Pablo_P
Carder
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 8
Open Source Intelligence stopped being a curiosity a long time ago.
By 2025 it has become the front line for both offense and defense in cybersecurity, and the reason is simple: almost everything that lets us understand, detect, or disrupt digital threats lives in plain sight.
Organizations no longer face just clever code or a single hacker; they face an ecosystem of cloud services, third-party suppliers, public repositories, social media signals, exposed credentials, and machine-generated content.
OSINT is the set of techniques that turns that chaos into meaning...
The scale of available data has exploded, and that changes the rules. Ten years ago a phone number on a paste site or a misconfigured S3 bucket might have been an isolated risk. Today, a single leaked email address or a public Git commit can be cross-referenced across dozens of APIs and datasets to assemble a full picture of staff roles, remote access patterns, and forgotten staging servers. Attackers use automated pipelines to stitch this together at speed. Defenders who rely on reactive controls only see the aftermath; proactive teams use OSINT to identify the breadcrumbs before they become a breadcrumb trail to the crown jewels.
Social engineering is more dangerous than ever because the inputs that make deception convincing are plentiful. Public profiles, conference photos, vanity URLs, and corporate blogs give attackers the raw material to craft targeted lures. Deepfake audio and synthetic media make it easier to impersonate voices and faces. In this environment, OSINT is not an optional investigation tool — it is a necessary practice for understanding how convincing an attack can be and where the weak links in human trust are.
The defensive use cases are numerous and high value. OSINT powers threat intelligence, incident triage, vulnerability discovery, and brand protection. It helps answer practical questions: is our certificate being spoofed in third-party sites, which vendor left a testing server exposed, or which employees have credentials on paste sites? Those are not theoretical problems; they are the precursors to ransom, fraud, and supply chain compromise. Companies that treat OSINT as a checkbox — a one-time scan or a quarterly report — will miss the dynamic nature of these threats. Continuous observation and contextual analysis are what make OSINT actionable.
But OSINT is also a mirror. Everything defenders can do, attackers can mimic and often do at scale. That symmetry is uncomfortable but useful: what you can collect publicly about a target, an attacker can collect too. Thinking in terms of attacker reconnaissance — what would they see first, second, third — is the only reliable way to harden an organization. This “attackers’ view” informs everything from phishing-resistant workflows to the rules you write in your EDR and SIEM.
Technology shifts since 2020 have made OSINT both more powerful and more fraught. AI and large language models accelerate pattern recognition and automate link-building, letting analysts find connections that would have taken days. At the same time those same models enable attackers to craft more convincing, scalable social engineering campaigns. Cloud platforms and APIs centralize telemetry and asset metadata, which helps defenders when they ingest it, but also creates single points of failure when misconfigured. The growth of Internet-exposed IoT and OT adds another dimension: physical and digital surfaces now overlap, so an exposed camera or a misconfigured industrial controller is as much an OSINT problem as it is a network one.
Legal and ethical boundaries are no longer academic. Privacy regulations, platform TOS, and local laws shape what can be collected and how it may be used. Responsible OSINT practices require not just technical competence, but an explicit understanding of lawful limits and a documented chain of custody for findings that could be sensitive. That means OSINT teams should be part technical lab, part legal counsel, and part communications team when disclosures are needed.
So, the human element separates signal from noise. Tools can enumerate millions of data points, but context — understanding which server is a forgotten dev sandbox versus a production database — comes from people with domain knowledge. That is why training, playbooks, and cross-team collaboration are central to effective OSINT. Analysts need to translate raw findings into prioritized risk and clear remediation steps, rather than dumping spreadsheets and hoping someone else will act.
Adopting a hacker mindset for OSINT
Start with curiosity, notchecklisting.
The best OSINT work begins with genuine puzzlement: why does this domain resolve to that cloud provider, why does this staff profile list an unexpected hometown, why is there a forgotten subdomain in a certificate transparency log? Those anomalies are where useful intelligence hides. A hacker mindset prizes anomalies more than the obvious facts, because anomalies tend to reveal configuration mistakes, stale accounts, and human errors that scale into real vulnerabilities.
Skepticism is the second pillar. Data collected from public sources is noisy and deceptive by design. Public profiles are aspirational, outdated, or intentionally misleading. Automated scans produce false positives. The hacker-mindset analyst treats every discovery as provisional and looks for corroborating signals before elevating something to “actionable.” That corroboration can come from cross-referencing multiple independent sources, timing signals, or simple human verification.
Think in chains, not in isolated hits. A single email or a screenshot gains value when it becomes a pivot point to other facts: infrastructure, personnel, historic commits, DNS artifacts. The mindset here is the same as for exploit chaining: small, legitimate pieces of information can be linked to produce an attack narrative. For defenders this is precisely why you should adopt the same chaining thinking: map what an attacker could infer step by step and close the easiest of those inference paths.
Be creative and lateral. Good OSINT is lateral-thinking work. If Google doesn’t turn up a lead, an archived event page, a niche forum, a domain registration, or a translated foreign-language post might. The cleverness lies in changing the axis of search: time, language, platform, or data type. A hacker mindset avoids tunnel vision on a single platform and instead asks where the same information might be mirrored, cached, or leaked.
Balance automation with manual verification. Automated tools are indispensable for scale; they find thousands of leads in minutes. But humans are still necessary for pattern recognition and context. Automation should be used to surface candidates and to triage, while human analysts decide what is real, what is noise, and what matters. The hacker mindset treats automation as a force multiplier, not a replacement.
Maintain disciplined operational security and ethics. If you’re investigating an organization or people, consider how your activity appears. Use test accounts rather than your primary identity, avoid actions that could be misconstrued as intrusion, and stop when you reach the line of consent and law. The professional hacker mindset is not about evasion for its own sake; it is about preserving the integrity of the investigation and protecting yourself and your organization from legal or reputational harm. Document your methods so that your work can be repeated, reviewed, and justified.
Practice “assume breach” reconnaissance. Instead of asking “what can we see?” ask “what would an attacker almost certainly see first, and what would they see second?” That ordering changes priorities. Attack surface management informed by this mindset will often highlight low-hanging fruit — stale domains, third-party cloud misconfigurations, exposed build artifacts — that are easy to fix but commonly overlooked.
Build mental models and map to frameworks. Use threat modeling like the Diamond Model, the Kill Chain, or MITRE ATT&CK as lenses to interpret OSINT findings. Translate your discoveries into actionable risk statements: not just “we found a developer’s old repo” but “an attacker could likely use that repo to find credentials or API keys that lead to a staging environment with sensitive data.” Framing findings this way makes them operationally useful to defenders.
Document everything and write narrative, not just bulleted facts. The hacker mindset values reproducibility: notes that say what you searched, why you searched it, what you expected, and what you actually found. Those notes become the evidence chain for triage, reporting, or legal processes. They are also invaluable when handing off work to incident responders or to a compliance team.
Finally, cultivate humility and curiosity over certainty. The best hackers I’ve worked with are comfortable being wrong a lot; they follow the data where it leads and abandon their favorite hypotheses when contradicted. That intellectual flexibility, combined with meticulous documentation and ethical guardrails, is what separates useful OSINT from noise or worse — an accidental privacy violation.
Why tools and disciplined note-taking (Obsidian, CherryTree, and the workflow) matter
Good notes are the difference between a one-off curiosity and repeatable, defensible intelligence. In OSINT the raw data is cheap and noisy; the valuable product is context, traceability, and a narrative that others (incident responders, legal, or your client) can follow and trust. That means choosing tools and a workflow that let you move quickly without sacrificing proof and reproducibility.
Start with why a note system matters. When you collect a screenshot, paste content, certificate transparency entry, or a Git commit, you’re creating evidence. That evidence should be time-stamped, attributable to a source, verifiable by an independent party, and easy to export into a readable report. Notes that are scattered across browser tabs, screenshots in a downloads folder, and a half-filled spreadsheet are brittle. A good vault or single file lets you link items together, search fast, and produce output for stakeholders without rebuilding context from memory.
Obsidian and CherryTree are both solid choices for OSINT work, and they solve different problems. Obsidian is excellent when you want a markdown-centric, highly linkable knowledge graph. Its backlinks and graph view help you see connections between people, domains, and infrastructure, and community plugins like Dataview or templating tools let you automate summaries and produce structured exports. CherryTree is compelling when you want a single portable file that supports rich text and embedded images out of the box; it’s lightweight, simple to back up, and useful for investigations that demand a single, self-contained artifact.
How you structure notes matters as much as which tool you pick. Use a predictable header with metadata for every investigation note so that any reviewer can immediately see the basics: who did the work, what the target was, when the first observation was made, and what the scope was. A short YAML frontmatter or header block is extremely helpful. For example:
Inside the note, keep a narrative first: a one-paragraph summary that says what you set out to test and the punchline of your findings. After the narrative, keep sections for hypotheses (what you expected), method (searches and tools used, including exact queries and flags), findings (with each item short and reproducible), evidence (screenshots, file names, and hashes), impact (what an attacker could do), and recommended next steps. That order helps non-technical readers understand why the item matters, while preserving the technical detail for operators.
Evidence hygiene is non-negotiable. Never paste screenshots without keeping the original image file. Keep a dedicated attachments folder for each engagement and name files predictably, for example 20250916_acme_s3_exposed.png. Compute a hash for each file with a simple command-line tool (for example, sha256sum 20250916_acme_s3_exposed.png) and paste that hash in the note next to the image. That small step makes your artifacts verifiable later and supports a chain of custody if the work becomes part of a formal incident or legal action.
Version control and backups make notes reliable. If you use Obsidian, the Obsidian Git plugin or a simple git repo gives you history and the ability to revert accidental deletions. For sensitive investigations, sign commits with GPG so your audit trail includes cryptographic verification of who made what change. If you prefer a single file, CherryTree files can be backed up to an encrypted container (VeraCrypt or filesystem-level encryption) and archived periodically. Whichever route you choose, automate a daily encrypted backup and keep at least one offline copy.
Encryption and operational security should be part of the workflow from day one. Store active investigation vaults in an encrypted container or use an E2EE sync solution if you’re sharing notes with teammates. Use disposable accounts and separate tool identities for offensive recon to avoid cross-contamination with your primary identity. Be mindful of platform terms of service and local laws—document your legal boundaries in the engagement header so reviewers know the limits you respected.
Automation can and should be used to reduce busywork. Use templates for new engagements, and populate metadata automatically with a templating plugin or a small script. Use tools that export to structured formats (CSV, JSON) and write small ingestion scripts to turn raw tool output into properly named evidence files and markdown entries. For example, export SpiderFoot or Amass results into JSON, run a script to extract findings, and append them to your note with source links and hashes. That way your manual analysis focuses on triage and context rather than copy-and-paste.
Tagging and linking turn notes into a knowledge graph. Tag people, domains, and techniques consistently so you can later find patterns across engagements. Backlinks are not just a convenience; they are analytical scaffolding. When a domain links to a staging server and that server links to a developer’s repository, the graph shows you the chain at a glance. Use Dataview or similar query tools to build dashboards: open investigations, stale findings older than X days, or all evidence files without a hash.
Report generation should be simple. Your notes are the canonical source; exporting to PDF, HTML, or a pentest report format should be a one-click or one-command operation. Use Pandoc, Obsidian’s export plugins, or CherryTree’s export features to produce a clean, redacted report for stakeholders. Keep a separate “public” version of the report with sensitive details redacted, and keep the full unredacted vault for internal use only.
Shortly, treat your notes like living assets. Periodically review old findings, mark them as remediated or obsolete, and archive what’s no longer relevant. Add a retention policy to each engagement so you don’t hold sensitive artifacts forever without good reason. This discipline improves signal over time and keeps your OSINT practice sustainable.
Maltego: a practical, professional deep dive
Maltego is the kind of tool that rewards thinking in graphs. At its core it isn’t magic — it’s a visual link-analysis platform that lets you pivot from one piece of open data to another, stitch relations together, and see patterns that are invisible in flat lists. In an OSINT workflow it becomes the place where scattershot artifacts become an intelligible narrative. Below I’ll walk through why Maltego matters, how to use it responsibly and effectively, how to integrate it into the note-taking workflow we discussed earlier, and specific practical tips that professional red teams and defenders can use right away.
Why Maltego matters
Maltego turns pivoting into a deliberate, auditable process. Instead of copy-pasting results from several tools into a spreadsheet, you seed the canvas with an entity (a domain, IP, email, person, certificate) and run transforms — small queries or API lookups — that expand that entity into related artifacts. The visual graph helps you understand which nodes are hubs, which relationships are one-offs, and where to prioritize deeper manual investigation. For complex investigations involving many data types — domains, subdomains, certs, email addresses, social accounts, infrastructure — Maltego reduces cognitive load and creates a reproducible investigation record.
Getting started the right way
Begin with clean seed data and a clear scope. If your seed is a target domain, type it into Maltego as a Domain entity. If it’s a person, start with a Person or Email entity. Resist the temptation to run every transform at once; instead, run the transforms that are most likely to reveal high-value pivots first, validate those pivots, and then expand selectively. The typical first transforms you’ll run are passive telemetry: WHOIS and passive DNS, certificate transparency searches, and quick subdomain enumeration. Those early results usually generate the IP addresses, hostnames, and emails that become the axes of the rest of the graph.
Transforms, APIs, and rate limits
Transforms are Maltego’s primitives. Some are local and fast, some call remote APIs and require keys, and some are chained to create deeper pivots. You will quickly learn which transforms are “noisy” (active scans, heavy API calls) and which are safe for broad use (passive WHOIS, CT logs, public web scraping). Always configure API keys and rate limits before you run large graphs. If you’re using paid API providers, make sure queries are scoped so you don’t trigger rate limits or cause unexpected billing. For red team work run noisy transforms only with explicit authorization and ideally from an isolated infrastructure to avoid impacting production systems or revealing your investigative identity.
Graph hygiene and interpretation
Don’t confuse density with importance. A node with many connections may be a public CDN, blocklist, or an aggregator and not inherently interesting. Use degree, betweenness, and clustering visually: filter by node type, collapse known infrastructure (CDNs, cloud provider IP ranges), and highlight entities you’ve validated manually. Maltego supports filtering and layouts; use an organic layout for exploratory work and a hierarchical layout for reporting. Annotate nodes with comments and evidence links so reviewers understand why you kept or pruned them.
A practical recon workflow in Maltego
Seed the domain as a Domain entity, run WHOIS and passive DNS transforms to get historical and current records, then run certificate transforms to pull certificate transparency findings — certificate data often reveals forgotten subdomains and staging hosts. Pivot from resolved IPs to reverse DNS and to Internet-wide telemetry (Shodan/Censys transforms, where available). From harvested email addresses or usernames pivot to social media and username-is-unique transforms, then run profile-finding transforms (Sherlock-like transforms) to locate matching accounts. Each pivot should be validated: open profile links, check timestamps, and screenshot evidence. When you find a suspicious host or leaked credential, trace it back through the graph to find possible origin points — a developer’s repo, CI logs, or an exposed S3 bucket are common culprits.
Evidence capture and notes integration
Maltego is great at building the graph, but your notes system is still the canonical record. For every important node, export the URL, timestamp, and a screenshot. Maltego lets you export selected nodes to CSV, JSON, GraphML, or save the entire case file. Export a CSV row per finding with columns for node type, value, source transform, evidence file name, and timestamp. Save screenshots in a dedicated attachments folder named consistently with your Obsidian/CherryTree vault (for example, 20250916_acme_maltego_cert-ct.png) and compute a hash for each file. In Obsidian paste a short narrative and then a bulletized set of the key findings with links to the exported CSV and the screenshots, plus the hash and the transform that produced them. If you use Obsidian, consider an “Maltego” template that includes fields for case id, seed, scope, transforms run, and a small embedded image gallery of captured screenshots.
Custom transforms and automation
When built-in transforms don’t cover a niche source, you can write custom transforms. Maltego supports creating local or remote transforms using common languages or frameworks. A typical use is wrapping an internal API or a closed-source data provider behind a transform so you can pivot directly inside the graph. Keep custom transforms well-documented and version-controlled. For repetitive tasks, script the export of Maltego graphs and run a small post-processing script to normalize results into your notes format, avoiding manual copy-paste.
Operational security and ethics with Maltego
Use disposable accounts and isolate investigative infrastructure. Running exploratory queries from your main corporate IP or account can put you on the radar of the target or of their security teams and may complicate legal positions. If you’re a consultant or a red team operator, get explicit written authorization for scopes and noisy operations. Maintain a log of transforms run and time windows; that log is your safety net if questioned later. When findings involve personal data, follow the privacy and legal guidelines your organization requires, redact PII in any public-facing reports, and consider involving legal counsel before contacting impacted third parties.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
Overexpansion is the single most damaging mistake. Graphs can grow exponentially; prune early and focus on nodes that add unique value. Blindly trusting transforms without checking raw sources creates false positives. Always inspect the raw data behind a node before escalating. Misinterpreting a hub as malicious when it’s a content delivery network or a shared hosting provider is a common cognitive error; confirm infrastructure owner via WHOIS, cloud tags, or provider APIs before attributing ownership.
How defenders and red teams use Maltego differently
Defenders often use Maltego for continuous monitoring and incident triage: they seed the platform with corporate domains and employee emails and watch for new connections like newly issued certificates or unexpected subdomains. Red teams use it to model attack paths and identify social engineering vectors — the same pivots that help defenders can be used offensively if permissioned. The difference is intent and authorization. Defenders should treat Maltego output as a prioritized task list; red teams should convert Maltego findings into validated test cases that exercise actual defenses.
Reporting and handoff
A Maltego graph is not a final report. Use the graph to create an evidence-backed narrative. Start the report with a concise executive summary that explains the risk in business terms, follow with a technical appendix that reproduces the graph, includes exported CSV rows, and embeds screenshots with hashes. Provide a recommended remediation plan tied to each significant node: remove stale subdomains, revoke certificates, rotate exposed secrets, enforce MFA on accounts, and perform vendor outreach if third parties are implicated.
Final tips from practice
Treat Maltego as your “discovery engine,” not your verdict engine. Use it to assemble leads, then switch to focused manual investigation for validation. Keep a small set of go-to transforms that you trust and document why you use them. Integrate Maltego exports directly into your Obsidian/CherryTree vault as described earlier so your vault becomes the single source of truth. Finally, stay humble: graphs change, new data appears, and a validated finding today may be outdated tomorrow — keep your notes versioned and your evidence hashed.
Alright — let’s turn theory into something actionable. Below is a practical, step-by-step OSINT investigation walk-through, designed the way a cybersecurity professional would actually run it. I’ll keep it realistic and detailed, but not target any real company — I’ll use a fictional domain (examplecorp.com) as our seed.
Our goals: discover subdomains, map infrastructure, identify employee data leaks, and highlight possible social engineering vectors.
In Obsidian, I open a new note with frontmatter like:
---
title: "2025-09-16_ExampleCorp_OSINT"
date: 2025-09-16T14:30:00Z
author: "Analyst"
target: "examplecorp.com"
scope: "Passive OSINT: DNS, CT logs, WHOIS, employee recon"
tags: [osint, recon, examplecorp]
sources: []
---
Result:
In my Obsidian note, I log it like this:
### Findings
- staging.examplecorp.com
- Status: Online, login page exposed
- Evidence: ![[20250916_examplecorp_staging.png]]
- SHA256: e0d8af19...
- Risk: Staging system may lack MFA or rate limiting
- beta-api.examplecorp.com
- Source: Passive DNS from Maltego
- Evidence: Screenshot captured
- Risk: Unlisted API endpoint, potential target for fuzzing
Action:
Flagged this for client as a phishing risk. Added to Obsidian note under Social Engineering Vectors section.
sha256sum 20250916_examplecorp_betaapi.png >> hashes.txt
Once graph is complete:
From Obsidian, export to PDF using Pandoc → send to client with attachments.
Keep full vault + graph in encrypted archive for retention.
By 2025 it has become the front line for both offense and defense in cybersecurity, and the reason is simple: almost everything that lets us understand, detect, or disrupt digital threats lives in plain sight.
Organizations no longer face just clever code or a single hacker; they face an ecosystem of cloud services, third-party suppliers, public repositories, social media signals, exposed credentials, and machine-generated content.
OSINT is the set of techniques that turns that chaos into meaning...
The scale of available data has exploded, and that changes the rules. Ten years ago a phone number on a paste site or a misconfigured S3 bucket might have been an isolated risk. Today, a single leaked email address or a public Git commit can be cross-referenced across dozens of APIs and datasets to assemble a full picture of staff roles, remote access patterns, and forgotten staging servers. Attackers use automated pipelines to stitch this together at speed. Defenders who rely on reactive controls only see the aftermath; proactive teams use OSINT to identify the breadcrumbs before they become a breadcrumb trail to the crown jewels.
Social engineering is more dangerous than ever because the inputs that make deception convincing are plentiful. Public profiles, conference photos, vanity URLs, and corporate blogs give attackers the raw material to craft targeted lures. Deepfake audio and synthetic media make it easier to impersonate voices and faces. In this environment, OSINT is not an optional investigation tool — it is a necessary practice for understanding how convincing an attack can be and where the weak links in human trust are.
The defensive use cases are numerous and high value. OSINT powers threat intelligence, incident triage, vulnerability discovery, and brand protection. It helps answer practical questions: is our certificate being spoofed in third-party sites, which vendor left a testing server exposed, or which employees have credentials on paste sites? Those are not theoretical problems; they are the precursors to ransom, fraud, and supply chain compromise. Companies that treat OSINT as a checkbox — a one-time scan or a quarterly report — will miss the dynamic nature of these threats. Continuous observation and contextual analysis are what make OSINT actionable.
But OSINT is also a mirror. Everything defenders can do, attackers can mimic and often do at scale. That symmetry is uncomfortable but useful: what you can collect publicly about a target, an attacker can collect too. Thinking in terms of attacker reconnaissance — what would they see first, second, third — is the only reliable way to harden an organization. This “attackers’ view” informs everything from phishing-resistant workflows to the rules you write in your EDR and SIEM.
Technology shifts since 2020 have made OSINT both more powerful and more fraught. AI and large language models accelerate pattern recognition and automate link-building, letting analysts find connections that would have taken days. At the same time those same models enable attackers to craft more convincing, scalable social engineering campaigns. Cloud platforms and APIs centralize telemetry and asset metadata, which helps defenders when they ingest it, but also creates single points of failure when misconfigured. The growth of Internet-exposed IoT and OT adds another dimension: physical and digital surfaces now overlap, so an exposed camera or a misconfigured industrial controller is as much an OSINT problem as it is a network one.
Legal and ethical boundaries are no longer academic. Privacy regulations, platform TOS, and local laws shape what can be collected and how it may be used. Responsible OSINT practices require not just technical competence, but an explicit understanding of lawful limits and a documented chain of custody for findings that could be sensitive. That means OSINT teams should be part technical lab, part legal counsel, and part communications team when disclosures are needed.
So, the human element separates signal from noise. Tools can enumerate millions of data points, but context — understanding which server is a forgotten dev sandbox versus a production database — comes from people with domain knowledge. That is why training, playbooks, and cross-team collaboration are central to effective OSINT. Analysts need to translate raw findings into prioritized risk and clear remediation steps, rather than dumping spreadsheets and hoping someone else will act.
Adopting a hacker mindset for OSINT
Start with curiosity, not
The best OSINT work begins with genuine puzzlement: why does this domain resolve to that cloud provider, why does this staff profile list an unexpected hometown, why is there a forgotten subdomain in a certificate transparency log? Those anomalies are where useful intelligence hides. A hacker mindset prizes anomalies more than the obvious facts, because anomalies tend to reveal configuration mistakes, stale accounts, and human errors that scale into real vulnerabilities.
Skepticism is the second pillar. Data collected from public sources is noisy and deceptive by design. Public profiles are aspirational, outdated, or intentionally misleading. Automated scans produce false positives. The hacker-mindset analyst treats every discovery as provisional and looks for corroborating signals before elevating something to “actionable.” That corroboration can come from cross-referencing multiple independent sources, timing signals, or simple human verification.
Think in chains, not in isolated hits. A single email or a screenshot gains value when it becomes a pivot point to other facts: infrastructure, personnel, historic commits, DNS artifacts. The mindset here is the same as for exploit chaining: small, legitimate pieces of information can be linked to produce an attack narrative. For defenders this is precisely why you should adopt the same chaining thinking: map what an attacker could infer step by step and close the easiest of those inference paths.
Be creative and lateral. Good OSINT is lateral-thinking work. If Google doesn’t turn up a lead, an archived event page, a niche forum, a domain registration, or a translated foreign-language post might. The cleverness lies in changing the axis of search: time, language, platform, or data type. A hacker mindset avoids tunnel vision on a single platform and instead asks where the same information might be mirrored, cached, or leaked.
Balance automation with manual verification. Automated tools are indispensable for scale; they find thousands of leads in minutes. But humans are still necessary for pattern recognition and context. Automation should be used to surface candidates and to triage, while human analysts decide what is real, what is noise, and what matters. The hacker mindset treats automation as a force multiplier, not a replacement.
Maintain disciplined operational security and ethics. If you’re investigating an organization or people, consider how your activity appears. Use test accounts rather than your primary identity, avoid actions that could be misconstrued as intrusion, and stop when you reach the line of consent and law. The professional hacker mindset is not about evasion for its own sake; it is about preserving the integrity of the investigation and protecting yourself and your organization from legal or reputational harm. Document your methods so that your work can be repeated, reviewed, and justified.
Practice “assume breach” reconnaissance. Instead of asking “what can we see?” ask “what would an attacker almost certainly see first, and what would they see second?” That ordering changes priorities. Attack surface management informed by this mindset will often highlight low-hanging fruit — stale domains, third-party cloud misconfigurations, exposed build artifacts — that are easy to fix but commonly overlooked.
Build mental models and map to frameworks. Use threat modeling like the Diamond Model, the Kill Chain, or MITRE ATT&CK as lenses to interpret OSINT findings. Translate your discoveries into actionable risk statements: not just “we found a developer’s old repo” but “an attacker could likely use that repo to find credentials or API keys that lead to a staging environment with sensitive data.” Framing findings this way makes them operationally useful to defenders.
Document everything and write narrative, not just bulleted facts. The hacker mindset values reproducibility: notes that say what you searched, why you searched it, what you expected, and what you actually found. Those notes become the evidence chain for triage, reporting, or legal processes. They are also invaluable when handing off work to incident responders or to a compliance team.
Finally, cultivate humility and curiosity over certainty. The best hackers I’ve worked with are comfortable being wrong a lot; they follow the data where it leads and abandon their favorite hypotheses when contradicted. That intellectual flexibility, combined with meticulous documentation and ethical guardrails, is what separates useful OSINT from noise or worse — an accidental privacy violation.
Why tools and disciplined note-taking (Obsidian, CherryTree, and the workflow) matter
Good notes are the difference between a one-off curiosity and repeatable, defensible intelligence. In OSINT the raw data is cheap and noisy; the valuable product is context, traceability, and a narrative that others (incident responders, legal, or your client) can follow and trust. That means choosing tools and a workflow that let you move quickly without sacrificing proof and reproducibility.
Start with why a note system matters. When you collect a screenshot, paste content, certificate transparency entry, or a Git commit, you’re creating evidence. That evidence should be time-stamped, attributable to a source, verifiable by an independent party, and easy to export into a readable report. Notes that are scattered across browser tabs, screenshots in a downloads folder, and a half-filled spreadsheet are brittle. A good vault or single file lets you link items together, search fast, and produce output for stakeholders without rebuilding context from memory.
Obsidian and CherryTree are both solid choices for OSINT work, and they solve different problems. Obsidian is excellent when you want a markdown-centric, highly linkable knowledge graph. Its backlinks and graph view help you see connections between people, domains, and infrastructure, and community plugins like Dataview or templating tools let you automate summaries and produce structured exports. CherryTree is compelling when you want a single portable file that supports rich text and embedded images out of the box; it’s lightweight, simple to back up, and useful for investigations that demand a single, self-contained artifact.
How you structure notes matters as much as which tool you pick. Use a predictable header with metadata for every investigation note so that any reviewer can immediately see the basics: who did the work, what the target was, when the first observation was made, and what the scope was. A short YAML frontmatter or header block is extremely helpful. For example:
Code:
---
title: "2025-09-16_ACMECorp_subdomain-hunt"
date: 2025-09-16T14:22:00Z
author: "Analyst Name"
target: "acmecorp.com"
scope: "public-facing assets, corporate subsidiaries"
tags: [osint, recon, acme]
sources: []
---Inside the note, keep a narrative first: a one-paragraph summary that says what you set out to test and the punchline of your findings. After the narrative, keep sections for hypotheses (what you expected), method (searches and tools used, including exact queries and flags), findings (with each item short and reproducible), evidence (screenshots, file names, and hashes), impact (what an attacker could do), and recommended next steps. That order helps non-technical readers understand why the item matters, while preserving the technical detail for operators.
Evidence hygiene is non-negotiable. Never paste screenshots without keeping the original image file. Keep a dedicated attachments folder for each engagement and name files predictably, for example 20250916_acme_s3_exposed.png. Compute a hash for each file with a simple command-line tool (for example, sha256sum 20250916_acme_s3_exposed.png) and paste that hash in the note next to the image. That small step makes your artifacts verifiable later and supports a chain of custody if the work becomes part of a formal incident or legal action.
Version control and backups make notes reliable. If you use Obsidian, the Obsidian Git plugin or a simple git repo gives you history and the ability to revert accidental deletions. For sensitive investigations, sign commits with GPG so your audit trail includes cryptographic verification of who made what change. If you prefer a single file, CherryTree files can be backed up to an encrypted container (VeraCrypt or filesystem-level encryption) and archived periodically. Whichever route you choose, automate a daily encrypted backup and keep at least one offline copy.
Encryption and operational security should be part of the workflow from day one. Store active investigation vaults in an encrypted container or use an E2EE sync solution if you’re sharing notes with teammates. Use disposable accounts and separate tool identities for offensive recon to avoid cross-contamination with your primary identity. Be mindful of platform terms of service and local laws—document your legal boundaries in the engagement header so reviewers know the limits you respected.
Automation can and should be used to reduce busywork. Use templates for new engagements, and populate metadata automatically with a templating plugin or a small script. Use tools that export to structured formats (CSV, JSON) and write small ingestion scripts to turn raw tool output into properly named evidence files and markdown entries. For example, export SpiderFoot or Amass results into JSON, run a script to extract findings, and append them to your note with source links and hashes. That way your manual analysis focuses on triage and context rather than copy-and-paste.
Tagging and linking turn notes into a knowledge graph. Tag people, domains, and techniques consistently so you can later find patterns across engagements. Backlinks are not just a convenience; they are analytical scaffolding. When a domain links to a staging server and that server links to a developer’s repository, the graph shows you the chain at a glance. Use Dataview or similar query tools to build dashboards: open investigations, stale findings older than X days, or all evidence files without a hash.
Report generation should be simple. Your notes are the canonical source; exporting to PDF, HTML, or a pentest report format should be a one-click or one-command operation. Use Pandoc, Obsidian’s export plugins, or CherryTree’s export features to produce a clean, redacted report for stakeholders. Keep a separate “public” version of the report with sensitive details redacted, and keep the full unredacted vault for internal use only.
Shortly, treat your notes like living assets. Periodically review old findings, mark them as remediated or obsolete, and archive what’s no longer relevant. Add a retention policy to each engagement so you don’t hold sensitive artifacts forever without good reason. This discipline improves signal over time and keeps your OSINT practice sustainable.
Maltego: a practical, professional deep dive
Maltego is the kind of tool that rewards thinking in graphs. At its core it isn’t magic — it’s a visual link-analysis platform that lets you pivot from one piece of open data to another, stitch relations together, and see patterns that are invisible in flat lists. In an OSINT workflow it becomes the place where scattershot artifacts become an intelligible narrative. Below I’ll walk through why Maltego matters, how to use it responsibly and effectively, how to integrate it into the note-taking workflow we discussed earlier, and specific practical tips that professional red teams and defenders can use right away.
Why Maltego matters
Maltego turns pivoting into a deliberate, auditable process. Instead of copy-pasting results from several tools into a spreadsheet, you seed the canvas with an entity (a domain, IP, email, person, certificate) and run transforms — small queries or API lookups — that expand that entity into related artifacts. The visual graph helps you understand which nodes are hubs, which relationships are one-offs, and where to prioritize deeper manual investigation. For complex investigations involving many data types — domains, subdomains, certs, email addresses, social accounts, infrastructure — Maltego reduces cognitive load and creates a reproducible investigation record.
Getting started the right way
Begin with clean seed data and a clear scope. If your seed is a target domain, type it into Maltego as a Domain entity. If it’s a person, start with a Person or Email entity. Resist the temptation to run every transform at once; instead, run the transforms that are most likely to reveal high-value pivots first, validate those pivots, and then expand selectively. The typical first transforms you’ll run are passive telemetry: WHOIS and passive DNS, certificate transparency searches, and quick subdomain enumeration. Those early results usually generate the IP addresses, hostnames, and emails that become the axes of the rest of the graph.
Transforms, APIs, and rate limits
Transforms are Maltego’s primitives. Some are local and fast, some call remote APIs and require keys, and some are chained to create deeper pivots. You will quickly learn which transforms are “noisy” (active scans, heavy API calls) and which are safe for broad use (passive WHOIS, CT logs, public web scraping). Always configure API keys and rate limits before you run large graphs. If you’re using paid API providers, make sure queries are scoped so you don’t trigger rate limits or cause unexpected billing. For red team work run noisy transforms only with explicit authorization and ideally from an isolated infrastructure to avoid impacting production systems or revealing your investigative identity.
Graph hygiene and interpretation
Don’t confuse density with importance. A node with many connections may be a public CDN, blocklist, or an aggregator and not inherently interesting. Use degree, betweenness, and clustering visually: filter by node type, collapse known infrastructure (CDNs, cloud provider IP ranges), and highlight entities you’ve validated manually. Maltego supports filtering and layouts; use an organic layout for exploratory work and a hierarchical layout for reporting. Annotate nodes with comments and evidence links so reviewers understand why you kept or pruned them.
A practical recon workflow in Maltego
Seed the domain as a Domain entity, run WHOIS and passive DNS transforms to get historical and current records, then run certificate transforms to pull certificate transparency findings — certificate data often reveals forgotten subdomains and staging hosts. Pivot from resolved IPs to reverse DNS and to Internet-wide telemetry (Shodan/Censys transforms, where available). From harvested email addresses or usernames pivot to social media and username-is-unique transforms, then run profile-finding transforms (Sherlock-like transforms) to locate matching accounts. Each pivot should be validated: open profile links, check timestamps, and screenshot evidence. When you find a suspicious host or leaked credential, trace it back through the graph to find possible origin points — a developer’s repo, CI logs, or an exposed S3 bucket are common culprits.
Evidence capture and notes integration
Maltego is great at building the graph, but your notes system is still the canonical record. For every important node, export the URL, timestamp, and a screenshot. Maltego lets you export selected nodes to CSV, JSON, GraphML, or save the entire case file. Export a CSV row per finding with columns for node type, value, source transform, evidence file name, and timestamp. Save screenshots in a dedicated attachments folder named consistently with your Obsidian/CherryTree vault (for example, 20250916_acme_maltego_cert-ct.png) and compute a hash for each file. In Obsidian paste a short narrative and then a bulletized set of the key findings with links to the exported CSV and the screenshots, plus the hash and the transform that produced them. If you use Obsidian, consider an “Maltego” template that includes fields for case id, seed, scope, transforms run, and a small embedded image gallery of captured screenshots.
Custom transforms and automation
When built-in transforms don’t cover a niche source, you can write custom transforms. Maltego supports creating local or remote transforms using common languages or frameworks. A typical use is wrapping an internal API or a closed-source data provider behind a transform so you can pivot directly inside the graph. Keep custom transforms well-documented and version-controlled. For repetitive tasks, script the export of Maltego graphs and run a small post-processing script to normalize results into your notes format, avoiding manual copy-paste.
Operational security and ethics with Maltego
Use disposable accounts and isolate investigative infrastructure. Running exploratory queries from your main corporate IP or account can put you on the radar of the target or of their security teams and may complicate legal positions. If you’re a consultant or a red team operator, get explicit written authorization for scopes and noisy operations. Maintain a log of transforms run and time windows; that log is your safety net if questioned later. When findings involve personal data, follow the privacy and legal guidelines your organization requires, redact PII in any public-facing reports, and consider involving legal counsel before contacting impacted third parties.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them
Overexpansion is the single most damaging mistake. Graphs can grow exponentially; prune early and focus on nodes that add unique value. Blindly trusting transforms without checking raw sources creates false positives. Always inspect the raw data behind a node before escalating. Misinterpreting a hub as malicious when it’s a content delivery network or a shared hosting provider is a common cognitive error; confirm infrastructure owner via WHOIS, cloud tags, or provider APIs before attributing ownership.
How defenders and red teams use Maltego differently
Defenders often use Maltego for continuous monitoring and incident triage: they seed the platform with corporate domains and employee emails and watch for new connections like newly issued certificates or unexpected subdomains. Red teams use it to model attack paths and identify social engineering vectors — the same pivots that help defenders can be used offensively if permissioned. The difference is intent and authorization. Defenders should treat Maltego output as a prioritized task list; red teams should convert Maltego findings into validated test cases that exercise actual defenses.
Reporting and handoff
A Maltego graph is not a final report. Use the graph to create an evidence-backed narrative. Start the report with a concise executive summary that explains the risk in business terms, follow with a technical appendix that reproduces the graph, includes exported CSV rows, and embeds screenshots with hashes. Provide a recommended remediation plan tied to each significant node: remove stale subdomains, revoke certificates, rotate exposed secrets, enforce MFA on accounts, and perform vendor outreach if third parties are implicated.
Final tips from practice
Treat Maltego as your “discovery engine,” not your verdict engine. Use it to assemble leads, then switch to focused manual investigation for validation. Keep a small set of go-to transforms that you trust and document why you use them. Integrate Maltego exports directly into your Obsidian/CherryTree vault as described earlier so your vault becomes the single source of truth. Finally, stay humble: graphs change, new data appears, and a validated finding today may be outdated tomorrow — keep your notes versioned and your evidence hashed.
BONUS: Practical OSINT Walk-Through with Maltego + Notes Workflow
Alright — let’s turn theory into something actionable. Below is a practical, step-by-step OSINT investigation walk-through, designed the way a cybersecurity professional would actually run it. I’ll keep it realistic and detailed, but not target any real company — I’ll use a fictional domain (examplecorp.com) as our seed.
Scenario:
We’ve been tasked with mapping examplecorp.com’s public-facing infrastructure and finding any potential weak points for a red team engagement.Our goals: discover subdomains, map infrastructure, identify employee data leaks, and highlight possible social engineering vectors.
Step 1 — Set Up & Define Scope
- Seed: examplecorp.com
- Scope: All public-facing assets, no intrusive scanning, passive OSINT only
- Tools: Maltego (Community or Pro), Obsidian for notes, sha256sum for file integrity, browser for manual validation
- Note Template: Pre-created Obsidian template with metadata fields (date, author, engagement ID, scope)
In Obsidian, I open a new note with frontmatter like:
---
title: "2025-09-16_ExampleCorp_OSINT"
date: 2025-09-16T14:30:00Z
author: "Analyst"
target: "examplecorp.com"
scope: "Passive OSINT: DNS, CT logs, WHOIS, employee recon"
tags: [osint, recon, examplecorp]
sources: []
---
Step 2 — Maltego: Initial Graph
- Seed the domain: Add examplecorp.com as a Domain entity.
- Run transforms:
- To WHOIS Info → Get registrar data & contact details
- To DNS Names (NS, MX, A) → Resolve DNS servers, mail servers, web servers
- To Domain WHOIS Details → Grab registrant emails (if not privacy protected)
- To Certificates (CT Logs) → Fetch certificate transparency data (reveals hidden subdomains)
Result:
- Found 9 subdomains (dev.examplecorp.com, api.examplecorp.com, staging.examplecorp.com, etc.)
- Discovered 2 mail servers hosted with a third-party provider
- Found a devops@examplecorp.com email address in WHOIS data
Step 3 — Validate & Pivot
For each finding, I validate before expanding:- Visit staging.examplecorp.com in a browser → loads login page (screenshot taken, file hashed)
- Run To IP Address transform on api.examplecorp.com → resolves to AWS
- Pivot on IP with To DNS Names (Reverse) → reveals an unlisted subdomain beta-api.examplecorp.com
In my Obsidian note, I log it like this:
### Findings
- staging.examplecorp.com
- Status: Online, login page exposed
- Evidence: ![[20250916_examplecorp_staging.png]]
- SHA256: e0d8af19...
- Risk: Staging system may lack MFA or rate limiting
- beta-api.examplecorp.com
- Source: Passive DNS from Maltego
- Evidence: Screenshot captured
- Risk: Unlisted API endpoint, potential target for fuzzing
Step 4 — Employee Recon
- From WHOIS registrant email → pivot to To Email Address [Search Engine]
- Found LinkedIn profiles for employees with “DevOps Engineer” in title
- Exported profile URLs as CSV from Maltego and added to vault
- Checked breach data (e.g., HaveIBeenPwned or Dehashed transforms, if licensed)
- Found a compromised personal email reused by one engineer
Action:
Flagged this for client as a phishing risk. Added to Obsidian note under Social Engineering Vectors section.
Step 5 — Evidence Handling
- All screenshots saved in /engagements/examplecorp/evidence/
- Hashes computed:
sha256sum 20250916_examplecorp_betaapi.png >> hashes.txt
- CSV export from Maltego attached to note:
20250916_examplecorp_maltego-export.csv
Step 6 — Report Prep
Once graph is complete:
- Filter out noise (cloud provider nodes, CDNs)
- Arrange entities with hierarchical layout (top = domain, bottom = IPs and users)
- Export final graph as PNG and attach to note
- Write Executive Summary at top of note:
Step 7 — Deliverable
From Obsidian, export to PDF using Pandoc → send to client with attachments.
Keep full vault + graph in encrypted archive for retention.
