overlays for tool coverage, pipeline rules, production rules, and BAS detection and prevention results. — What you are seeing: Attack Coverage — navigator-style ATT&CK matrix with campaign techniques plus tool, pipeline, production, and BAS detection/prevention overlays. Why it matters: one view shows declared coverage, validated BAS outcomes, and remaining campaign technique exposure. Decision enabled: where to prioritise rule engineering, prevention tuning, or additional BAS validation on priority techniques.

Product screenshot of SecuMap: Simulations tab with BAS assessment score trends and individual test results showing prevention, detection, and actionable insights for rule deployment. — What you are seeing: Simulations — BAS prevention, detection, and combined scores over time, plus scenario-level results with needs-prevention and needs-detection indicators. Why it matters: simulation drift and failed scenarios feed directly into detection backlog and reassessment cycles. Decision enabled: which scenario failures to convert into new rules, mitigations, or follow-up BAS runs.

Campaigns support STIX import and export from the campaign UI, and webhook-based exchange for automated CTI ingestion or handoff to external platforms — keeping intelligence, coverage, and detection engineering aligned in one governed loop.

Threat-to-detection mapping governance model
Focus area	Operational expectation
Threat hypothesis	Priority intelligence is mapped to ATT&CK techniques and use-case ownership.
Detection expectation	Mapped threats are linked to deployed logic and validation schedule.
Operational proof	Live outcomes and drift evidence confirm or challenge confidence assumptions.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a threat intel platform replacement?

No. It governs how threat intelligence is translated into measurable detection capability.

What does this improve for security leaders?

It improves prioritisation by linking threat focus to operationally proven detection outcomes.

How does this connect to ATT&CK coverage?

Each mapped threat is tied to ATT&CK techniques and governed detection evidence.

Next steps

See it in action Request briefing