312-85 Exam Dumps : Certified Threat Intelligence Analyst (CTIA)

By assessing the Threat Intelligence (TI) program through a comparison of project results with the original objectives, and by ensuring that all expected deliverables have been produced to an acceptable quality level, Joe is conducting a gap analysis. Gap analysis involves identifying the difference between the current state and the desired state or objectives, in this case, the outcomes of the TI program versus its intended goals as outlined in the project charter. This process allows for the assessment of what was successful, what fell short, and where improvements can be made, thereby evaluating the program's overall effectiveness and identifying areas for future enhancement.

A model where all threat data is collected, analyzed, and distributed through a single central hub defines a Centralized Exchange Architecture.

In this architecture:

All participants send their data to a central system.

The central hub processes, correlates, and redistributes intelligence.

It ensures uniform analysis, consistency, and efficient management.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Decentralized: Each participant shares data directly with others without a central hub.

B. Federated: Each organization maintains its own data but participates in shared analysis through agreed protocols.

C. Hybrid: Combines elements of centralized and decentralized systems for flexibility.

Conclusion:

The described setup represents a Centralized Exchange Architecture.

Final Answer: D. Centralized exchange architecture

Explanation Reference (Based on CTIA Study Concepts):

CTIA classifies centralized architectures as systems that collect and distribute threat data through a single authoritative node.

In the Threat Hunting Maturity Model (HMM), Level 2: Procedural represents an organization that has developed a structured but partially manual threat-hunting capability.

At this stage, organizations:

Use threat intelligence from open and closed sources to guide hunts.

Search for anomalies or suspicious activity across their network.

Employ open-source tools and basic scripts for analysis.

Depend on analysts following documented procedures rather than automated systems.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

Level 1: Minimal: Organization relies solely on reactive security measures and lacks dedicated hunting capabilities.

Level 3: Innovative: Introduces automation and advanced analytics to support hunts.

Level 4: Leading: Represents full maturity with proactive, automated, intelligence-driven hunting integrated across all defenses.

Conclusion:

The organization described is operating at Level 2: Procedural in the Threat Hunting Maturity Model.

Final Answer: A. Level 2: Procedural

Explanation Reference (Based on CTIA Study Concepts):

According to CTIA’s framework on “Threat Hunting Maturity Levels,” Level 2 involves intelligence-driven, manual hunting using open-source tools and structured procedures.