WEBINAR, June 9: Beyond GeoIP - Stopping Fake Hires | REGISTER TODAY
Why Preemption Is the Most Defensible Security ROI Story You Have

Why Preemption Is the Most Defensible Cybersecurity ROI Story You Have

/in /by

The fiscal conversation remains static across budget cycles. Facing the board or the CFO, you are tasked with justifying security expenditures. Unfortunately, the conventional security narrative is anchored in the past. It catalogs what threats were detected: “We caught this,” “We blocked that,” “Here’s what was stopped after it started.” The result is a post-incident summary, rather than a return on investment. It is more of a “damage assessment.”

There’s a more compelling narrative available, and it starts with one question: what if an attack could be neutralized before it reaches your perimeter?

Preemptive cyber defense operates before the attack reaches your perimeter, and it’s the most defensible ROI story most security leaders haven’t told yet.

Definition
What preemptive cyber defense actually means.
Preemptive
Defense that operates before the attack is launched.
True preemptive defense identifies adversary infrastructure during the staging phase, before a campaign is weaponized, using verified Indicators of Future Attack (IOFA) weeks or months ahead of execution.
Still reactive
Faster detection is not preemption.
Automated triage, faster response, AI-assisted prioritization. These are efficiency gains, not prevention. If your tooling still requires an attacker to reach your perimeter before it acts, you are reacting faster. The threat has already arrived.

The distinction matters for ROI. Incidents blocked before launch never appear in your breach log, never trigger regulatory notifications, and never generate remediation costs.

The “patient zero” dilemma and the defensive gap

In legacy security stacks, the clock doesn’t start until an Indicator of Compromise (IOC) triggers a SIEM alert. By that point, the adversary has already done the work. Infrastructure has been registered, aged, and validated. Malicious campaigns are often staged for months before they surface in your telemetry.

Traditional defensive models depend on a “patient zero” to activate protection: an asset inside your network has to be compromised before defenses kick in. The threat actor has already finalized infrastructure, launched the campaign, and started impacting targets before your team even sees it.

Your analysts are talented and your tools are capable. But they’re watching the wrong part of the timeline.

The attack timeline
Where your defense starts matters.
Silent Push sees it here Legacy tools trigger here
Infrastructure
staging
IOFA issued. Block now.
Campaign
finalized
Attacker ready to launch.
First victim
hit
IOC now exists. SIEM fires.
Public
disclosure
Traditional feeds publish.
The window between staging and disclosure is where risk is actually reduced. Every security model that starts at the third node is reacting to damage already done.

Defining preemption: Shifting the security ROI calculus

Preemptive defense operates at a different stage of the kill chain entirely. Instead of waiting for internal alerts, it continuously maps global infrastructure, monitoring domain registrations, server deployments, DNS resolutions, and certificate rotations to isolate the behavioral patterns adversaries use during campaign staging.

The Silent Push Context Graph does this by analyzing benign and malicious infrastructure in parallel. When emerging patterns match known TTPs, the platform generates Indicators of Future Attack® (IOFA). These are verifiable signals that a staging ground is active before weaponization.

We built this because the industry needed it. Every security team, every threat intelligence function, every IR team is working harder than they should have to because the foundational data is not there. The Context Graph is that foundation.

Ken Bagnall
CEO and Co-Founder, Silent Push

The practical difference: one Fortune 500 customer integrating IOFA into their SIEM workflows achieved an average lead time of 104 days. That’s identifying adversary infrastructure three months before it would have fired a single alert in their legacy tools.

The ROI case for the board

Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) and Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) are standard performance indicators that preemption dramatically optimizes. When threats are neutralized during the staging phase, detection occurs earlier in the lifecycle and response shifts from remediation to proactive blocking.

The most persuasive metric, however, is risk mitigation at the origin. Every campaign neutralized before launch is an incident that never hits the log, bypasses regulatory notifications, and avoids breach costs entirely. That’s an operational, measurable reduction in risk.

What about your existing threat feeds? Standard threat feeds deliver IOCs: forensic artifacts of attacks that have already happened. They confirm what occurred. IOFA and Silent Push early detection feeds identify what’s being prepared upstream, before your current stack ever sees it.

Detection lead times
How far ahead IOFA sees real threats.
104
Days average early detection lead time across all threat types
300+
Days lead time achieved for advanced persistent threat infrastructure
Threat actorIndicator typeThreat typeDetection lead time
FIN7DomainAPT305 days
Lazarus GroupIPAPT142 days
PoisonSeedDomainE-crime132 days
Source: Silent Push Threat Check — silentpush.com/blog/threat-check

Security that compounds

Preemptive cyber defense builds on your existing security tools rather than replacing them, enhancing your security posture over time. Investigations via the Context Graph yield insights from real adversarial behavior. That curated intelligence becomes a compounding asset, refining controls and prioritization with every cycle.

In contrast with traditional security spending, which typically depreciates, preemption enables a continuous improvement loop where visibility accelerates response and intelligence. Security becomes a learning system rather than a series of disconnected events.

For the board, that represents long-term value over simple annual cost justification.

A new category, not a new tool

Analysts and research firms are beginning to define preemptive cyber defense as its own category. The underlying capability of the Silent Push Context Graph and proprietary IOFA is not something that can be replicated by standard reputation scores or commodity threat feeds. IOFA is rooted in the operational TTPs adversaries consistently use across subnets and hosting providers, making the signal, and the ROI story built on it, genuinely credible.

Leaders adopting preemptive defense today are doing more than solving a technical problem. They are evolving the board conversation from explaining what transpired to demonstrating what was successfully prevented.

That’s a story worth telling in every budget cycle.

Dive deeper with the free Shifting Left White Paper

Learn how security teams are operationalizing preemptive defense, using the Context Graph and IOFA to neutralize threats before they reach your perimeter.

Download now

How does Silent Push help consolidate tools?

The Context Graph serves as a unified intelligence source. Instead of managing fragmented feeds and noisy probabilistic signals, it pre-correlates data across DNS, WHOIS, and hosting telemetry into deterministic attribution. This delivers clean, verified context to SIEM and SOAR platforms, reducing analyst overhead and tool sprawl. 

What board-level metrics can I report? 

Focus on reductions in MTTD/MTTR and the volume of threats neutralized at the pre-execution stage. The 104-day early-detection lead time is a concrete benchmark for demonstrating preemptive advantage. Silent Push allows you to report on infrastructure neutralized upstream—visibility that most stacks simply cannot provide.

How does it integrate with my stack?

Silent Push integrates seamlessly via machine-readable APIs, including the Threat Check API. It feeds directly into SIEM and SOAR platforms to automate triage and enrichment. This allows agentic workflows to consume IOFA for alert validation and noise suppression, enhancing existing tools with a critical preemptive layer.

Community Bootcamp: Welcome to Silent Push Community

/in , /by

Kick off your preemptive defense journey with the Silent Push Community Bootcamp.

Learn to navigate the dashboard and understand the structure of the Silent Push platform. Our experts will show you how to get a deeper understanding of what the Community tier provides and how to get the most out of your first week of access.

Watch it now.

How SOC teams can stop reacting to every alert and get ahead of threats

How SOC Teams Can Stop Reacting to Every Alert and Get Ahead of Threats

/in /by
Nick Roy
Nick Roy
Senior Solutions Engineer, Silent Push

One of the things we talk a lot about at Silent Push is the detection gap. The time between when an adversary gains access to an environment, and when our security tools would traditionally alert us to that. It is a problem I spend a lot of time discussing with customers, and the question is always the same: how do we actually start to build a more preemptive cyber program?

Traditionally, we tried to do this with threat intelligence and indicators of compromise. But the challenge was always that those are objects of the past. Things that already happened, that I can use to go hunting and see if I observed similar activity. That model has a ceiling. This post covers what we have built at Silent Push to push through it.

Why IOCs only get you so far

I want to be straightforward about this: threat intelligence and IOCs are not useless. They have real value for hunting historical activity and understanding adversary behavior. The problem is the timing. By the time an IOC reaches your tools, someone somewhere has already been compromised. That is baked into what an indicator of compromise actually is.

For phishing in particular, this matters a lot. Adversaries spin up new infrastructure fast, run a campaign, and move on before the IOCs from that campaign are widely shared. By the time those indicators reach your email gateway or firewall, the sites have often already done their damage and been abandoned.

The Core Limitation

IOCs are objects of the past. Things that already happened. They confirm what happened. They cannot tell you what is being built right now, and they cannot get ahead of a campaign that has not launched yet.

What we built instead: Indicators of Future Attack®

What we have built at Silent Push is what we call Indicators of Future Attack®. Almost a reverse engineering of an IOC. Instead of starting from a known-bad domain and working backwards, we want to understand the patterns that come along with the creation and management of adversary infrastructure, so we can identify it while it is still being stood up.

We do that by collecting data across DNS and our web scan content continuously. As we collect that, we can start to identify active infrastructure as it is being spun up and as it moves across different providers on the internet. The output is an IOFA feed: a continuously updated list of sites and infrastructure we have found that match adversary staging patterns, before any campaign has launched from them.

Indicator of Compromise (IOC)

When After the breach
Tells you That an attack occurred
Based on Historical artifacts from past activity
Outcome Incident response

Indicator of Future Attack (IOFA®)

When During setup and staging
Tells you That an attack is being prepared
Based on Adversary infrastructure management patterns
Outcome Block before the campaign launches

A real example: Fake financial institution

Here is a concrete example. We have an IOFA feed built around a fake financial institution, a phishing site impersonating a real brand. One of the things I want to highlight here is that we are also seeing more of these new AI-generated sites, the kind that are convincing enough to end up in your users’ inboxes and look legitimate at a glance.

The site in this example is brand new as of today. Registered this morning. But it is already in our IOFA feed, which has been continuously discovering new sites like this over the last month, tracking them as they are created and adding them automatically.

We don’t want to have to respond to every phishing email. This is really what the indicators of future attack are going to allow us to do.

That is the shift. Instead of triaging phishing alerts one by one after they land in someone’s inbox, we are tracking the sites as they are created. The infrastructure is known before the campaign runs. That means we can act before the first email is sent.

Where you can put these feeds to work

IOFAs are things we can ingest directly into the security tools you are already using. Depending on what you want to get ahead of, that could mean proxies and firewalls to block staged infrastructure before a user ever requests it, email gateways to cut down on the phishing alerts your team has to triage, SOAR platforms to automate the block when a domain shows up in an IOFA feed, or your SIEM to enrich alerts with context on whether the infrastructure is already part of a known campaign.

Proxies and Firewalls
Block staged phishing infrastructure at the network level before a user or system ever requests it.
Email Gateways
Cut down on the phishing alerts your team has to triage, and reduce what ends up in your users’ inboxes in the first place.
SOAR Platforms
Automate the block when a domain shows up in an IOFA feed. No analyst review needed for something already verified as malicious staging infrastructure.
SIEM
Enrich alerts with IOFA context so your analysts immediately know if the infrastructure in an alert is already part of a known campaign.

Traffic Origin: That IP Address is not the full story!

The second thing I want to cover is Traffic Origin, because it solves a different problem from IOFAs but fits into the same goal of building a more preemptive program.

When I look up an IP address in a traditional workflow, I get a location and a reputation score. That is useful, but it only tells me where the IP is registered. It does not tell me where the person using it is actually located. Adversaries know this. They route traffic through residential proxy networks specifically so their sessions look like they are coming from a domestic IP address.

The Proxy Problem

An IP address located in the United States tells you where the traffic appears to be coming from. Traffic Origin tells you where it is actually coming from. Those two things are often not the same.

With Traffic Origin, we now have more detail on where someone is physically located when they use a given IP address. In this example, I have an IP that shows up as United States. But Traffic Origin also tells me it is part of a residential proxy network, and that the upstream origin of that traffic is somewhere else entirely.

How that changes what you do with the data

That context matters a lot depending on what workflow you are looking at. A few ways we see teams use it:

  • For authentication workflows: if I see a login from a US IP but Traffic Origin tells me the upstream origin is a high-risk country, maybe I want to handle that differently. Require a second factor, hold the session, or block it depending on my policy.
  • For applications and onboarding: an application comes in from what looks like a domestic address. Traffic Origin flags the upstream origin as somewhere unexpected. Maybe I want a second set of eyes on that before it moves forward.
  • For KYC and compliance: for financial teams, a transaction from a US IP that is actually originating from a sanctioned country is a compliance issue, not just a security concern. Traffic Origin gives you something firm to make that call on.
  • For insider risk: remote employees routing through proxies, or fraudulent hires running laptop farms, produce traffic that looks local. Traffic Origin identifies the upstream origin regardless of what the observed IP shows.

Bringing it into your SOAR

The last piece I want to walk through is how you actually operationalize this data inside your security stack. Let me take the phishing domain from earlier. If that domain triggered an alert or showed up in a phishing email I had to investigate, I can look it up directly in Silent Push from inside my SOAR platform.

I can see it is part of our IOFA feed. I can get additional details on the campaign. And then I can say: if it is part of a phishing campaign, I want to automatically push out a block for this. I do not want my users clicking that link. That playbook fires without anyone having to manually review and approve the block each time.

The same thing works on the identity side with Traffic Origin. I can correlate my Zoom logs with this data and easily identify users that are connecting through a specific proxy service, like AstralVPN. Instead of reviewing individual logins one at a time, I get a scoped list of sessions where the observed location does not match the upstream origin. That is something I can actually act on.

The whole platform is API-first and built on top of APIs that are all available to customers. There is nothing we can do in the platform that you cannot automate in your own environment. Native integrations, Splunk apps, and pre-built playbooks are available for common stacks. If you are building something custom, the full API gives you direct access to IOFA feeds, Traffic Origin, DNS enrichment, and infrastructure context without going through an intermediary layer.

What a preemptive program actually looks like

Everything I have covered here comes back to the same idea. We want to use the data and tools we have to start building up a risk-based program that gets us ahead of adversary infrastructure, rather than just responding to it after it lands.

IOFAs let you track phishing sites as they are being created and ingest them into the tools that can block them before a campaign launches. Traffic Origin gives you context on where users are actually connecting from, not just where their IP is registered. SOAR integration lets you automate the response to both, so your analysts are spending time on the things that actually need human judgment.

You do not need to replace what you already have. This is data you pull into the stack you are already running and use it to get upstream of the problem.

Want to put this into practice?

We put together a blueprint specifically for SOC teams. It covers how IOFAs surface attacker infrastructure before staging completes, a 30-60-90 day checklist to get there without replacing your stack, and real attack case studies where IOFAs caught live campaigns before they hit blocklists.

Download now
Preemptive Cyber Defense Blueprint for SOC Teams — Silent Push

What is the detection gap?

The detection gap is the time between when an adversary gains access to an environment and when your security tools would traditionally alert you to it. Most tools only surface a threat after it has made contact with your environment. That means by the time you know about it, you are already behind. Building a preemptive program is about closing that gap before the alert fires, not after.

How are IOFAs different from IOCs?

IOCs are objects of the past. They are things that already happened that you can use to go hunting and see if you observed similar activity. IOFAs are almost the reverse of that. Instead of starting from a known-bad indicator, we identify the patterns that come with the creation and management of adversary infrastructure, so we can surface it while it is still being staged. IOFAs give you something to act on before the campaign launches, not after the first user clicks.

What does Traffic Origin actually tell me?

Traffic Origin tells you where someone is physically located when they use a given IP address. Standard GeoIP only shows you where the IP is registered, which is the last visible hop. If someone is routing through a residential proxy, their traffic looks like it is coming from wherever that proxy is located. Traffic Origin looks past that and gives you details on the actual upstream origin of the connection. That is the context you need to make a real risk decision on a login, an application, or a transaction.

Can I integrate this with my SOAR?

Yes. The whole platform is API-first and built on top of APIs that are all available to customers. There is nothing we can do in the platform that you cannot automate in your own environment. We have native integrations, Splunk apps, and pre-built playbooks for common stacks. If you are building something custom, the full API gives you direct access to IOFA feeds, Traffic Origin data, and DNS enrichment without going through an intermediary layer.

How does Silent Push find phishing sites before they send any emails?

We are continuously collecting data across DNS and our web scan content. As we collect that, we can identify active infrastructure as it is being spun up and as it moves across different providers. We are looking for the patterns that come with adversary staging activity, not just known-bad domains. That means we can add a site to an IOFA feed on the day it is registered, before it has ever been used to send a phishing email or harvest credentials.

What about AI-generated phishing pages?

We are seeing more of those. The pages themselves are more convincing now, but they still need real infrastructure behind them. They still get registered, hosted, and managed, and that process leaves the same kind of patterns we are tracking. We are not evaluating the visual quality of the page. We are looking at how the infrastructure was created and how it is being managed. That holds regardless of how the page itself was generated.

How long does it take your SOC to cluster adversary infrastructre

How Long Does It Take Your SOC to Cluster Adversary Infrastructure? Here's What It's Costing You

/in /by

Ask any SOC analyst how long it takes to cluster adversary infrastructure during an active incident. The honest answer isn’t reassuring. Manual pivoting across SIEM data, threat feeds, passive DNS lookups, WHOIS records, and certificate transparency logs can consume an entire shift, sometimes more. And that’s before IR is brought in to validate scope.

Most security teams are not under-skilled. They are instead under-informed and always at the wrong moment.

Traditional security operations are built on tools designed to detect and respond after a threat has acted. SIEM platforms ingest logs and surface alerts. EDR catches execution on endpoints. Threat intelligence feeds deliver known-bad IOCs: IP addresses, domains, and file hashes already confirmed as malicious. Each of these tools does exactly what it was designed to do. But none of them tell you what an adversary is building right now, before it gets weaponized against you.

That gap is where most breaches begin.

The reactive cycle, defined

The Reactive Cycle
Manual pivoting today
70min

Average time to fully investigate a single alert manually, across SIEM, passive DNS, WHOIS, and cert logs. SANS, 2025

With Context Graph
1query

Full campaign context, linked IPs, domains, certificates, and ASN patterns, resolved before the analyst opens a second tab.

Here’s what a typical SIEM-driven workflow looks like when a new indicator hits the queue.

A SOC analyst receives an alert tied to a suspicious IP. They pivot to a threat intel feed to check reputation. No match. They query passive DNS to find associated domains. Next, they check certificate transparency for related infrastructure. Then they cross-reference WHOIS registration patterns. 45 minutes later, they have a partial picture of a campaign that may have been staging for months.

66% of SOC teams say they cannot keep pace with the volume of alerts they receive.

SANS 2024 SOC Survey
Facing Top Challenges in Security Operations

That is not an attention problem. It is a data quality problem. When every alert requires manual reconstruction of context that should already exist, volume becomes unmanageable regardless of headcount.

Why IOC-based investigation leaves you behind

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), known-bad IPs, hashes, and domains, represent confirmed evidence of past activity. They document infrastructure that has already been weaponized and, in most cases, already used. By the time an IOC enters a threat feed, the adversary has moved.

Investigating from IOCs means reconstructing history. It tells you what happened. It does not tell you what is being prepared.

Advanced threat actors, including groups like FIN7, Lazarus, and Sapphire Sleet, build campaign infrastructure weeks or months in advance. They register domains, configure hosting, obtain SSL certificates, and establish management patterns long before they point anything at a target. That staging phase leaves a fingerprint. Tools built around post-compromise detection are not designed to read it.

SCANNING
IOCs document
what already happened.

By the time an Indicator of Compromise enters a threat feed, the adversary has moved. IOCs, known-bad IPs, hashes, and domains, represent confirmed evidence of past activity. They tell you what happened. Not what is being prepared.

Advanced threat actors build campaign infrastructure weeks or months in advance. That staging phase leaves a behavioral fingerprint. Tools built around post-compromise detection are not designed to read it.

Pre-correlation changes the starting point

Preemptive cyber defense does not replace your SIEM or your EDR. It changes where your investigation begins.

The Silent Push Context Graph continuously maps the global internet dataset, analyzing relationships across active DNS records, WHOIS registration history, SSL certificate data, ASN patterns, and web content at scale. It is not a feed. It is an automated correlation engine running continuously against the entire IPv4/IPv6 address space, including .onion infrastructure.

01
Collect
Active, not passive
02
Build Context
Relationships, not raw data
03
IOFA®
Specific, verified, actionable
01 Collect Active, not passive
02 Build Context Relationships, not raw data
03 IOFA® Specific, verified, actionable
WHOIS DATA PADNS ACTIVE DNS SSL CERTS TRAFFIC SENSORS HONEY POTS ASN INFO ZONE FILES CONTENT HASHES IOFA® READY PATTERN EXTRACTION MODEL BUILDING GLOBAL SEARCH

When the Context Graph detects management patterns consistent with how adversaries build and operate campaigns, it generates Indicators of Future Attack® (IOFA). These are not probabilistic scores. They are verified signals tied to existing infrastructure that match the behavioral fingerprints of known threat actors.

For SOC analysts, this shifts triage from “Is this IP malicious?” to “Which campaign does this IP belong to, and how much of the infrastructure do we already have?”.

Built for human and agentic workflows

Security teams are no longer just running human analysts through these workflows. Agentic and AI-assisted triage inside SIEM and SOAR platforms is increasingly how SOC teams handle alert volume at scale, and the quality of those automated workflows depends entirely on the quality of the data feeding them.

Probabilistic risk scores and noisy threat feeds make for unreliable automation. When an agentic workflow is reasoning from a score rather than a verified signal, it generates false positives, takes actions teams cannot trust, and ultimately gets turned off or overridden. The Context Graph was designed to be machine-consumable from the ground up. Data provenance is clear. APIs are built specifically for automated enrichment and triage. IOFA are deterministic: verified infrastructure signals, not confidence intervals.

For SOC teams running automated triage, that means alerts get validated and enriched before they ever reach an analyst. For IR teams using agentic workflows to scope incidents, a single indicator expands into a full infrastructure map without manual pivoting. The automation moves faster, but more importantly, it gets it right.

What this looks like across your security team

SOC Analysts
Alert triage, fundamentally changed.

Alert triage changes fundamentally. IOFA feeds directly into your SIEM and SOAR, so every observable arrives pre-enriched with campaign context. An IP that would previously require four tool pivots to investigate resolves in a single query. Analysts spend time on decisions, not data gathering.

IR Teams
Full blast radius, established immediately.

Scoping an incident is faster when the infrastructure picture already exists. The Context Graph links domains, IPs, certificates, and hosting patterns to the same adversary fingerprint, so IR teams can establish the full blast radius of a campaign without manually reconstructing it from artifacts. Incidents stop being reopened because the scope is established the first time correctly.

CTI Analysts
Behavioral profiling, not reactive lookup.

SPQL enables behavioral profiling rather than reactive IOC lookup. Instead of querying for known-bad indicators, analysts define the behavioral parameters of an adversary’s infrastructure and surface matching staging activity before it is weaponized. The output feeds back into SOC workflows as IOFA, closing the loop between intelligence production and operational response.

The lead time advantage

In a documented deployment at a Fortune 500 media and entertainment company, Silent Push delivered an average detection lead time of 104 days, with a median of 117 days. In some cases, the lead time exceeded 200 days. Threats from FIN7, Lazarus, and Sapphire Sleet appeared in the Silent Push dataset months before those same indicators surfaced in the customer’s SIEM.

That lead time changes what each team can do with the information. SOC analysts triage verified infrastructure rather than chasing low-confidence alerts. IR teams scope incidents against a complete campaign picture rather than a single artifact. CTI analysts profile adversary behavior in real time rather than reconstructing it post-breach. And agentic workflows, fed deterministic signals rather than probability scores, take actions that teams can stand behind.

Fortune 500 Case Study
104

Days avg

Average detection lead time before the same indicators appeared in the customer’s SIEM.

117

Days median

Median lead time across confirmed threat actor campaigns detected in the deployment.

200+

Days max

Longest lead time recorded, nearly seven months ahead of public reporting.

Threats from   FIN7  ·   Lazarus  ·   Sapphire Sleet   appeared in Silent Push months before surfacing in the customer’s SIEM or any public feed.

Move the starting line

SIEM, SOAR, and EDR remain foundational. The question is what you feed them. Pre-correlated, behaviorally fingerprinted infrastructure data changes the starting point for every triage decision, every scoping call, every intelligence requirement, and every automated action downstream.

Your team does not need to work faster. They need earlier data to work from.

Get started

Talk to one of our platform specialists to see how Silent Push enables global security teams to neutralize adversarial infrastructure before it reaches their perimeter.

Book a Demo Today

We also offer a free Community Edition, giving security practitioners and threat researchers introductory access to the Silent Push platform and datasets.

  • What is SPQL?

Silent Push Query Language (SPQL) is a specialized query language built for analyzing Silent Push’s proprietary dataset of global IPv4/IPv6 web scans, DNS records, and .onion site data. It gives CTI analysts the ability to profile adversary infrastructure, surface staging activity, and automate proactive detection using natural, free-form queries without needing advanced database knowledge.

  • How does behavioral fingerprinting work?

Silent Push behavioral fingerprinting maps over 200 parameters to build a unique profile of how an adversary constructs and manages infrastructure. Parameters include DNS record patterns, certificate authority data, WHOIS registration behavior, HTML structure signatures, and infrastructure variance metrics such as IP/ASN diversity and name server change frequency. These profiles identify staging infrastructure before it is used in a campaign.

  • Can IOFA feeds integrate with our existing SIEM and SOAR?

Yes. IOFA feeds are designed to integrate directly with SIEM, SOAR, and Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIPs). They can be exported from Silent Push into your existing security stack, enriching automated workflows with verified, pre-correlated intelligence rather than raw IOC lists.

  • How is this different from a threat intelligence feed?

Traditional threat intel feeds deliver known-bad indicators: confirmed malicious infrastructure that has already been used. IOFA surfaces infrastructure during the staging phase, before it is weaponized. The difference is timing. IOCs document past activity. IOFA identify future attack infrastructure while there is still time to block it.

  • Does the Context Graph support agentic security workflows?

Yes. The Context Graph is designed to be machine-consumable, with clear data provenance and APIs built for automated enrichment and triage. Because IOFA are deterministic signals rather than probability scores, they give agentic workflows inside SIEM and SOAR platforms a reliable foundation for automated action, reducing false positives and increasing the confidence of every downstream decision.

Silent Push expands AU/NZ presence through strategic partnership with Unfold

/in , /by
Brad Taylor
Brad Taylor
Global Head of Strategic Partnerships and Alliances, Silent Push

We’re excited to announce a strategic partnership with Unfold, a purpose-built distributor for SaaS vendors, to accelerate our growth across Australia and New Zealand (AU/NZ).

Silent Push is already active in the region, providing preemptive visibility to several high-profile organizations. Our footprint includes foundational wins within Enterprise and Defense, where teams utilize our platform to map adversarial infrastructure and prevent intrusions from advanced persistent threats (APTs). Additionally, we have a strong following of community members spanning enterprise and government organizations who use our Community Edition to track emerging threats in real-time.

This partnership with Unfold marks the next phase of our channel-first strategy. By aligning our preemptive data capabilities with Unfold’s specialized distribution model, we are building an ecosystem that allows local partners and security teams to move from reactive alerting to proactive disruption. This collaboration paves the way for big things yet to come.

A preemptive approach to infrastructure

For years, security teams have built their defenses around what they can already see: alerts, malware, and activity that has already crossed into their environment. While these approaches are necessary, they are inherently reactive. By the time most tools surface a threat, the adversary has already established infrastructure or launched a campaign.

Silent Push addresses this gap by providing a Preemptive Cyber Defense platform that gives real-time visibility into previously unknown adversary infrastructure. Instead of waiting for an alert to trigger, the platform continuously tracks the staging grounds attackers rely on to launch operations. By using our Context Graph to identify malicious management patterns, Silent Push generates Indicators of Future Attack™ (IOFA™) weeks or months before weaponization occurs.

Unmasking regional and insider threats

For the AU/NZ market, specific challenges like state-sponsored obfuscation and the “Invisible Insider” require specialized intelligence. Silent Push Traffic Origin unmasks deceptive network paths, revealing the true physical location of threat actors even when they hide behind residential proxies or VPNs.

Through Unfold, organizations in the region now have streamlined access to our core modules:

  • Insight: Rapidly assess unknown domains and IPs to accelerate triage and investigation.
  • Reconnaissance: Uncover attacker-controlled infrastructure during setup and staging phases, before campaigns are weaponized.
  • Defend: Operationalize IOFA™ data to prioritize alerts and enable early action against pre-weaponized infrastructure.

A shared focus on clarity

Unfold was built to eliminate the friction typically found in SaaS distribution by focusing on transparency and measurable outcomes. Their approach aligns with our mission to replace reactive security with preemptive defense grounded in technical truth.

Silent Push is already delivering unique technical truth to the Australian market, evidenced by their early success within Enterprise and Defense sectors. Our goal is to scale this momentum. By removing the guesswork from infrastructure analysis, we are helping our partners provide their customers with a definitive preemptive advantage.

James Cunial
Co-Founder, Unfold

“Partnering with Unfold is the logical next step for our growth in Australia and New Zealand,” said Ken Bagnall, Co-Founder and CEO of Silent Push. “We are already seeing great results with our enterprise and community users. This partnership allows us to scale that impact, ensuring more organizations can see adversary activity while it is being built and operated, not just after it hits a sensor”.

For more information on how Silent Push and Unfold can protect your organization, visit unfold.technology or book a walkthrough with our team.

Preemptive Cyber Defense Blueprint for SOC Teams

/in , /by

77% of attack domains are brand new at launch. Legacy blocklists have a 0% detection rate in the first 24 hours. We created the Preemptive Cyber Defense Blueprint for SOC Teams so you don’t have to figure it out alone.

Download the report:

Many SOC workflows are built for containment. Your SIEM is doing its job. The problem is the data feeding it is reactive by design. Use this blueprint to give your team a practical framework to layer preemptive data on top of what you already have, with a clear starting point you can act on this quarter.

This blueprint is for teams who want to move the trigger earlier, without overhauling their entire security stack.

What’s inside

  • A 30-60-90 day checklist to move from reactive to preemptive without replacing your stack
  • How Indicators of Future Attack® (IOFA) surface attacker infrastructure before staging completes
  • The Security Loop: how every incident feeds better detections, compounding over time

White Paper: Shifting Left - Enabling Preemptive and Deterministic Cyber Defense

/in , /by
Shifting Left

In 2026, the security industry is still built around what happened yesterday.

Preemptive defense requires moving earlier in the attack lifecycle, identifying verified adversary infrastructure during staging, before the attack begins. In this white paper, you’ll explore:

  • Why reactive security creates a structural disadvantage, and what the fix looks like
  • How the Context Graph maps attacker infrastructure as it’s being built
  • What Indicators of Future Attack® (IOFA) are and why they replace guesswork with verified facts your team can act on immediately
  • Real outcomes: triage cut from 72 hours to 20 minutes, and an average 104-day early detection lead time on adversary infrastructure in staging

Download the report:

What Does 104 Days of Lead Time Actually Mean for Your SOC?

/in /by

Sophisticated threat actors seem to always be one step ahead of detection, as defense teams using traditional cybersecurity tools struggle to keep pace. 

For decades, legacy security platforms have remained largely confined to the internal enterprise perimeter, focusing on post-compromise activity and historical artifacts of previous attacks. 

Leading Preemptive Cyber Defense technology is evolving traditional defense methods by providing the foundational truth that feeds AI-driven security workflows. This offers Security Operations Center (SOC) teams significantly longer lead times than legacy solutions to mitigate adversary infrastructure. 

“Patient Zero” 

These reactive models are tied to a “patient zero” dependency. Originally defined as the “first identified” or the “primary case,” used in epidemiological medical tracking in the 1980s, in cybersecurity the term refers to a crucial step in identifying how malware entered a network. 

When discussing traditional cybersecurity platforms, “patient zero” refers to the initial victim required to generate the blocklists or signatures needed for defense, since measures are typically initiated only after a compromised victim within the perimeter is found. 

By the time legacy systems identify an adversary, the threat actor has already finalized its infrastructure, launched its campaign, and begun impacting targets. 

To break this traditional, reactive cycle, organizations must move away from reactive models and manual correlation toward a more proactive, deterministic approach. This is accomplished with preemptive cyber defense.

Graphic of legacy defense versus preemptive defense.

Evolving Legacy Defense with AI

Preemptive cyber defense isn’t designed to replace legacy solutions, it evolves them.

Preemptive cyber defense is designed to thwart threats before they can manifest as active attacks. Unlike traditional, reactive security, Silent Push developed a Context Graph of the internet, and a key use is for adversary infrastructure. In preemptive cyber defense, the Context Graph produces Indicators of Future Attack® (IOFA®) to map the global infrastructure that adversaries build during their staging phase, the earliest part of developing a malicious campaign. 

Screenshot of the Silent Push Context Graph
The Silent Push Context Graph

Our preemptive cyber defense platform is organized into three core modules: Insight, Reconnaissance, and Defend. Together, they facilitate rapid triage, proactive threat detection, and automated blocking across various industries. Each module is designed to move security teams, including SOC, Incident Response (IR), and Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) analysts, from probabilistic risk scores to verifiable, deterministic facts. 

By empowering tactical users with ground-truth data, the platform enables CISOs and executive leadership to achieve measurable risk reduction and strategic control, justifying security investments and maintaining organizational resilience.

Empowering SOC Teams

Providing game-changing lead times for SOC teams to gain significant, strategic advantages against adversaries, preemptive cyber defense empowers SOC managers with new leverage. Early detection lead times are often more than 100 days ahead of adversarial infrastructure being weaponized.

Working with a Fortune 500 media and entertainment company, we developed a case study, “Detect Adversaries 3 Months in Advance Using Silent Push Threat Check,” to demonstrate how organizations using our preemptive model can achieve an average early-detection lead time of 104 days. 

Screenshot of average early detection lead time by threat actor, in days before SOC alerting systems.

By embedding Silent Push Threat Check technology into its Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) workflows, our client transformed the way it handled security alerts.

The company’s SOC team gained weeks of earlier visibility into attacker infrastructure, streamlined investigations, and achieved measurable outcomes from its investment in our preemptive cyber defense solution.

Benefits to SOC Teams

Greater lead times enable SOC teams to improve triage times with IOFA:  

  • Block infrastructure before an attack.
  • Defining the scope of incidents.
  • Utilizing the Context Graph to enable their own IOFA creation.
  • Combat alert fatigue by significantly reducing false positive rates. 

Continually Improving Security Posture

Preemptive cyber defense shifts organizations from a reactive to a proactive stance, enabling them to detect and disrupt threats earlier. By combining IOFA with internal telemetry and leveraging investigative findings back into detection and prevention workflows, organizations can create a continuous improvement loop. The result is earlier visibility, faster response times, and a continually improving security posture. 

Adopting preemptive cyber defense empowers organizations to do more than simply accelerate investigation and response; it enables their security teams to generate their own preemptive intelligence. Each investigation performed provides insights derived from real activity observed within its environment. 

When curated and operationalized, this provides an intelligence source that compounds over time–strengthening controls, refining detections, and improving prioritization. Security becomes a feedback loop of correlation and learning rather than a series of isolated incidents.

For CISOs, this translates into measurable reductions in mean time to detect (MTTD) and mean time to respond (MTTR), with fewer incidents overall, along with greater return on existing security investments. For SOC leaders and analysts, it means less noise, clearer context, and faster action. A preemptive architecture is not designed to replace the security stack. Instead it activates it, turning today’s tools into a coordinated system that sees earlier, acts decisively, and improves continuously.

Get Started

Interested in exploring the strategic advantages of the Silent Push preemptive cyber defense platform? Connect with one of our platform specialists to discover how Silent Push empowers your SOC team to neutralize adversarial infrastructure before it reaches your enterprise perimeter.

Book a Demo Today

We also offer a free Community Edition that provides security practitioners and threat researchers with introductory access to the Silent Push Context Graph and specialized datasets.

FAQs 

  • What is an IOFA?

Silent Push Indicators of Future Attack (IOFA) enable security teams to immediately block adversary infrastructure, which allows organizations to respond quickly and disrupt attacker actions before impact.  

  • How does the Context Graph differ from a threat feed?

Our Context Graph essentially represents a fundamental evolution beyond the standard threat feed by delivering a comprehensive map of the internet that reveals deeply connected, behavioral, and historical relationships between global entities.

While traditional feeds are limited to providing a static list of known malicious indicators—identifying “what” is bad (such as Indicators of Compromise (IoCs))—the Context Graph provides the ground-truth data to explain “why” a particular infrastructure poses a risk. By mapping staging activity and temporal data, it shifts SOC teams from reactive alerting toward predictive, preemptive cyber defense.

  • Does the Silent Push Context Graph integrate with my SIEM? 

The Silent Push Context Graph facilitates seamless integration across your security stack—including SIEM, SOAR, and TIP platforms—through robust APIs, TAXII feeds, and native integrations such as Splunk. By ingesting IOFA and rich contextual data directly into existing workflows, organizations can automate enrichment, validate alerts with deterministic facts, and significantly minimize manual investigation timelines.  

Silent Push Inc. ©2025