What is happening?
CISA, NIST, FIRST, FBI IC3, and current framework guidance establish public context.
PUBLIC THREAT INTELLIGENCE · SOURCE-LABELED
Know what is happening. Prove whether it matters here.
Current public threat records can improve an MSP conversation when the source, date, scope, and client-evidence boundary stay attached.
CISA KEVNIST NVDFIRST EPSSFBI IC3NIST CSF 2.0CIS Controls v8.1
THE USEFUL DISTINCTION
Threat intelligence is context. Client evidence decides relevance.
A national advisory can tell an MSP what deserves attention. It cannot tell the MSP that a prospect runs the affected product, exposes the vulnerable service, lacks a compensating control, or has been compromised. SCOUTz keeps those claims separate until supported evidence connects them.
Could it matter here?
Domain, product, version, service, configuration, and authorized cloud evidence narrow relevance.
What should we do?
The MSP validates the condition, asks the better question, owns the recommendation, and verifies the work.
LIVE PUBLIC SOURCES + LOOKUP
Current records without the fear theater.
Feeds refresh from their publishers and fail visibly. Search results remain source-linked. No client, MSP, or private product telemetry is exposed on this public page.
CISA KEV · connectingNIST NVD · connectingCISA advisories · connectingRetrieving current public records
Connecting to current public sources…
KNOWN EXPLOITED
CISA KEV additions
CURRENT ADVISORIES
CISA advisory feed
NIST NATIONAL VULNERABILITY DATABASE
Recently modified CVE records
What this page proves and where it stops.
Public-source context does not prove that a specific organization is exposed or compromised. SCOUTz connects a relevant threat record to a client only when the MSP has supported product, version, service, or configuration evidence.
UNITED STATES · BY STATE
Where reported cybercrime loss was concentrated.
The latest FBI IC3 Annual Report provides a consistent state view. It is useful for market education and local conversations, but it is not a live attack map and not a score for businesses in a state.
Source: FBI IC3 2025 Annual Report, state complaint and loss tables ↗Reporting year 2025 · published 2026 · 50 states plus District of Columbia
NIST CSF 2.0 · CURRENT OFFICIAL FRAMEWORK
Translate the feed into risk-management questions.
NIST CSF 2.0 organizes cybersecurity outcomes across six concurrent functions. SCOUTz uses the functions as context for evidence and discussion. It is not an automatic compliance certificate.
Govern
Turn current threat conditions into ownership, risk tolerance, policy, supplier, and oversight questions.
Identify
Connect public vulnerability and campaign context to known assets, services, dependencies, and business impact.
Protect
Use supported exposure evidence to prioritize identity, configuration, hardening, and resilience work.
Detect
Ask whether the organization can observe the behavior associated with a relevant threat rather than merely own a tool.
Respond
Clarify escalation, containment, communications, decision authority, and the MSP’s role before an incident.
Recover
Validate restoration, dependency recovery, lessons learned, and the proof required to return to normal operations.
CIS CONTROLS v8.1 · 153 SAFEGUARDS
Move from the threat headline to measurable defensive work.
CIS Controls v8.1 provides prioritized safeguards and current NIST CSF 2.0 alignment. These selected control areas show where public threat context most often becomes an evidence request, MSP work item, or verification step.
Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets
A relevant CVE becomes actionable only after the affected asset or service is supported by evidence.
Inventory and Control of Software Assets
Vendor, product, and version context help distinguish a real match from a generic advisory.
Secure Configuration of Enterprise Assets and Software
Configuration evidence can turn a broad threat theme into a bounded hardening question.
Continuous Vulnerability Management
CISA KEV, NVD, and EPSS help prioritize review; they do not replace asset-aware validation.
Network Monitoring and Defense
Relevant tactics should become specific monitoring and investigation questions for the MSP.
Incident Response Management
Threat context is most useful when it changes escalation, ownership, communications, or response preparation.
PUBLIC PAGE → PRODUCT WORKFLOW
The public feed tells you what to investigate. SCOUTz tells you what the evidence supports.
Inside the product, relevant CISA KEV and NIST vulnerability context can be correlated only to supported current product or exposure evidence. The result becomes a source-linked finding, an MSP question, a work plan, and, where the source permits it, a rescan.
Threat landscape
Current advisories, catalog entries, national reporting, framework context, and lookup.
Account relevance
Supported domain, service, technology, version, configuration, or customer-authorized cloud evidence.
Decision + delivery
Validation, discovery, recommendation, ticket or project handoff, communication, and verification.
The honest sentence is more useful than the dramatic one.
“This vulnerability is being exploited and we found evidence that may connect it to your environment” is defensible. “You are under attack” is not—unless separate evidence actually proves it.
DIRECT ANSWERS
Threat-intelligence questions MSPs should ask.
Is the SCOUTz threat feed live?
The CISA KEV catalog, CISA advisory feed, NIST NVD records, and FIRST EPSS lookups are requested from their public sources when the page loads or a visitor searches. Each source reports its own availability. FBI IC3 state data is an annual published snapshot and is labeled with its reporting year.
Does a CVE lookup prove a company is vulnerable?
No. A public record proves that the vulnerability record exists. Client relevance requires supported evidence about product, version, service, reachability, configuration, and compensating controls.
Does the state map show live attacks?
No. It visualizes complaints and reported losses in the FBI IC3 2025 Annual Report. It does not show live attacks, every cyber incident, or company-level risk.
How does SCOUTz use NIST and CIS?
NIST CSF and CIS Controls provide useful outcome and safeguard context. SCOUTz uses them to organize questions, evidence, work, and verification; it does not claim compliance from public threat data alone.
SCOUTz OPEN BETA
Point SCOUTz at the question. Walk in with a defensible answer.
Bring a real MSP workflow and see how SCOUTz turns evidence into the next defensible action. The review runs without an agent or install and never changes configuration automatically.
SCOUTz prepares the conversation. The relationship and the sale stay yours.