Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Threat Intelligence

3/4/2019
10:30 AM
Heather Hixon
Heather Hixon
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
67%
33%

Here's What Happened When a SOC Embraced Automation

Despite initial apprehension, security engineers and analysts immediately began to notice a variety of benefits.

Most security operations centers (SOCs), regardless of industry or maturity level, are challenged by a dearth of qualified experts and unmanageable numbers of security alerts that lack context or actionable value. Year after year, overcoming these obstacles continues to be at the top of the SOC wish list.

Combining the power of automation with advanced network and security capabilities could very well be the solution.

However, the very mention of the word "automation" often creates some anxiety. At one large managed security services provider (MSSP) where I worked as a SOC engineer, we were asked to report which job functions took up most of our time and suggest how they could be automated. Even though members of our group would at times struggle to manage all of their responsibilities, there still was concern over how automation would impact our jobs, rather than how it could improve our roles. 

Nevertheless, our SOC team developed a list of job functions that would benefit from automation, along with how it could be implemented. As changes were rolled out, we immediately began to notice some benefits. For example, building more automation processes into the SOC's correlation engine enabled us to complete more tuning tasks on a daily basis and reduce overall event generation. This, in turn, allowed us to spend more quality time with clients, gain greater insights into their security programs, and collaborate on future projects.

Automation provided another important benefit: The MSSP's senior analysts and SOC engineers were able to devote more time to documentation for the team's junior analysts. This robust library of knowledge enabled less experienced team members to better identify exploit techniques and recognize common patterns, thereby gaining valuable knowledge and on-the-job training from their more experienced colleagues. This process translated into fewer escalations to senior staff, overall empowerment of junior analysts, and also accelerated their professional development.

Senior management soon began to recognize automation's benefits. The SOC team was able to supply better, more relevant business metrics to drive organizational change. Better reporting provided data points we needed to hire additional analysts, invest in the development and adoption of new technologies, and assess the overall performance and productivity of current staff.

From an operational standpoint, automation helped produce measurable improvements across key customer service metrics, including time to detection and remediation, vulnerability management progress, and network disruption times, just to name a few.

In one instance, automation enabled the SOC to quickly resolve a widespread outage experienced by multiple clients, caused by the incorrect classification of common websites due to a networking equipment software glitch. Automated rulesets in place generated an abnormally large amount of denied traffic events across these multiple companies. Simultaneously, the affected organizations were notified of the activity via their ticketing systems. This immediate notification allowed the SOC to identify and quickly respond to an extremely unique event.  

As this real example illustrates, automating both network and security processes can help security teams evolve from reactionary fire-fighting to a more proactive response posture. Despite the apprehension often associated with the automation of SOC functions, it is an ally, not an adversary. 

Related Content:

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Heather Hixon is a senior solutions architect for security orchestration, automation and response vendor DFLabs. She has been a SOC team leader, SOC analyst and SIEM engineer with NTT Security, and served in IT management roles with several other organizations. Heather is ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
3/4/2019 | 2:15:49 PM
And in 2 weeks
A number of them were on the unemployment line. 
Greater Focus on Privacy Pays Off for Firms
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  1/27/2020
Average Ransomware Payments More Than Doubled in Q4 2019
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/27/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20215
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-29
D-Link DIR-859 1.05 and 1.06B01 Beta01 devices allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a urn: to the M-SEARCH method in ssdpcgi() in /htdocs/cgibin, because HTTP_ST is mishandled. The value of the urn: service/device is checked with the strstr function, which allows an attacker t...
CVE-2019-20216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-29
D-Link DIR-859 1.05 and 1.06B01 Beta01 devices allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the urn: to the M-SEARCH method in ssdpcgi() in /htdocs/cgibin, because REMOTE_PORT is mishandled. The value of the urn: service/device is checked with the strstr function, which allows an atta...
CVE-2019-20217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-29
D-Link DIR-859 1.05 and 1.06B01 Beta01 devices allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the urn: to the M-SEARCH method in ssdpcgi() in /htdocs/cgibin, because SERVER_ID is mishandled. The value of the urn: service/device is checked with the strstr function, which allows an attack...
CVE-2020-8428
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-29
fs/namei.c in the Linux kernel before 5.5 has a may_create_in_sticky use-after-free, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (OOPS) or possibly obtain sensitive information from kernel memory, aka CID-d0cb50185ae9. One attack vector may be an open system call for a UNIX domain socket, ...
CVE-2020-5227
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-28
Feedgen (python feedgen) before 0.9.0 is susceptible to XML Denial of Service attacks. The *feedgen* library allows supplying XML as content for some of the available fields. This XML will be parsed and integrated into the existing XML tree. During this process, feedgen is vulnerable to XML Denial o...