Blogs

Blog

The Flashpoint Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East

Flashpoint’s weekly analysis tracks shifting kinetic and cyber threat radiuses, geopolitical disruptions, and provides critical operational forecasts for the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Following Operation Epic Fury, regional kinetic operations have transitioned into direct, persistent threats against commercial shipping, energy infrastructure, and critical supply chains.

The Flashpoint Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East cuts through headline noise to deliver tactical, ground-level intelligence for government agencies, corporate security leads, and global logistics teams—turning Flashpoint’s primary source intelligence into proactive risk mitigation.

Here is what your security operations team needs to track this week.

Operational SITREP: Executive Summary

Between September 25 and October 1, 2026, the Middle East conflict continued to expand geographically beyond the Gulf theater while diplomatic efforts stalled. Iranian intelligence activity reached European soil with the disruption of an alleged plot against a UK air base hosting US B-1 bombers, while US military forces completed their full withdrawal from Iraq.

In the Strait of Hormuz, IRGC-affiliated media claimed a massive anti-shipping campaign targeting 19 vessels over two days, though US officials disputed that any ships were struck during that window. On the diplomatic front, President Trump rejected Tehran’s seven-day proposal to reopen the strait in exchange for lifting the US naval blockade, signaling that renewed large-scale bombing of Iran after the November midterm elections remains possible.

In the digital domain, hacktivist collectives stepped up campaign activity under #OpIsrael and #OpUSA, and they have claimed to have compromised dozens of internet-exposed US CCTV systems and signaled imminent targeting of industrial control (SCADA) systems.

Kinetic and Maritime Risk

The physical conflict’s operational footprint has expanded into European staging locations. British police arrested five individuals near RAF Fairford over an alleged Iranian intelligence-backed plot to attack US B-1 bombers using vehicles laden with explosives. UK officials later said evidence indicated the possible linking of Iranian state actors to the attempt. In the Gulf, officials disclosed that eight US Marines sustained injuries—including possible traumatic brain injuries and smoke inhalation—during the September 14 Iranian strike on a US-contracted vessel.

In maritime chokepoints, conflict dynamics remain highly volatile. While IRGC-affiliated sources claimed 19 ships were targeted by anti-ship ballistic missiles and drones near Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas, US officials disputed these numbers. Meanwhile, along the Red Sea, Ansarallah forces asserted control over key islands and the port of Mokha, prompting French naval escorts to shepherd commercial vessels through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in recent weeks. Concurrently, US diplomatic pressure left roughly 20 empty Iranian oil tankers stranded off Sri Lanka running short of fuel or resupply.

Cyber and Hybrid Risk

Adversary operations across the cyber domain have shifted toward open-source reconnaissance, surveillance, and industrial control system (ICS) targeting.

Within the last week, a threat actor group published coordinates for an Israeli Air Force squadron and Field Intelligence site, alongside conducting Layer 7 DDoS attacks against US and Israeli targets. In parallel, Iranian state-aligned news outlets claimed cyberattacks had disrupted US-bound oil tankers and domestic refineries, while UAE authorities warned that attacks on port infrastructure were paired with cyber intrusions into connected industrial control systems.

Recommended Risk Posture and Protective Controls

To mitigate exposure across physical, maritime, and digital vectors, security operations leads should implement the following directive controls:

1. Tighten Perimeter Screening at European Installations: Facilities hosting US personnel or military assets across Europe should immediately review vehicle-screening protocols and reporting channels following the RAF Fairford plot.
2. Remove Exposed CCTV Portals & Segment SCADA/OT Networks: Industrial, energy, and logistics operators must take camera management interfaces off the public internet and enforce strict air-gapping/segmentation between IT networks and operational technology (OT/SCADA) environments.
3. Hardening Web Infrastructure Against Layer 7 DDoS: Organizations managing US or Israeli-facing web properties should activate origin-IP protections, Web Application Firewalls (WAFs), and aggressive rate-limiting against TLS-renegotiation and Layer 7 flooding tactics.
4. Reassess Non-Military Personnel Security in Iraq: Following the complete exit of US forces, commercial, diplomatic, and contractor entities in Iraq must update security postures to reflect the absence of co-located military quick-reaction forces.
5. Mitigate Doxxed Facility Exposure: Facilities linked to regional defense or security operations should review physical access controls and perimeter security, assuming published coordinate data is actively circulating among threat actors.

Strategic Outlook: Operational Forecast

The trajectory over the next 48 to 72 hours points to continued friction as diplomatic negotiations remain stalled. With Washington rejecting Iran’s seven-day proposal and signaling potential post-midterm strike campaigns, Iranian forces are likely to maintain high-profile messaging and anti-shipping operations in the Strait of Hormuz to demonstrate blockade-breaking capabilities.

In Europe, further disclosures regarding Iranian intelligence activity against Western staging bases remain probable. In the cyber domain, security teams should prepare for opportunistic probing against exposed SCADA and ICS interfaces, alongside continued low-impact hacktivist DDoS campaigns under #OpIsrael and #OpUSA.

Enhance Threat Intelligence Using Flashpoint

As hybrid threats unfold across the Middle East, passive monitoring is no longer enough to protect assets, personnel, and maritime operations. Rapidly shifting threat radiuses require security operations centers to operate on real-time, primary-source intelligence rather than delayed headline news.

Request a demo to see how Flashpoint equips government agencies, corporate security leads, and global logistics teams with real-time geolocated threat data, primary-source monitoring, and early-warning intelligence. By turning complex regional dynamics into clear, actionable risk indicators, Flashpoint empowers your team to harden defensive postures and mitigate hybrid threats before impact.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Flashpoint Physical Threat Intelligence Brief?

The Flashpoint Physical Threat Intelligence Brief: Middle East is a recurring threat intelligence update that translates raw primary-source open-source intelligence (OSINT) and geospatial data into actionable physical security analysis. It focuses on kinetic conflict developments, standoff weapon capabilities, maritime corridor security, and critical infrastructure risks across the Middle East.

How does Flashpoint gather physical security intelligence for the Middle East?

Flashpoint Physical Security Intelligence (PSI) gathers data by combining global open-source intelligence (OSINT), geolocated social media signals, satellite imagery, and primary-source threat monitoring. The platform uses AI-driven natural language processing and geospatial mapping to track kinetic developments, weapon strike radiuses, and physical security threats in real time.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Process Parameter Poisoning: Inside a Novel EDR Evasion Technique

In this post, Flashpoint analysts examine Process Parameter Poisoning—a novel EDR evasion technique we validated in Rust—and detail how abusing undocumented process parameters allows attackers to inject code and bypass standard security products.

Modern Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) platforms have made traditional malware injection techniques significantly harder to execute. In most cases, if a threat actor attempts to write malicious code into a process, an alert will fire. However, that sense of security is being actively challenged as cybercriminals and red teams find new ways to blend malicious payloads into standard operating system routines.

Flashpoint’s Intelligence team built and tested a proof-of-concept for a newly disclosed technique known as Process Parameter Poisoning. By compiling a custom payload and layering evasion mechanics, our analysts demonstrated how easily traditional API hooks can be rendered blind in a laboratory environment—achieving zero alerts across tested EDR/XDR controls.

What is Process Parameter Poisoning?

Process Parameter Poisoning is a novel endpoint detection and response (EDR) evasion technique that combines process parameter spoofing and thread execution hijacking to inject code into foreign processes without triggering standard security detection mechanisms.

Discovered by researchers Max Hirschberger and Ogulcan Ugur, Process Parameter Poisoning is designed to inject code in foreign processes without relying on the conventional memory-manipulation workflows that modern security tooling monitors.

To execute process injection, historically security tools and threat actors alike have focused on a small set of well-known Windows application programming interfaces (APIs). Process Parameter Poisoning shifts away from these heavily watched routines entirely. Instead of calling memory-accessing APIs to allocate and write into a target process, the technique hides the malicious payload directly inside standard process initialization structures during the initial creation of a process. The result is a fundamental shift in defense evasion that effectively blinds traditional, API-hooking EDR agents during the initial stages of code execution.

How Does Process Parameter Poisoning Work?

Process Parameter Poisoning allows attackers to bypass suspicious memory-accessing Windows APIs, such as VirtualAllocEx(), WriteProcessMemory(), and MapViewOfFile2(). Security products heavily monitor these specific APIs due to their high rate of abuse in traditional process injection techniques. However, by avoiding these calls, an attacker effectively bypasses the initial primary triggers used by endpoint agents to flag malicious cross-process memory activity.

When using the Windows application programming interface (API), CreateProcessA/W(), the developer can specify parameters such as the command-line to be executed by the new process, environment variables for the new process, current working directory for the process, window title if it is a console application, create a hidden window, create the process in a suspended state, etc. Many of these parameters are passed into CreateProcessA/W() via the STARTUPINFOA/W structure.

Some entries are undocumented and labeled “reserved” by Microsoft. The discovering researchers found that data stored in STARTUPINFO->lpReserved ends up in the Process Environment Block once the new process is initialized in an entry called “ShellInfo.” Below is an example of placing data into the STARTUPINFOW->lpReserved entry in a test application and the data stored in ShellInfo while debugging the newly created process.

†

Validating Process Parameter Poisoning in Rust

Flashpoint analysts created a proof-of-concept (POC) in Rust to test this technique based on the POC C++ source code provided by the researchers:

1. First the necessary data structures are initialized and the shellcode is passed into the STARTUPINFO->lpReserved field.
2. The target process is created with the infected STARTUPINFO and then a short wait to let the program initialize.
3. NtQueryInformationProcess() is used to acquire PROCESS_BASIC_INFORMATION about the newly created process.
4. The PROCESS_BASIC_INFORMATION structure has an entry called PebBaseAddress that provides the location of the process’s Process Environment Block.
5. NtReadVirtualMemory() is used to read the memory address provided by PebBaseAddress to get the PEB for that process.
6. The PEB has an entry called ProcessParameters that holds the structure RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS and is where the ShellInfo entry mentioned earlier is stored.
7. NtReadVirtualMemory() needs to be used again to read the RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS structure and get the address of the ShellInfo.Buffer entry.

Flashpoint confirmed that after changing the memory to have executable permissions, the threat actors can perform thread hijacking by using GetThreadContext() to acquire information about the current running thread, change the instruction pointer to point to the ShellInfo.Buffer address, and then SetThreadContext() to apply the changes and execute the shellcode.

Flashpoint analysts further confirm that this technique also works with the WindowTitle entry, CommandLine entry using the same series of steps.

The technique also works with the Environment entry but requires additional steps. Environment blocks require a variable name and the variable data separated by an “=.” Environment blocks can contain multiple variable entries in which each entry is ended with a null terminator. Two null terminators are necessary to denote the end of the environment block. This means the payload needs to be embedded in a longer string with a “{NAME} = {VALUE}” format.

Flashpoint analysts note that four null terminators were appended to the shellcode bytes to denote the end of an environment block in Unicode. The resulting payload buffer is then passed into the lpEnvironment variable of CreateProcessW() along with the CREATE_UNICODE_ENVIRONMENT creation flag.

The rest of the process remains the same as reading the PEB and RTL_USER_PROCESS_PARAMETERS structure. The Environment entry is read, but at the offset of the embedded shellcode within the poisoned environment block string. Because four bytes were added to the beginning of the shellcode to make the Unicode environment block, execution needs to begin after four bytes from the beginning of the buffer to begin executing at the shellcode.

Flashpoint notes that the shellcode requires no NULL bytes, and, if using the PAGE_EXECUTE_READ flag, it cannot overwrite itself. This means automated shellcode generators such as MSFVenom might not work either because they contain NULL bytes or use encoders that perform memory writes during execution. Flashpoint analysts wrote custom shellcode to further test this technique. The shellcode downloads and executes an additional payload. The combination of this technique, custom shellcode, and the use of Rust as the programming language proved successful in minimizing initial static detections by security software.

Flashpoint tested this technique with a commonly-used open source EDR platform. The EDR platform itself failed to produce any alerts from executing the malicious binary. However, the XDR component blocked on the initial creation of a new process and COM interactions by the second stage payload.

Flashpoint analysts then combined this technique with the DLL unhooking technique and applied the non-Microsoft block DLL policy during the creation of the sacrificial process. Analysts observed no blocks from the XDR during execution and observed no alerts on the platform.

Associated MITRE ATT&CK

Tactic	Technique ID	Technique Name
Stealth	T1055	Process Injection
Stealth	T1055.003	Process Injection: Thread Execution Hijacking
Stealth	T1564.010	Hide Artifacts: Process Argument Spoofing

Security teams can leverage several detection strategies to identify Process Parameter Poisoning, though each approach carries distinct limitations:

• Analyzing Parameter Entropy and Argument Spoofing (MITRE ATT&CK T1564.010): Security tools can inspect initialization strings within process structures for unusually high entropy, which often indicates the presence of obfuscated or raw binary shellcode embedded within parameters.
• Monitoring Thread Execution Hijacking (MITRE ATT&CK T1055.003): Analysts can monitor for thread context manipulation; however, because Process Parameter Poisoning does not invoke explicit thread suspension or resumption APIs, specific detection rules that depend on those parameters will fail to trigger.
• Detecting Code Execution in Abnormal Memory Locations (MITRE ATT&CK T1055): Detections can flag execution attempts taking place outside the standard executable section, particularly when code executes directly within Process Environment Block (PEB) parameter buffers.
• Auditing Memory Permission Modifications: Tracking instances where memory region permissions are altered to executable states can reveal payload staging. However, enterprise security controls often tune down or avoid these specific alerts due to high volumes of false positives in normal software operations.

Stay Ahead of Process Parameter Poisoning Using Flashpoint

Process Parameter Poisoning demonstrates another advancement in stealthy process injection and the constantly evolving research into evading security products. By using the previously unknown purpose of the lpReserved field within the STARTUPINFOW structure to house shellcode, this technique bypasses standard security product triggers associated with common memory-allocation APIs. While this proof-of-concept was proven successful in lab testing, the technique has multiple opportunities for detection and will most likely require a combination of additional evasion techniques to achieve a higher success rate.

As threat actors continue to refine technique-stacking and exploit overlooked Windows internals, relying on traditional API hooks is no longer enough to protect your enterprise. Staying ahead of modern evasion mechanics requires proactive intelligence and deep visibility into emerging adversary TTPs.

Request a demo today to see how best-in-class threat intelligence can help security teams detect, prepare for, and neutralize advanced defense evasion techniques before they impact your network.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

Flashpoint Named A Customer Favorite in The Forrester Wave

In this blog we explore the recently published Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 report which named Flashpoint a Customer Favorite, along with naming the organization a Strong Performer with the highest scores possible in the criteria of: Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency.

Flashpoint has been named a Customer Favorite and a Strong Performer in The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026. 

The Forrester Wave evaluation is a rigorous, data-driven analysis of external threat intelligence service providers across 23 criteria grouped into two categories: Current Offering and Strategy. Alongside its scoring, Forrester incorporates direct customer feedback into its evaluation, and the Forrester report notes that customers “laud Flashpoint’s white-glove approach to addressing diverse customer needs.”

“Customer obsession has been part of Flashpoint’s DNA from day one. When your customers are protecting financial systems, critical infrastructure, national security, and human lives, their mission becomes your mission,” said Josh Lefkowitz, CEO at Flashpoint. “Forrester has built this likeminded customer obsession into how it evaluates vendors, and it’s why being named a Customer Favorite means so much to us. We believe it reflects customers confirming Flashpoint gives them the intelligence, context, and partnership they need to carry out those missions with confidence.”

The Primary Source Advantage

Flashpoint also received the highest score possible in three criteria: Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency. Forrester’s report describes Flashpoint’s Ignite platform as “stand[ing] out for its fraud intelligence capabilities and strong presence across the ecosystem that supports enterprises’ fraud response.” It further describes Flashpoint’s executive protection offering as “structured and comprehensive.” 

At the foundation of these capabilities is Flashpoint Primary Source Collection, Flashpoint’s proprietary approach to collecting intelligence directly from the digital environments where threats originate — providing organizations with access to high-value intelligence from open and hard-to-reach sources, enriched by human expertise and scaled by AI. We believe Forrester’s assessment speaks directly to this strength, stating that “Flashpoint is ideal for customers seeking primary source access intelligence, particularly those in the financial industry.” That strength extends well beyond financial services. Organizations across industries rely on Flashpoint to address cyber threats, vulnerability risk, fraud, physical security, geopolitical risk, and brand protection.

Purpose Built for the Problems Leading Threat Intel Teams Need to Solve

The remit of threat intelligence programs continues to expand as the volume and complexity of threats grows, accelerated by AI. Now, a single incident can cross cyber operations, fraud, vulnerability management, executive protection, and physical security, while ownership of those risks may sit across several teams. Threat intelligence solutions need to provide holistic visibility into external activity and enough context to determine what deserves attention.

Flashpoint Ignite gives those teams a common intelligence foundation. In our opinion, the Forrester evaluation reflects that breadth: Flashpoint received the highest score possible in both the Fraud Intelligence and Executive Protection criteria.

For fraud teams, primary-source intelligence can expose compromised credentials, illicit services, access sales, and emerging schemes before they translate into financial loss. For executive protection and physical security teams, it can connect online activity with potential real-world risk to people, facilities, and events.

“Flashpoint saves us over $80 million in fraud losses every year. Their proactive approach and sharp insights are crucial in keeping our financial institution secure. They’re not just a solution; they’re a strategic partner helping us stay ahead of cyber threats.”

SVP Cyber Operations, Large U.S. Financial Institution

What Security Leaders Should Look for in a Threat Intelligence Partner

Analyst evaluations give buyers a structured view of a complex market. To understand how a threat intelligence platform will perform in practice, security leaders should ask:

• How close is the intelligence to the source? Understand where the data comes from, whether it is gathered from primary sources or aggregated from third parties and scrapers, how access is maintained, and how much original context is preserved.
• How broadly can the intelligence be applied? Evaluate whether the same foundation can support the risks your organization faces across cyber, vulnerability, fraud, and physical security domains. 
• How does the threat intelligence partner work with customers? Look for breadth and depth of expertise, ability to access analyst insights directly, responsiveness, and the willingness to support complex needs as they emerge.
• Can the program evolve with the organization? The platform and services should accommodate new use cases as intelligence requirements change. In parallel, customers should be able to tailor intelligence gathering for even greater visibility into their specific threat landscape — discovering and adding sources in a fast, automated way from within their workflows.

“I have used Flashpoint for several years and continue to be impressed with the quality of their services and the thought put into each new offering. Flashpoint is one of the few vendors that has consistently demonstrated a high level of responsiveness and an in-depth understanding of the needs of any threat/fraud/security analyst. Their services cover a wide range of topics from cybersecurity to physical threats, and they are always looking for ways to improve and widen the scope of intelligence they provide.”

Lead Analyst, Cybersecurity

Read The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 to explore the evaluation and learn more about Flashpoint’s results.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026?

The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026 evaluates external threat intelligence service providers across their current offering, strategy, and customer feedback to help security leaders assess vendors in the market.

How did Flashpoint perform in Forrester’s latest evaluation of external threat intelligence service providers?

Flashpoint was named a Customer Favorite and a Strong Performer in The Forrester Wave: External Threat Intelligence Service Providers, Q3 2026. Flashpoint received the highest score possible in the Fraud Intelligence, Executive Protection, and Pricing Flexibility and Transparency criteria.

Why was Flashpoint named a Customer Favorite in the Forrester Wave?

Customer Favorite reflects feedback from customers participating in Forrester’s evaluation. Forrester reported that customers “laud Flashpoint’s white-glove approach to addressing diverse customer needs.” 

What capabilities was Flashpoint recognized for in the Forrester evaluation?

Forrester described Flashpoint Ignite as standing out for its fraud intelligence capabilities and strong presence across the enterprise fraud response ecosystem, while describing its executive protection offering as “structured and comprehensive.”

What differentiates Flashpoint’s threat intelligence?

Flashpoint is built around Primary Source Collection, its proprietary approach to collecting intelligence directly from the digital environments where threats originate. This gives security teams access to intelligence from open and hard-to-reach sources, enriched by human expertise and scaled by AI. In its assessment, Forrester stated that “Flashpoint is ideal for customers seeking primary source access intelligence, particularly those in the financial industry.” That strength extends across sectors: Flashpoint supports more than 750 customers across industries, helping organizations address security challenges spanning cyber threat intelligence, vulnerability management, fraud, physical security, and geopolitical risk.

What security use cases does Flashpoint support?

Flashpoint supports security teams across cyber threat intelligence, vulnerability intelligence, fraud, executive and physical security, geopolitical risk, and brand protection. These capabilities are delivered through Flashpoint Ignite, allowing organizations to apply a common intelligence foundation across multiple security and risk functions.

Forrester Disclaimer

Forrester does not endorse any company, product, brand, or service included in its research publications and does not advise any person to select the products or services of any company or brand based on the ratings included in such publications. Information is based on the best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. This report is part of a broader collection of Forrester resources, including interactive models, frameworks, tools, data, and access to analyst guidance. For more information, read about Forrester’s objectivity here.

See Flashpoint in Action

Blogs

Blog

How Natural Language Search Powers Rapid Physical Security Intelligence

A look at how natural language processing makes searching and refining results in Echosec simpler.

When physical threats manifest in the real world, every minute counts. Whether tasked with Executive Protection, securing critical infrastructure, or monitoring live events, security teams face a constant challenge: turning massive volumes of noisy online chatter into rapid, actionable insight.

For traditional workflows, surfacing relevant situational awareness required complex Boolean query construction, exhaustive lists of regional keywords, and constant tweaking of syntax. But when an operational threat is unfolding, troubleshooting search logic is the least of your priorities.

In a recent live session, Flashpoint’s Alanah Crocker, Head of the Flashpoint Training Academy, demonstrated a major evolution in Flashpoint’s physical security intelligence capabilities: Natural Language Search and AI-driven Search Planning.

Real-World Impact: Minutes Can Save Lives

When it comes to protecting people and infrastructure, security teams need to know what is happening around them. This involves pulling from mainstream social networks, fringe spaces, regional platforms, and illicit chat channels. By layering in geospatial enrichment and analyst-led finished intelligence, organizations gain the insights they need to function in high-stakes environments.

In this live session Flashpoint showed how analysts no longer need to spend time manually building complex syntax trees. Instead, using Flashpoint’s Physical Security Intelligence, analysts can simply describe what they want to discover in plain language.

• “Recent arson attacks against factories in North America”
• “Traffic disruptions in Central London near VIP transit routes”
• “Situational awareness and security chatter around BC Place Stadium”

With this update, analysts no longer need to spend time manually building complex syntax trees. Here’s what an updated workflow looks like using Flashpoint PSI:

1. Plain Language Prompting: Type your operational question or intelligence focus area into the search bar using everyday language.
2. Automated Search Plan Generation: Flashpoint Ignite instantly analyzes current online chatter, identifies relevant regional keywords, assigns date parameters, and applies precise geospatial boundaries.
3. Human-in-the-Loop Review: Review the proposed search plan, tailor keywords, adjust date ranges, or modify the boundary before execution.
4. Rapid Execution & AI Summarization: Execute the query to receive curated results from global sources alongside an executive summary of key takeaways and sentiment.

How Natural Language Search Accelerates Physical Security Triage and OSINT Workflows

By integrating AI-driven search planning directly into Flashpoint PSI, Flashpoint fundamentally changes how security teams move from initial inquiry to tactical triage. When facing unfamiliar threat vectors, analysts need to eliminate the cold start, so that they are not spending needless time guessing local slangs, hashtags, or regional terms to query. Flashpoint’s natural language processing automates this pre-research phase by synthesizing live open-source chatter to surface active jargon and keywords automatically.

Spatial context is equally seamless. Instead of manually looking up street intersections or plotting coordinates on a map, analysts can simply mention a landmark or venue in plain text. Flashpoint PSI understands the geographical intent, automatically constructing precise spatial geofences around the physical asset, event, or VIP travel routes.

Once populated, intelligence gathering becomes a dynamic conversation rather than a static reporting exercise. Analysts can interrogate their data in real-time, asking Flashpoint to isolate video uploads, filter for explicit threats, or hone in on specific operational themes throughout this workflow—all while ensuring the analyst remains firmly in control throughout the entire workflow.

Protect Critical Assets Using Flashpoint

Want to see for yourself how plain-language prompts can build rich, multi-source intelligence workflows? Request a demo, or check out our Product Update page to explore how AI-driven search planning and relevance ranking accelerates OSINT investigations.

See Flashpoint in Action