The Sentry’s Dilemma: Why I Abandoned the Digital Wall and Learned to Hunt Shadows

Introduction: The Million-Dollar Phish and the End of My Faith

I remember the exact moment my faith in modern cybersecurity died.

It wasn’t a slow erosion; it was a catastrophic collapse.

For a decade, I had built my career as a cybersecurity analyst on a foundation of best practices and cutting-edge technology.

We had it all: a multi-layered security stack, real-time transaction monitoring, and a team of analysts certified in every framework from SOX to PCI DSS.¹

We were compliant.

We were vigilant.

We were, I thought, secure.

Then came the phish.

It wasn’t one of the clumsy attempts we swatted away by the dozen.

This was a masterpiece of deception—a spear-phishing campaign so sophisticated it was almost beautiful.³

It impersonated a high-level executive with flawless precision, leveraging details gleaned from social media to create a request that was not just plausible, but compelling.

It bypassed every automated defense.

It fooled a sharp, well-trained employee.

And in the space of a few hours, it siphoned millions of dollars from our accounts.

The aftermath was a blur of crisis calls, forensic reports, and grim-faced meetings.

But what I remember most clearly is the feeling of absolute helplessness.

We had followed all the rules.

We had bought all the right tools.

And we had failed spectacularly.

The financial loss was staggering, but the damage to client trust was worse.

It forced me to confront a terrifying question: If doing everything “by the book” wasn’t enough, what was the right way to fight back? How do you defend against an enemy you can’t see until it’s already inside your walls?

Part I: The Anatomy of Failure: Why Our Digital Fortresses Are Built on Sand

My journey to answer that question began with a painful deconstruction of everything I thought I knew.

I realized that the traditional, reactive security model we all relied on wasn’t just outdated; it was fundamentally flawed.

It was a paradigm that, in its very design, gives the advantage to the attacker.

The Tyranny of the Alert: Drowning in the Data Moat

The most immediate symptom of our broken model is a phenomenon security professionals know all too well: alert fatigue.⁵

In our attempt to see everything, we had created a system where we could see nothing.

A typical Security Operations Center (SOC) is inundated with thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of alerts every single day.⁶

These notifications are generated by a host of tools designed to flag suspicious activity, from failed logins to potential malware detections.⁵

The problem is that the vast majority of these alerts are noise.

Research has shown that in many organizations, up to 30% of alerts are ignored entirely, and of those that are investigated, only a small fraction are deemed reliable.⁵

This is because traditional systems, built on rigid, pre-defined rules, generate a torrential flood of false positives.⁷

A customer logging in from a vacation hotspot or an employee using a new device can trigger a high-priority alarm.

The result is a state of cognitive burnout for the human analysts on the front lines.

They become desensitized, their ability to react to genuine threats diminishes, and critical incidents get lost in the static.⁵

This isn’t merely an operational inefficiency; it’s a systemic vulnerability that adversaries have learned to exploit.

The reactive model’s dependence on inflexible rules is the direct cause of the alert flood.

This flood, in turn, causes crippling fatigue in the human defenders.

Sophisticated attackers understand this dynamic perfectly.

They can intentionally trigger a high volume of low-level, noisy alerts—a tactic sometimes called an “alert storm”—to deliberately distract and overwhelm the already-exhausted SOC team.

While the analysts are busy chasing down dozens of trivial false alarms, the real, high-stakes intrusion slips by completely unnoticed.

The security system’s greatest weakness, its noise, becomes the attacker’s greatest weapon: cover.⁶

The Flaw of the Signature: Fighting Yesterday’s War

The second critical failure lies in the very logic of traditional detection: it is almost entirely based on identifying known threats.

Signature-based and rule-based systems work by scanning for the digital “fingerprints”—unique code strings, file hashes, or behavioral patterns—of malware and fraud tactics that have been seen before.⁹

This approach has a fatal flaw: it is inherently reactive.

It is completely blind to novel, or “zero-day,” threats for which no signature yet exists.

It cannot detect polymorphic malware that constantly changes its own code to evade detection, nor can it identify new fraud schemes that don’t match a pre-written rule.¹¹

This puts defenders in a perpetual game of catch-up, always waiting for the next attack to happen so they can analyze it and create a new rule, by which time the adversary has already moved on.⁷

The failure, however, runs even deeper.

Because security firms research and distribute these signatures to their customers, the signature database itself becomes a public blueprint of our defenses.

An advanced adversary doesn’t need to guess if their new tool will be detected; they can test it against existing antivirus engines.

If it gets flagged, they simply modify it—a process called obfuscation—until it no longer matches any known signature.

In this way, our own defensive systems become an unwitting quality assurance tool for the attackers, telling them precisely when their weapon is ready for deployment against us.¹²

The chasm between this reactive posture and a truly proactive one is stark.

Feature	Traditional (Reactive) Detection	Anticipatory (Proactive) Defense
Detection Method	Rule-based & Signature-based 9	Behavioral & Heuristic Analysis 9
Speed	Delayed, batch processing, manual review 7	Real-time, automated, milliseconds 7
Accuracy	High false positives, misses novel threats 8	Low false positives, detects anomalies 7
Adaptability	Static, requires manual updates, always behind 14	Dynamically adaptive, learns from data 11
Scalability	Poor, collapses under high volume 8	Highly scalable, built for big data 7
Core Weakness	Can only detect what it already knows 12	Requires high-quality data and initial tuning 11

The Asymmetric Battlefield: Fighting Bows and Arrows Against Drones

The final piece of the puzzle was recognizing that while our defenses were static, our adversaries were evolving at an exponential rate.

The modern fraud landscape bears little resemblance to the threats our systems were designed to stop.

Attackers are now wielding artificial intelligence as a weapon.

AI-powered tools can craft hyper-realistic, personalized phishing emails at scale, free of the grammatical errors that once served as red flags.²¹

More terrifying is the rise of deepfake technology.

In one now-infamous case, a finance worker in Hong Kong was tricked into transferring $25 million after attending a video conference with what appeared to be his CFO and other colleagues—all of whom were AI-generated deepfakes.²³

Attackers can clone voices from just a few seconds of audio to authorize fraudulent wire transfers or bypass voice-based authentication systems.²⁵

Beyond impersonation, criminals are using AI to commit synthetic identity fraud, creating entirely new, plausible identities by stitching together real and fabricated data points.

These “Frankenstein” identities are then used to open bank accounts, apply for credit, and launder money, costing the economy tens of billions of dollars annually.²⁷

This is where the paradox of compliance becomes so dangerous.

My organization was fully compliant with regulations like SOX and PCI DSS.¹

But these frameworks are, by their nature, backward-looking.

They are designed to codify defenses against

yesterday’s attacks.

An adversary using a deepfake voice clone to impersonate a CEO isn’t violating a specific technical control on a compliance checklist; they are exploiting the very human and procedural gaps that these frameworks cannot effectively police.

The intense focus on achieving compliance can create a “checklist mentality” that breeds a false sense of security—”we’re compliant, so we’re secure.” This mindset stifles the development of a more agile, threat-focused culture, making the organization more vulnerable to attacks that operate outside the neat boxes of the compliance audit.

My failure wasn’t just a technical one; it was a failure of this exact mindset.

Part II: The Epiphany: Lessons from the Art of War

In the depths of my professional crisis, I stumbled upon a solution from a field I never expected: military intelligence.

I began reading about concepts like “anticipatory intelligence” and “proactive defense”.³⁰

It was a revelation.

I realized that the military has been grappling with the same fundamental problem for centuries: how to defend against an intelligent, adaptive adversary.

But their philosophy was completely different from mine.

From Digital Trenches to Strategic Intelligence

The core shift was profound.

In cybersecurity, we were conditioned to be reactive—to build a strong perimeter and wait for an attack to happen.

Military doctrine, however, is built on the principle of seizing the initiative.³²

A commander’s goal is not to react to an enemy’s move, but to understand, anticipate, and disrupt the adversary’s plan

before they can execute it.

It’s about shaping the battlefield to your advantage rather than letting the enemy dictate the terms of engagement.

The Guiding Analogy: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB)

This philosophy is formalized in a process known as Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB), or Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE).³⁴

A military commander would never simply sit behind their defenses and wait to be attacked.

They engage in a continuous, four-step process to gain a comprehensive understanding of the entire operational landscape:

1. Define the Operational Environment: This involves mapping the physical terrain, understanding the weather, and analyzing the civilian infrastructure. It’s about knowing the ground you will fight on.
2. Describe the Environmental Effects on Operations: This step analyzes how the terrain favors or hinders both friendly and enemy forces. Where are the natural choke points? Where are the best avenues of approach?
3. Evaluate the Threat: This is a deep analysis of the enemy’s doctrine, capabilities, composition, and typical tactics. It’s about knowing your enemy inside and out.
4. Determine Threat Courses of Action: Based on the first three steps, intelligence analysts predict the enemy’s most likely and most dangerous plans. This allows the commander to position their forces to counter these plans before they are even launched.

This was the “aha!” moment.

In cybersecurity, we had been obsessively focused on our own walls, our own defenses.

We weren’t mapping the digital terrain, we weren’t studying our adversary’s doctrine, and we certainly weren’t systematically predicting their likely attack paths.

We were sentries staring at a wall, completely oblivious to the enemy massing just over the horizon.

Part III: The Anticipatory Defense Framework: A New Doctrine for Cybersecurity

Inspired by this new perspective, I began translating the principles of military intelligence into a concrete, actionable framework for cybersecurity.

This “Anticipatory Defense Framework” is not just a new set of tactics; it’s a new doctrine built on four pillars that directly mirror the IPB process.

It provides a structured way to move from a reactive posture to a proactive one.

Pillar	Military Analogue (IPB Step)	Core Cybersecurity Question	Key Activities
Pillar 1: Define the Digital Terrain	Define the Operational Environment	What are my “crown jewels” and what does “normal” look like?	Asset prioritization, data flow mapping, network baselining.15
Pillar 2: Define the Adversary’s Intent	Evaluate the Threat	Who is most likely to attack me, and why?	Adversary profiling, motivation analysis, TTP mapping.15
Pillar 3: Evaluate the Adversary	Describe Environmental Effects	What are the early warnings of an impending attack?	All-source intelligence fusion, identifying Indicators & Warnings (I&W).35
Pillar 4: Determine Adversary Courses of Action	Determine Threat Courses of Action	How would they attack, and can I find them now?	Attack path modeling, proactive threat hunting, adversary emulation.15

Pillar 1: Define the Digital Terrain (Know Thyself)

The first step in any defense is to understand what you are defending.

This goes far beyond a simple asset inventory.

It requires a deep, contextual understanding of your organization’s digital environment, echoing Sun Tzu’s timeless wisdom: “Know thy self”.¹⁵

The key activities in this pillar include:

• Identify the “Crown Jewels”: This is a collaborative effort between security teams and business leaders to identify the most critical data, systems, and processes. These are the assets whose compromise would lead to catastrophic business impact, such as the theft of intellectual property or the disruption of core operations.¹⁵
• Map Data Flows and Dependencies: Once you know what’s critical, you must understand how it moves and what supports it. This means mapping the flow of sensitive data across the network and identifying the critical infrastructure it relies on.
• Establish Behavioral Baselines: Using modern analytics, you must establish what “normal” activity looks like for every part of your digital terrain—from individual users and devices to specific network segments. This baseline is the essential foundation for anomaly detection. Without knowing what is normal, you can never hope to reliably spot what is abnormal.⁹ This directly addresses the critical weakness of traditional rule-based systems, which lack the context to distinguish between a legitimate but unusual action and a truly malicious one.⁷

Pillar 2: Define the Adversary’s Intent (Know Thy Enemy)

A reactive defense prepares for generic attacks.

An anticipatory defense prepares for specific adversaries.

This pillar is about shifting focus from the “what” of an attack to the “who” and “why,” fulfilling Sun Tzu’s second mandate: “Know thy enemy”.¹⁵

Key activities include:

• Threat Actor Profiling: Move beyond chasing individual Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) like malicious IP addresses. Instead, develop detailed profiles of the threat groups most likely to target your specific industry and organization. This involves understanding their origins, affiliations, and overarching goals.¹⁵
• Analyze Motivation and TTPs: A deep understanding of an adversary requires knowing why they attack (e.g., financial gain, espionage, political disruption) and, most importantly, how they operate. This involves mapping their specific Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). Frameworks like the MITRE ATT&CK provide a common language to deconstruct and categorize an adversary’s entire playbook, from initial reconnaissance to final exfiltration.³⁵
• Intelligence Gathering: This is not a passive activity. It requires the active fusion of internal security data with external Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) feeds and Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) to build a rich, multi-dimensional picture of your most likely adversaries.³⁸

Pillar 3: Evaluate the Adversary (Threat Forecasting & Warning)

This is the predictive heart of the framework.

By combining our knowledge of the terrain (Pillar 1) with our understanding of the enemy (Pillar 2), we can begin to identify the faint signals that warn of an impending attack.

This is the practice of creating an early warning system.

Key activities include:

• Identify Indicators & Warnings (I&W): Based on an adversary’s known TTPs, you can identify the specific signals that precede an attack. These I&W can be technical, such as an adversary registering a domain name that looks deceptively similar to your own, a classic precursor to a phishing campaign. They can also be non-technical, such as an increase in geopolitical tensions or specific chatter on dark web forums that suggests your industry is being targeted.³⁵
• All-Source Fusion: Effective forecasting requires combining multiple intelligence streams. You must fuse the technical CTI (malware hashes, attacker infrastructure) with strategic intelligence (geopolitical analysis, economic pressures, adversary motivations) to build a complete picture of the threat environment.³⁵
• Probabilistic Forecasting: This process transforms security from a binary game of “secure” or “insecure” into a discipline of risk management. By analyzing the collected I&W, you can make probabilistic assessments about future events, similar to the methodology used in advanced models like the RAND Corporation’s Scalable Warning and Resilience Model (SWARM).³⁵ Instead of a vague sense of dread, you can make an informed assessment: “Given the current I&W, there is a 70% probability of a sophisticated phishing campaign targeting our finance department within the next 90 days.” This allows for the precise and timely allocation of defensive resources.

Pillar 4: Determine Adversary Courses of Action (Proactive Hunting & Shaping)

The final pillar is where defense becomes offense.

Armed with predictive intelligence, you no longer wait for the attack to come to you.

You actively go out and find the adversary, disrupting their operations before they can achieve their objectives.³¹

Key activities include:

• Attack Path Modeling: Based on your knowledge of your digital terrain (Pillar 1) and the adversary’s playbook (Pillar 2), you can map out their most likely and most dangerous courses of action. Where are they likely to strike first? What vulnerabilities will they try to exploit?
• Proactive Threat Hunting: This is the antithesis of waiting for an alert. Threat hunting involves forming a hypothesis (e.g., “Adversary X will attempt to gain initial access using TTP Y”) and actively searching your network for evidence of that specific activity. You are hunting for the adversary on your own terms, using their own playbook against them.¹⁵
• Adversary Emulation (Purple Teaming): This involves systematically testing your defenses against the adversary’s modeled TTPs. A “purple team” exercise brings together your defensive (blue) and offensive (red) teams to simulate a specific attack path, find the gaps in your defenses, and close them before the real attacker can exploit them.³⁵

This journey revealed that the problem of cybersecurity is not unique.

Military science has spent millennia developing formal, battle-tested doctrines for dealing with intelligent adversaries.

Frameworks like IPB, Active Defense, and even Zero Trust (“never trust, always verify”) are not just helpful metaphors; they are operational doctrines that can be directly adapted to our field.¹⁵

Advanced cybersecurity models like RAND’s SWARM are, in fact, direct translations of these military concepts.³⁵

The solution is not to reinvent the wheel, but to adopt and adapt the strategic principles of a more mature domain.

We have been fighting a war using the reactive tactics of law enforcement—investigating a crime after it happens—when we need the proactive strategy of an intelligence agency—anticipating and shaping the adversary’s campaign before it ever launches.

Part IV: Putting the Framework into Action: From Theory to Victory

The Anticipatory Defense Framework is not just a compelling theory; it is a practical, winning strategy.

Implementing it transforms not only your tools and processes but your entire security culture.

The Intelligence-Driven SOC: From Firefighters to Threat Hunters

The most visible transformation occurs in the Security Operations Center.

The SOC ceases to be a reactive triage center, where analysts burn out clearing an endless queue of low-value alerts.

It evolves into an intelligence fusion cell.

Analysts are no longer just firefighters; they become intelligence collectors, threat modelers, and proactive hunters.

Their primary function shifts from closing tickets to understanding and preempting the adversary.

Success is no longer measured by “mean time to respond” to an alert that has already fired.

The new key performance indicators become “threats predicted,” “attack paths disrupted,” and “fraud campaigns neutralized before impact.” It is a shift from measuring the efficiency of our response to measuring the effectiveness of our foresight.

Case Study in Success: Predicting the Unseen

After my initial failure, my team and I rebuilt our entire security program around the four pillars of Anticipatory Defense.

The payoff came six months later.

1. Define the Adversary’s Intent: Our intelligence gathering (Pillar 2) identified a specific Eastern European cybercrime group that was beginning to target our industry with a novel form of credential-stuffing attack that used AI to bypass multi-factor authentication prompts.
2. Evaluate the Adversary: We began monitoring for their specific Indicators & Warnings (Pillar 3). We noticed the registration of several new domains that mimicked our partners’ login portals and detected chatter on specific forums discussing the efficacy of their new tool. We assessed a high probability of an attack within the next month.
3. Define the Digital Terrain: We knew from our asset mapping (Pillar 1) which of our systems were most vulnerable to this type of attack and which employees had privileged access.
4. Determine Adversary Courses of Action: We immediately launched a proactive threat hunt (Pillar 4), specifically looking for the TTPs associated with this group’s reconnaissance phase. We didn’t wait for an alert. Within 48 hours, we found it: subtle probing activity against the accounts of several key executives.

We neutralized the threat before a single credential was stolen, before a single dollar was lost.

There were no crisis calls, no frantic reports, no shattered trust.

There was only the quiet confidence of having out-thought and outmaneuvered our opponent.

We had won the battle before it began.

Your First Steps on the Path to Anticipatory Defense

Making this shift requires a change in mindset from the top down.

For Leadership:

• Ask the Right Questions: Stop asking “Are we compliant?” and start asking, “Who is our most probable adversary, what are their most likely courses ofaction, and what is our plan to disrupt them?”
• Invest in Intelligence, Not Just Tools: Your budget must reflect this new priority. Allocate resources for high-quality threat intelligence feeds, talented analysts, and training in intelligence methodologies, not just another blinking box for the server rack.

For Practitioners:

• Start Small: You don’t have to transform your entire SOC overnight. Pick one critical asset and one high-probability threat actor. Run through the four-pillar process for that specific scenario as a pilot project.
• Build Your Intelligence Habit: Dedicate a few hours each week to reading CTI reports and OSINT about your industry’s threat landscape. Start building your own situational awareness.⁴²
• Learn to Think Like the Adversary: Begin conducting simple red-team or purple-team exercises. The goal is to break free from a purely defensive mindset and start seeing your own network through an attacker’s eyes.³⁵

Conclusion: The End of Playing Defense

The era of reactive security is over.

In a world of AI-powered adversaries, deepfake impersonations, and automated fraud campaigns, continuing to operate from a defensive crouch is a losing strategy.

Building higher walls is futile when the enemy can use AI to simply walk through the front door disguised as your CEO.

The future of cybersecurity—the only way to win—is to stop playing defense.

It is to embrace the principles of military intelligence and anticipation.

It is to know yourself, know your enemy, and use that knowledge to shape the battlefield in your favor.

It is about getting ahead of the threat, hunting the shadows, and winning the fight before it ever reaches your gates.

Works cited

1. Top 9 Cybersecurity Regulations for Financial Services – UpGuard, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.upguard.com/blog/cybersecurity-regulations-financial-industry
2. All Data Security Regulations for Financial Services – Sealpath, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.sealpath.com/blog/data-security-regulations-financial-services/
3. What is phishing | Attack techniques & scam examples – Imperva, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/phishing-attack-scam/
4. CEO Fraud Attacks – KnowBe4, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.knowbe4.com/ceo-fraud
5. What Is Alert Fatigue in Cybersecurity? – Notification Fatigue Defined …, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/alert-fatigue
6. What Is Alert Fatigue? | IBM, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/alert-fatigue
7. Fraud Detection Agent vs Traditional Risk Monitoring: What’s More …, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://vlinkinfo.com/blog/fraud-detection-agent-vs-traditional-risk-monitoring
8. A Hybrid Approach to Fraud Detection – Advancing Analytics, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.advancinganalytics.co.uk/blog/2023/4/21/an-hybrid-approach-to-fraud-detection
9. What Is Signature-Based Detection? | Corelight, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://corelight.com/resources/glossary/signature-based-detection
10. Signature-Based Detection: How it works, Use Cases & More | Fidelis Security, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/network-security/signature-based-detection/
11. AI Fraud Detection vs. Traditional Methods: What’s Better?, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.dnbcgroup.com/blog/ai-fraud-detection-vs-traditional-method-what-is-better/
12. (PDF) Limitations of Signature-Based Threat Detection – ResearchGate, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388494583_Limitations_of_Signature-Based_Threat_Detection
13. What Is Signature-Based Detection? – ITU Online IT Training, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.ituonline.com/tech-definitions/what-is-signature-based-detection/
14. AI vs. Traditional Fraud Detection – SEICO Security, Peoria Illinois, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.seicosecurity.com/2025/02/ai-vs-traditional-fraud-detection/
15. Active Defense: Security Operations Evolved > The Cyber Defense …, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/CDR-Content/Articles/Article-View/Article/1135998/active-defense-security-operations-evolved/
16. AI-Powered Fraud Detection: All you need to know – Comidor, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.comidor.com/blog/artificial-intelligence/ai-powered-fraud-detection/
17. Why Fraud Scores Are Failing – DataDome, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://datadome.co/learning-center/fraud-score/
18. AI vs. Traditional Fraud Detection Systems | Which Works Better? – Web Asha Technologies, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.webasha.com/blog/ai-vs-traditional-fraud-detection-systems-which-works-better
19. Overcoming the Limitations of Rule-Based Systems – Secoda, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.secoda.co/blog/overcoming-the-limitations-of-rule-based-systems
20. The Future Of Fraud Detection: Trends And Challenges – Financial Crime Academy, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://financialcrimeacademy.org/the-future-of-fraud-detection/
21. AI and Social Engineering Practice Tips | Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.nge.com/news-insights/publication/ai-and-social-engineering-practice-tips/
22. Social Engineering Attacks Using Generative AI – Nationwide, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/cyber-resource-center/articles/social-engineering-attacks-using-generative-ai
23. Are successful deepfake scams more common than we realize? – IBM, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/are-successful-deepfake-scams-more-common-than-we-realize
24. Deepfake Attacks: How to Keep Your Business Safe (+ Examples) – Hoxhunt, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://hoxhunt.com/blog/deepfake-attacks
25. Deepfakes and AI-Powered Phishing Scams – Kount, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://kount.com/blog/phishing-has-new-face-its-powered-ai
26. The Anatomy of a Deepfake Voice Phishing Attack: How AI-Generated Voices Are Powering the Next Wave of Scams | Group-IB Blog, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.group-ib.com/blog/voice-deepfake-scams/
27. Synthetic identity fraud: How AI is changing the game – Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/six-hundred-atlantic/interviews/synthetic-identity-fraud-how-ai-is-changing-the-game.aspx
28. AI Identity Fraud: Real-Time Detection &… – Signicat, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.signicat.com/blog/ai-identity-fraud-real-time-detection-and-prevention-strategies
29. AI-fueled fake IDs and identity theft: What you need to know – Heimdal Security, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/ai-fake-ids-identity-theft-protection/
30. #6: Anticipatory Intelligence – Defense One, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/insights/cards/anticipating-adversary/7/
31. Proactive cyber defence – Wikipedia, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_cyber_defence
32. 519. Active Defense: Shaping the Threat Environment | Mad …, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/519-active-defense-shaping-the-threat-environment/
33. National Military Strategy (NMS) – Joint Chiefs of Staff, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/NMS%202022%20_%20Signed.pdf
34. This is the Third Edition of the Insights and Best … – Joint Chiefs of Staff, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/fp/intell_ops_fp.pdf
35. RAND’s Scalable Warning and Resilience Model (SWARM …, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA300/RRA382-1/RAND_RRA382-1.pdf
36. Threat Intelligence: Recognizing Indicators and Early Warnings, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.amu.apus.edu/area-of-study/intelligence/resources/threat-intelligence/
37. Analysis of Cyber-Intelligence Frameworks for AI Data Processing – MDPI, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/16/9328
38. What is Threat Intelligence? | Recorded Future, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.recordedfuture.com/threat-intelligence
39. Mitigating Emerging Human Intelligence Challenges with Forecasting – RAND, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/06/mitigating-emerging-human-intelligence-challenges-with.html
40. Understanding Intelligence in Risk and Threat Analysis | Paladin Risk Solutions, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://paladinrisksolutions.com/osint/understanding-intelligence-in-risk-and-threat-analysis/
41. Accuracy of forecasts in strategic intelligence – PMC, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4121776/
42. From Reactive to Proactive: Threat Hunting in the Cybersecurity Battlefield – Zafran, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://www.zafran.io/resources/from-reactive-to-proactive-threat-hunting-in-the-cybersecurity-battlefield
43. DoD Zero Trust Strategy, accessed on August 7, 2025, https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Library/DoD-ZTStrategy.pdf