Most programs judge threat intelligence by how much they ingest, not how well it drives decisions. That leads to bloated pipelines, duplicate indicators, and analysts drowning in “interesting” but unactionable data. This article offers a compact, repeatable way to measure TI quality so you can keep the high-signal sources and cut the rest—whether you’re an enterprise SOC or a government/LE case team.

The Four Questions That Define Quality

  1. Is it timely?
    How early does the source surface signals relative to exploitation or campaign launch?
    • Metrics: time-to-first-signal (TTFS) vs. peer sources; % of signals observed pre-incident; decay time (how long indicators remain useful).
  2. Is it unique?
    Does this source add coverage you can’t get elsewhere (infrastructure reuse, actor handles, malware config detail)?
    • Metrics: de-duplication rate; overlap with your “TI core” (STIX/MISP graph); proportion of first-seen indicators/behaviors attributed to this source.
  3. Is it actionable?
    Can an analyst turn the data into a hunt, a detection, or a case step today?
    • Metrics: conversion rate to hunts/detections/case tasks; enrichment completeness (context fields present: actor/TTP, infra links, confidence level, provenance).
  4. Does it change outcomes
    Does this source shorten investigations, reduce successful callbacks, or enable disruption?
    • Metrics: detection uplift (new alerts created from the source’s content), time-to-containment reduction, # of disruptions/takedowns/victim notifications enabled.

A Lightweight Scorecard (Use Monthly or Quarterly)

Score each source 0–5 on the dimensions below; keep a one-line justification per score. Rank by total and cut the bottom quartile each quarter unless there’s a mission-specific reason to retain it.

  • Timeliness (0–5): Early warning, pre-exploitation hits, indicator half-life
  • Uniqueness (0–5): % first-seen items; low overlap with existing feeds
  • Actionability (0–5): Structured artifacts (STIX/SIGMA/YARA), ATT&CK mapping, clarity of confidence & provenance
  • Impact (0–5): Measurable hunts/detections/case actions created; disruption leads
  • Reliability (0–5): Historical accuracy, false-positive rate, consistency of collection
  • Compliance/Handling (0–5): TLP discipline, retention fit, legal/policy alignment

Keep the rule simple: Sources that don’t create actions or measurably change outcomes don’t count—no matter how flashy the feed.

Make Actionability Non-Negotiable

High-quality TI ships with enough structure and context to move immediately:

  • Structure: STIX/TAXII or MISP bundles; Sigma/YARA where applicable; graphable entities (domains/IPs/ASNs/certs/handles).
  • Context: ATT&CK TTPs, infrastructure pivots, actor/victimology notes, exploitation maturity (PoC? in the wild?).
  • Confidence & provenance: explicit low/moderate/high with a short rationale; how it was collected (at a high level), and any caveats (TLP, reliability).

If a source consistently requires heavy manual parsing before anyone can act, downscore it.

Tie Metrics to Real Workflows (Both Public and Private)

  • Enterprise/SOC examples:
    • Detection uplift: number of new correlations or rules promoted from the source’s artifacts.
    • Callback prevention: reduction in first-seen egress to live C2 clusters flagged by the source.
    • Mean time to validate (MTTV): faster analyst confirmation due to better provenance and confidence notes.
  • Gov/LE examples:
    • Disruption enablement: # of prioritized infrastructure clusters that led to legal process/takedown.
    • Attribution lift: cases where independent lanes (infra + malware config + underground handle) converged because of the source’s unique signals.
    • Deconfliction speed: time saved due to clear handling caveats/TLP and traceable provenance.

Common Failure Modes (and Fixes)

  • “More feeds = more security.”
    Fix: Cap sources; add only if they beat an existing one on timeliness, uniqueness, or impact.
  • Indicator-only thinking.
    Fix: Prioritize behavior + infrastructure correlations (cert reuse, ASN clustering, config overlaps) that survive indicator churn.
  • Confidence inflation.
    Fix: Calibrate. Compare claimed “high confidence” items against outcomes; downscore chronic overconfidence.
  • No end-of-life for sources.
    Fix: Enforce quarterly reviews; archive or sunset low performers.

A 30-Day Cleanup Plan

  1. Baseline today: Run the scorecard on every source (be ruthless).
  2. Cut noise: Pause bottom-quartile feeds for 30 days; monitor for missed signals.
  3. Enrich the keepers: Ask vendors (or tune in-house collectors) for structured artifacts and ATT&CK mappings
  4. Close the loop: Add fields in your case/hunt forms to tag the source that enabled each action—so impact becomes measurable.

Takeaways

Threat intelligence earns its keep when it is timely, unique, actionable, and outcome-changing. Measure those four things, or use a platform that values high-fidelity intelligence over open source volume, and you’ll spend less time herding feeds and more time stopping campaigns—no matter whether your mission is protecting an enterprise or building a case.

Do you have the tools it takes to understand who is attacking your organization and why? Ultimately, it’s the only way to know how to stop attacks. Platform Blue offers government-grade threat intelligence to the worlds most elite threat hunting organizations. Get a demo today!