Identities and aliases
Public profiles, pseudonyms, biographical consistency and cautious links between accounts.
Open sources and verification
OSINT investigations: turning public traces into verifiable facts.
Structured research into identities, organisations, digital assets and relationships between entities, without intrusion or access-control circumvention.
The scope is adjusted to the question, urgency and available material. The aim is to obtain a useful answer without widening the research unnecessarily or collecting information that has no bearing on the decision.
- Service
- Open-source intelligence investigation (OSINT)
- For whom
- Individuals, executives, organisations and their advisers
- Sources
- Open, lawful, dated and traceable material
- Output
- IIS / OSINT · decision-ready report
Objective
Establish what is public, consistent and useful to the decision.
OSINT investigations bring together lawfully accessible information from search engines, registers, web archives, social networks, publications, domain names and documents supplied by the client.
Each element is dated, compared with other sources and assigned a confidence level. Facts, hypotheses and unknowns remain clearly separated.
When a point cannot be confirmed, it is identified as an uncertainty or a lead for further verification. This distinction protects the quality of the report and prevents a plausible interpretation from being mistaken for an established fact.
Mission scope
What the analysis can cover.
The following areas can be combined or narrowed depending on the case. Each retained element must contribute to the stated objective and be obtained through a lawful, traceable source.
Companies and executives
Appointments, visible history, ecosystems, partners, publications and risk signals.
Digital assets
Domains, websites, public accounts, archives, exposed metadata and change timelines.
Entity relationships
Documented links, proximity, shared interests and uncertainties requiring further work.
Timeline analysis
Reconstruction of public events, contradictions, activity periods and significant breaks.
Targeted monitoring
Periodic monitoring of a defined subject with escalation of genuinely relevant developments.
Typical decision questions
Examples of a focused review.
These are illustrative questions, not client cases. Each calls for a bounded scope, dated sources and a clear account of what remains uncertain.
Does this profile belong to the person in question?
Compare several independent identifiers, role dates and primary sources before attribution. The report separates strong matches, plausible namesakes and points that cannot be established.
Where did a claim first appear?
Reconstruct the traceable publication chain, separate the origin from reposts and record archive gaps. The earliest item found is a research boundary, not automatic proof of origin.
Which public relationships matter to the decision?
Map only documented links between relevant entities, people and events. A shared address or photograph alone does not establish control or coordination.
Deliverable
A sourced, readable report adapted to your decision.
The report prioritises verifiable elements, confidence levels and practical consequences. It never presents a hypothesis as an established fact.
The main findings are written in plain language, with dated sources, confidence levels and practical consequences. A short executive summary supports quick reading, while the detailed sections preserve the reasoning needed to review the conclusions.
ReportIIS / OSINT
- Decision brief
- Documented timeline
- Sources and confidence levels
- Relationship map
- Blind spots and recommendations
Working framework
What makes a request easier to assess.
Question
State the decision, concern or event behind the request. A precise question produces a more proportionate search than a broad request for “everything” about a person or organisation.
Reference points
Share the names, entities, URLs, dates, public references and known aliases that matter. This helps distinguish a relevant trace from a namesake, an old result or an unrelated account.
Limits
Specify recipients, timing, jurisdictions and any legal or human constraints. The scope can then be restricted to lawful, useful sources and sensitive material can be handled with the appropriate care.
Decision
Explain what the report must enable: verify, prioritise, brief a professional, prepare a discussion or decide whether to proceed. The expected use informs the depth and format of the deliverable.
Useful distinctions
Clarity about scope protects the decision.
Does a public trace prove identity or intent?
Not automatically. A public trace can be incomplete, outdated, copied, falsely attributed or associated with a namesake. Its value comes from the quality of its source, its date, its context and corroboration by independent elements.
What is outside the scope of a lawful mission?
Accessing private accounts, bypassing security controls, intercepting communications, acquiring unlawfully obtained data or using deception to obtain protected information are excluded. The analysis is confined to open, lawfully accessible sources and client-provided material.
What areas can this analysis cover?
Depending on the question and legitimate purpose, the scope may include: Identities and aliases, Companies and executives, Digital assets, Entity relationships, Timeline analysis, Targeted monitoring. Only areas that contribute to the stated decision are retained.
What will the final report contain?
The exact format is agreed during scoping. Available components include: Decision brief, Documented timeline, Sources and confidence levels, Relationship map, Blind spots and recommendations. Findings remain linked to dated sources, confidence levels and explicit caveats.
Can advisers or internal teams use the report?
It is designed to support review with a concise brief, dated sources, confidence levels, caveats and next-step options. The recipient remains responsible for their own legal, technical, HR or communication decisions.
Related services
Explore the other ways to address your situation.
Confidential scoping
Describe the context in simple terms, without sending passwords, identity documents or unnecessarily sensitive material at the first stage.
Agree the fact to establish and the stopping rule
Start from a precise claim and known identifiers. The file should retain original sources, consultation dates, namesake checks and contradictions. Agree what would justify further research before collecting more material.
What makes the output usable
A useful conclusion states which facts are supported, which explanation remains plausible and which specific check could change the assessment. It must not infer control or intent from one shared identifier.