OpenCTI Alternative:
MISP

Gathering, analyzing, and sharing threat intelligence is key to defending your organization against threats.

Threat Intelligence Platforms (a.k.a. TIPs) are purpose-built to help you consume and share Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) much more efficiently.

The good news? There are several compelling open-source TIPs available that won't cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars a year to run.

OpenCTI and MISP are the two most popular open-source TIPs, with MISP being the leading alternative for teams previously considering OpenCTI.

Let's explore the similarities and differences between OpenCTI and MISP, and help you understand which platform might be the better choice for your threat intelligence program.

Full disclosure: we are big believers in MISP, so much so that we built and run a managed MISP deployment for enterprise security teams, CloudMISP.

What is OpenCTI?

OpenCTI (Open Cyber Threat Intelligence) is a platform designed to manage, analyze, and share structured threat intelligence.

Built for integrating various data sources, OpenCTI allows you to work with threat intelligence indicators (such as IPs, hashes, and domains), connect them with threat actor profiles, and organize them into campaigns, attacks, or incidents.

It also integrates with many security tools and platforms like SIEMs, threat intelligence feeds, and more.

What is MISP?

MISP is an open-source platform primarily focused on enabling threat intelligence sharing.

It is optimized for organizations to collaborate in real-time, sharing Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs), and threat actor information.

Its modular design supports a variety of formats like STIX, TAXII, and MISP-native format, enabling seamless integration with other security tools.

MISP's collaborative nature makes it ideal for rapid information dissemination across different industries and stakeholders.

Similarities Between OpenCTI and MISP

Both OpenCTI and MISP are built to support threat intelligence workflows and provide analysts with a place to manage and share valuable threat data.

Here’s what they have in common:

• Free and open-source. Both OpenCTI and MISP are open-source tools, meaning they’re free to use and can be customized to suit your organization’s needs.
• Support for various structured threat intelligence formats. Both platforms organize threat intelligence using STIX, TAXII, CSV, and JSON. MISP additionally supports the MISP and XML data formats, while OpenCTI supports graph-based formats like Neo4j.
• Support for integrations. Both platforms can integrate with SIEMs, IDS/IPS systems, and threat intelligence feeds, but OpenCTI is generally more suited for environments that require complex integrations and data visualization from diverse sources. MISP, in contrast, is better for structured, large-scale collaboration and sharing.
• Collaborative sharing. Both platforms support collaborative threat intelligence sharing, allowing teams to exchange critical information about emerging threats.

When MISP Might Be a Better Alternative

While OpenCTI and MISP have some similarities, there are important differences that could make MISP the better fit for certain organizations.

1. Focus on Threat Intelligence Sharing

• MISP’s primary focus is on collaborative threat intelligence sharing. It’s designed to make it easy for organizations to share threat data—whether that’s indicators, TTPs, or malware samples. With MISP, sharing intelligence with external partners, vendors, or industry groups is seamless, making it a great tool if you need to collaborate and exchange data with others.
• While OpenCTI does support sharing, it’s more focused on organizing and analyzing intelligence within your own team or organization. The sharing aspect isn’t as emphasized, and while it can be integrated with external platforms, it requires more manual effort to establish those connections.

2. User-Friendliness and Accessibility

• MISP has a reputation for being easy to use, especially for analysts who are just getting started with threat intelligence. The platform is designed to be intuitive, even for users without deep technical experience. Its web interface is clean and straightforward, and setting up data-sharing initiatives is relatively simple.
• OpenCTI, on the other hand, is more complex and may require a steeper learning curve. While it has powerful analytical features, these are not always immediately accessible. Configuring integrations with various external tools, and understanding the full potential of its analysis capabilities, can take more time.

3. Sharing Ecosystem and Community

• MISP has a large, established community and a strong ecosystem for intelligence sharing. It’s widely adopted across various industries, government agencies, and security organizations. This makes it ideal for those who want to exchange information with others in a trusted, structured way. Its integration with protocols like STIX/TAXII ensures compatibility with industry standards, which is especially useful if your organization needs to comply with regulatory requirements or collaborate across industries.
• While OpenCTI does have a community, it’s not as large or as focused on open sharing as MISP. The tool’s focus is more on internal intelligence management and analysis, making it less suited for real-time sharing and collaboration with external parties.

4. Threat Intelligence Standardization

• MISP has built-in support for threat intelligence standards like STIX, TAXII, and OpenDXL. These are common formats used in the cybersecurity industry for sharing structured data about threats. This means that MISP makes it easier to connect with other threat intelligence providers or internal tools that support these standards.
• OpenCTI is built around a graph-based model to analyze and store intelligence, which can sometimes make the integration of other external threat data sources more complex. It uses a more flexible but less standardized approach, which might be beneficial for deeper analysis but less useful when you're looking to integrate with industry-wide data sharing initiatives.

5. Customization vs. Out-of-the-Box Usability

• MISP is more pre-configured for threat intelligence sharing out-of-the-box. If your focus is on quickly setting up an environment to share IOCs and collaborate, MISP will get you up and running faster.
• OpenCTI offers more customization options, but this can also present challenges. While it’s great if you want to build out a very specific, tailored solution, it requires more configuration and setup. This might be overkill if your goal is simply to track and share threat data.

Which Tool Should You Choose?

For most CTI teams we believe MISP is the better choice:

• Simplicity. MISP is easier to set up and use for analysts who need a tool that focuses on collaboration and sharing. If your main job is to gather, organize, and share threat data, MISP’s user-friendly interface will allow you to do so quickly.
• Community. The active MISP community means you can leverage intelligence from a wider network, which is crucial for staying on top of new threats.
• Sharing-first design. MISP is purpose-built for sharing threat intelligence in a structured, standardized way, helping you collaborate with external partners and gain insights from the larger security community.

Final Recommendation

For many teams, MISP offers a more accessible and practical approach to threat intelligence sharing.

Its focus on collaboration, ease of use, and integration with threat intelligence standards makes it the go-to choice for organizations looking to share data quickly and effectively.

If you'd like some assistance with implementing MISP at your organization, we offer a hosted MISP deployment (CloudMISP) as well as MISP training and professional services.

‍