Threat intelligence
- Threat landscape review
- Threat actor and campaign context
- Digital risk monitoring

Use relevant threat context and monitoring capabilities to strengthen awareness of threats to your organisation.
Last reviewed:
Threat intelligence turns observations about threats into decisions that a defender or business owner can act on. Monitoring collects relevant signals; analysis evaluates their reliability, context and implications. JODOR starts with the decisions you need to support, not the number of feeds available. Useful intelligence may change a detection, prioritise exposure reduction or clarify a supplier risk without making an unsupported claim about attacker identity.
This service supports SOC and detection teams, risk owners and organisations exposed through brands, suppliers or internet-facing assets. Intelligence requirements should reflect the organisation's sector, technologies and ability to respond. Buying more data will not fix unclear ownership or a process that has no route from an observation to a verified defensive action.
TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCES
What we cover
Delivery starts with an agreed scope, named asset owners, access permissions, evidence requirements and a communication plan. For this service, the discussion includes Threat landscape review, Threat actor and campaign context, Digital risk monitoring, Security operations monitoring. Observations are connected to their source and business context, and assumptions are checked with the relevant owners. Work outside the agreement is raised explicitly rather than silently added. Review points and escalation arrangements help your team understand what has been completed, what remains uncertain and which actions depend on information or authorisation from you.
01
02
03
04
Deliverables connect the findings to the agreed business objective rather than simply export tool output. Recommendations identify rationale, relative priority, proposed ownership and dependencies on other teams or technologies. We distinguish verified observations from items requiring further evidence, and explain limitations that affect confidence. Sensitive material is handled under the agreed arrangements. A readout gives your team an opportunity to challenge conclusions and clarify next steps. Implementation, retesting and continued oversight are included only where the proposal explicitly defines them.
Timing is agreed after scoping and checking evidence readiness, system access and stakeholder availability. A bounded assessment may take several weeks; implementation or ongoing support needs a separate phased plan. The proposal identifies assumptions, dependencies and review points. Changes to assets, permissions or access can change the schedule. An indicative duration is not a universal delivery promise or a substitute for confirming your actual environment.
An actionable finding connects a credible observation to a decision, affected asset or defensive control and an accountable owner. We consider source reliability, relevance, confidence and time sensitivity. A generic list of indicators is not automatically useful to your SOC. Where evidence is uncertain, that uncertainty should be explicit, with a validation step rather than an overstated attribution or prediction.
Prepare asset and service ownership details, relevant policies, available records and an approved way to share evidence. We discuss Threat landscape review, Threat actor and campaign context, Digital risk monitoring, Security operations monitoring. Access must be authorised before any intrusive or privileged activity begins. Missing information is recorded as a limitation and prioritised with your team, rather than automatically interpreted as proof that a control either exists or has failed.
Findings should connect the observation, relevant risk and required control to a proposed owner and verifiable outcome. Management resolves competing priorities and decides whether to treat or accept risk within its authority. Closing a ticket alone does not prove that an issue has been removed. We explain suitable verification, with retesting or continued tracking included only when explicitly agreed in scope.
Timing is agreed after scoping and checking evidence readiness, system access and stakeholder availability. A bounded assessment may take several weeks; implementation or ongoing support needs a separate phased plan. The proposal identifies assumptions, dependencies and review points. Changes to assets, permissions or access can change the schedule. An indicative duration is not a universal delivery promise or a substitute for confirming your actual environment.
No. The service supports assessment, improvement and evidence within an agreed scope; it cannot prevent every incident or confer regulatory approval. Applicable obligations depend on your activities, supervising authority and the requirements in force. Management retains responsibility for implementation, risk decisions and any formal submission. We describe what was and was not assessed so that a scoped finding is not mistaken for an organisation-wide guarantee.
Explore SAMA regulatory compliance guidance for this service
Fill out the form and we'll get back to you soon
We reply within one business day.