CTSP study plan
CTSP · Give each week a clear focus.
8 weeks · About 7 hours per week
Threat Intelligence Fundamentals and Frameworks
Define the intelligence cycle and map each of its six stages to a concrete CTI workflow you could run in a small security team
Compare the main analytic frameworks (kill chain, MITRE ATT&CK, Diamond Model, Pyramid of Pain) and state in writing which question each one answers best
Distinguish tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence and give two realistic consumers for each tier
Explain confidence levels, sourcing, and the difference between data, information, and intelligence using your own examples
Your checkpoint
A one-page framework comparison matrix (framework, core question, output artifact, best consumer) plus a 300-word note on how the frameworks chain together
Threat Landscape and Actor Analysis
Classify threat actors into commodity crime, organized crime, hacktivism, insider, and state-sponsored categories with distinguishing behaviors for each
Describe the motivations, resourcing, and targeting patterns that separate nation-state espionage from financially motivated intrusion
Trace at least three named intrusion sets through ATT&CK group pages and record their preferred initial access and persistence techniques
Explain sector-specific targeting trends for at least three industries and the reasoning behind them
Your checkpoint
An actor profile dossier of three intrusion sets, each with motivation, capability, targeting, and a mapped ATT&CK technique list of at least eight techniques
Collection Sources and Collection Planning
Build a collection plan template that starts from priority intelligence requirements rather than from available feeds
Evaluate at least six source types (OSINT, commercial feeds, ISAC sharing, malware sandboxes, dark web, internal telemetry) on reliability, timeliness, and cost
Apply the Admiralty source reliability and information credibility grading scheme to ten sample reports
Identify legal and sharing constraints that limit what each source can be redistributed
Your checkpoint
A written collection plan with three PIRs, mapped sources, collection cadence, and a source reliability scoring table
Intelligence Analysis and Structured Analytic Techniques
Apply at least five structured analytic techniques (ACH, key assumptions check, devil's advocacy, what-if analysis, indicators of change) to a sample intrusion scenario
Demonstrate how to mitigate at least four cognitive biases including anchoring, confirmation, and availability bias
Draft intelligence requirements that are specific, answerable, and tied to a decision the stakeholder must make
Write a confidence statement that separates what is known, what is inferred, and what is assumed
Your checkpoint
A completed analysis worksheet using ACH on a scenario with at least four competing hypotheses, plus a bias mitigation checklist
Indicators of Compromise and Threat Hunting
Differentiate IOCs by durability (hash, IP, domain, behavioral TTP) and rank them by cost to the adversary
Write at least three Sigma rules and two YARA rules that detect behavior rather than a single artifact
Design a hypothesis-driven threat hunt from a PIR through data source selection to detection validation
Explain IOC lifecycle, decay, false positive management, and enrichment before operational use
Your checkpoint
A threat hunt package containing a hypothesis, required data sources, three Sigma rules, two YARA rules, and expected false-positive analysis
Threat Intelligence Platforms and Tooling & Indicators of Compromise and Threat Hunting
Compare TIP, SIEM, SOAR, and MISP capabilities and state which problem each one solves
Configure a small MISP instance or equivalent lab and ingest, tag, and correlate at least twenty indicators
Automate one enrichment or indicator-to-detection pipeline end to end and document its failure modes
Evaluate a platform against requirements covering data model, integrations, sharing, and access control
Your checkpoint
A working lab pipeline (ingest, enrich, tag, export to detection) with a short architecture diagram and a written tool comparison
Dissemination, Reporting, and Stakeholder Communication
Tailor the same finding for a SOC analyst, a CISO, and a business owner, adjusting depth, jargon, and decision framing
Structure a threat report using a BLUF (bottom line up front) format with key judgments, confidence, and recommended actions
Write dissemination rules that define audience, classification, handling caveats, and feedback loop
Deliver a five-minute verbal briefing without notes and handle two challenging follow-up questions
Your checkpoint
One intelligence product in three audience-specific versions plus a dissemination and handling plan
Legal, Ethical, and Operational Security Considerations & Threat Intelligence Fundamentals and Frameworks & Intelligence Analysis and Structured Analytic Techniques
Apply legal constraints on collection, handling, and sharing including privacy, data protection, and terms of service for OSINT sources
Identify operational security failures in a threat intelligence workflow and design controls to prevent analyst attribution or exposure
Explain ethical obligations around handling victim data, disclosure coordination, and responsible sharing
Run a full timed practice exam and review every missed item against its source domain
Your checkpoint
A full-length timed practice exam with a scored error log mapping each miss to a domain and a written remediation action
Milestones
Week 2: Can explain the intelligence cycle, compare four analytic frameworks, and profile three actor sets from memory without notes
Week 3: Collection plan is written and each source is graded for reliability and sharing constraints
Week 4: Completed ACH worksheet with at least four hypotheses and a defensible confidence statement
Week 6: Lab pipeline ingests, enriches, and exports indicators, and three Sigma rules fire in a test harness
Week 7: Three audience versions of one report delivered and a five-minute briefing given without notes
Week 8: Practice exam score at or above 80 percent with every miss mapped to a domain and remediation action