ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Detecting FIMI: A methodological framework for testing OSINT tools in TTPs detection.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) represents a growing hybrid threat targeting democratic processes, social cohesion, and diaspora communities. Detecting it requires identifying underlying tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) described in frameworks such as DISARM, AMITT, and MITRE ATT&CK. Although many open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools exist, their evaluation remains fragmented and lacks methodological standardisation. This article presents a framework for testing OSINT tools for TTP detection, developed within the Horizon Europe project RESONANT. Methods: The methodology integrates three components: a structured multi-source collection of OSINT tools informed by academic, operational, and grey literature; a controlled, mixed-source evaluation corpus of project-prepared examples, public reference material, and selected third-party datasets across text, multimedia, network and infrastructure analysis; and controlled testing by law enforcement partners from Greece and Ukraine. Tools were classified into eight categories and evaluated using predefined indicators of accuracy, usability, interoperability, coverage of adversarial behaviours, and sustainability. Results: Several content-verification and multimedia-forensics tools performed well on the retained material, and infrastructure-level tools gave useful indicators; these are time-bound descriptive observations, not general rankings. Exact case-level replication is limited, as the package does not preserve the full CT-A/CT-B mapping, run-level outputs, denominators, or configurations. Social media analytics and bot-detection tools were least stable under platform API restrictions. Shortcomings recurred in multilingual processing, interoperability, explainability, and integration into threat-intelligence formats. Conclusions: The study offers a transferable methodology for evaluating OSINT tools in the context of FIMI TTP detection. Combining a mixed-source corpus, structured testing, practitioner validation, and publication of the available material, it advances methodological transparency while clarifying the limits of both automated outputs and the retained replication record. The proposed tool suite is a layered decision-support baseline, not a verdict-producing system. Future work should expand multilingual and out-of-distribution testing, operationalise bias and explainability metrics, preserve run-level records, and pursue lawful access to platform data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.