<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>JP Moco</title><link>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/</link><description>Recent content on JP Moco</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Mapping Adversary Infrastructure with Passive DNS and Certificate Transparency</title><link>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/posts/osint-infrastructure-mapping/</link><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/posts/osint-infrastructure-mapping/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;One domain. That&amp;rsquo;s often all you start with. A single indicator pulled from a phishing email, a SIEM alert, or a malware sandbox report. The question is: what can you build from it?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This post covers my methodology for expanding a single IOC into a full infrastructure map using passive DNS and certificate transparency logs — both freely available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="why-infrastructure-mapping-matters"&gt;Why Infrastructure Mapping Matters&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hunting on individual IOCs is a losing game. By the time an IP or domain appears in a threat feed, the actor has likely rotated it. Infrastructure mapping lets you:&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>APT Attribution: How We Identify Threat Actors Without Being Wrong</title><link>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/posts/apt-attribution-methodology/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/posts/apt-attribution-methodology/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;span class="tlp-label tlp-amber"&gt;TLP:AMBER&lt;/span&gt;
   This post is part of the &lt;strong&gt;CTI Methodology&lt;/strong&gt; series.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attribution is one of the most misunderstood concepts in cyber threat intelligence. Every breach triggers the same question: &lt;em&gt;who did this?&lt;/em&gt; And yet, jumping to attribution without rigorous methodology is how analysts get burned — and how organizations make bad strategic decisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This post walks through the framework I use to build confident, defensible attribution assessments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="why-attribution-is-hard"&gt;Why Attribution Is Hard&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The fundamental problem is asymmetry. Defenders need to be right. Attackers only need to be &lt;em&gt;plausible&lt;/em&gt;. A sophisticated actor can:&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>About</title><link>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/about/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/about/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;As a Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst, I dedicate my operations to the proactive identification and in-depth analysis of cyber threats. My approach combines advanced OSINT techniques with malware behavioral analysis to anticipate adversary TTPs before they materialize into incidents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;ldquo;In the digital age, intelligence is not just about collecting data — it&amp;rsquo;s about understanding the adversary.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;rsquo;t just report on threats; I contextualize them. By understanding the &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;why&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;how&lt;/em&gt;, I enable organizations to move from reactive defense to proactive security posture.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Search</title><link>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/search/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://pepemf.github.io/Portifolio/search/</guid><description/></item></channel></rss>