Blog
/

OT

Ransomware

Inside the SOC

/
February 9, 2022

The Impact of Conti Ransomware on OT Systems

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
09
Feb 2022
Learn how ransomware can spread throughout converged IT/OT environments, and how Self-Learning AI empowers organizations to contain these threats.

Ransomware has taken the world by storm, and IT is not the only technology affected. Operational Technology (OT), which is increasingly blending with IT, is also susceptible to ransomware tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). And when ransomware strikes OT, the effects have the potential to be devastating.

Here, we will look at a ransomware attack that spread from IT to OT systems. The attack was detected by Darktrace AI.

This threat find demonstrates a use case of Darktrace’s technology that delivers immense value to organizations with OT: spotting and stopping ransomware at its earliest stages, before the damage is done. This is particularly helpful for organizations with interconnected enterprise and industrial environments, as it means:

  1. Emerging attacks can be contained in IT before they spread laterally into OT, and even before they spread from device to device in IT;
  2. Organizations gain granular visibility into their industrial environments, detecting deviations from normal activity, and quick identification of remediating actions.

Threat find: Ransomware and crypto-mining hijack affecting IT and OT systems

Darktrace recently identified an aggressive attack targeting an OT R&D investment firm in EMEA. The attack originally started as a crypto-mining campaign and later evolved into ransomware. This organization deployed Darktrace in a digital estate containing both IT and OT assets that spanned over 3,000 devices.

If the organization had deployed Darktrace’s Autonomous Response technology in active mode, this threat would have been stopped in its earliest stages. Even in the absence of Autonomous Response, however, mere human attention would have stopped this attack’s progression. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI gave clear indications of an ongoing compromise in the month prior to the detonation of ransomware. In this case, however, the security team was not monitoring Darktrace’s interface, and so the attack was allowed to proceed.

Compromised OT devices

This threat find will focus on the attack techniques used to take over two OT devices, specifically, a HMI (human machine interface), and an ICS Historian used to collect and log industrial data. These OT devices were both VMware virtual machines running Windows OS, and were compromised as part of a wider Conti ransomware infection. Both devices were being used primarily within an industrial control system (ICS), running a popular ICS software package and making regular connections to an industrial cloud platform.

These devices were thus part of an ICSaaS (ICS-as-a-Service) environment, using virtualised and Cloud platforms to run analytics, update threat intelligence, and control the industrial process. As previously highlighted by Darktrace, the convergence of cloud and ICS increases a network’s attack surface and amplifies cyber risk.

Attack lifecycle

Opening stages

The initial infection of the OT devices occurred when a compromised Domain Controller (DC) made unusual Active Directory requests. The devices made subsequent DCE-RPC binds for epmapper, often used by attackers for command execution, and lsarpc, used by attackers to abuse authentication policies and escalate privileges.

The payload was delivered when the OT devices used SMB to connect to the sysvol folder on the DC and read a malicious executable file, called SetupPrep.exe.

Figure 1: Darktrace model breaches across the whole network from initial infection on October 21 to the detonation on November 15.

Figure 2: ICS reads on the HMI in the lead up, during, and following detonation of the ransomware.

Device encryption and lateral spread

The malicious payload remained dormant on the OT devices for three weeks. It seems the attacker used the time to install crypto-mining malware elsewhere on the network and consolidate their foothold.

On the day the ransomware detonated, the attacker used remote management tools to initiate encryption. The PSEXEC tool was used on an infected server (separate from the original DC) to remotely execute malicious .dll files on the compromised OT devices.

The devices then attempted to make command and control (C2) connections to rare external endpoints using suspicious ports. Like in many ICS networks, sufficient network segregation had been implemented to prevent the HMI device from making successful connections to the Internet and the C2 communications failed. But worryingly, the failed C2 did not prevent the attack from proceeding or the ransomware from detonating.

The Historian device made successful C2 connections to around 40 unique external endpoints. Darktrace detected beaconing-type behavior over suspicious TCP/SSL ports including 465, 995, 2078, and 2222. The connections were made to rare destination IP addresses that did not specify the Server Name Indication (SNI) extension hostname and used self-signed and/or expired SSL certificates.

Both devices enumerated network SMB shares and wrote suspicious shell scripts to network servers. Finally, the devices used SMB to encrypt files stored in network shares, adding a file extension which is likely to be unique to this victim and which will be called ABCXX for the purpose of this blog. Most encrypted files were uploaded to the folder in which the file was originally located, but in some instances were moved to the images folder.

During the encryption, the device was using the machine account to authenticate SMB sessions. This is in contrast to other ransomware incidents that Darktrace has observed, in which admin or service accounts are compromised and abused by the attacker. It is possible that in this instance the attacker was able to use ‘Living off the Land’ techniques (for example the use of lsarpc pipe) to give the machine account admin privileges.

Examples of files being encrypted and moved:

  • SMB move success
  • File: new\spbr0007\0000006A.bak
  • Renamed: new\spbr0007\0000006A.bak.ABCXX
  • SMB move success
  • File: ActiveMQ\readme.txt
  • Renamed: Images\10j0076kS1UA8U975GC2e6IY.488431411265952821382.png.ABCXX

Detonation of ransomware

Upon detonation, the ransomware note readme.txt was written by the ICS to targeted devices as part of the encryption activity.

The final model breached by the device was “Unresponsive ICS Device” as the device either stopped working due to the effects of the ransomware, or was removed from the network.

Figure 3: abc-histdev — external connections filtered on destination port 995 shows C2 connections starting around one hour before encryption began.

How the attack bypassed the rest of the security stack

In this threat find, there were a number of factors which resulted in the OT devices becoming compromised.

The first is IT/OT convergence. The ICS network was insufficiently segregated from the corporate network. This means that devices could be accessed by the compromised DC during the lateral movement stage of the attack. As OT becomes more reliant on IT, ensuring sufficient segregation is in place, or that an attacker can not circumvent such segregation, is becoming an ever increasing challenge for security teams.

Another reason is that the attacker used attack methods which leverage Living off the Land techniques to compromise devices with no discrimination as to whether they were part of an IT or OT network. Many of the machines used to operate ICS networks, including the devices highlighted here, rely on operating systems vulnerable to the kinds of TTPs observed here and that are regularly employed by ransomware groups.

Darktrace insights

Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to stitch together many disparate forms of unusual activity across the compromised devices to give a clear security narrative containing details of the attack. The incident report for the Historian server is shown below. This provides a clear illustration of how Cyber AI Analyst can close any skills or communication gap between IT and OT specialists.

Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst of the Historian server (abc-histdev). It investigated and reported the C2 communication (step 2) that started just before network reconnaissance using TCP scanning (step 3) and the subsequent file encryption over SMB (step 4).

In total, the attacker’s dwell time within the digital estate was 25 days. Unfortunately, it lead to disruption to operational technology, file encryption and financial loss. Altogether, 36 devices were crypto-mining for over 20 days – followed by nearly 100 devices (IT and OT) becoming encrypted following the detonation of the ransomware.

If it were active, Autonomous Response would have neutralized this activity, containing the damage before it could escalate into crisis. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI gave clear indications of an ongoing compromise in the month prior to the detonation of ransomware, and so any degree of human attention toward Darktrace’s revelations would have stopped the attack.

Autonomous Response is highly configurable, and so, in industrial environments — whether air-gapped OT or converged IT/OT ecosystems — Antigena can be deployed in a variety of manners. In human confirmation mode, human operators need to give the green light before the AI takes action. Antigena can also be deployed only in the higher levels of the Purdue model, or the “IT in OT,” protecting the core assets from fast-moving attacks like ransomware.

Ransomware and interconnected IT/OT systems

ICS networks are often operated by machines that rely on operating systems which can be affected by TTPs regularly employed by ransomware groups — that is, TTPs such as Living off the Land, which do not discriminate between IT and OT.

The threat that ransomware poses to organizations with OT, including critical infrastructure, is so severe that the Cyber Infrastructure and Security Agency (CISA) released a fact sheet concerning these threats in the summer of 2021, noting the risk that IT attacks pose to OT networks:

“OT components are often connected to information technology (IT) networks, providing a path for cyber actors to pivot from IT to OT networks… As demonstrated by recent cyber incidents, intrusions affecting IT networks can also affect critical operational processes even if the intrusion does not directly impact an OT network.”

Major ransomware attacks against the Colonial Pipeline and JBS Foods demonstrate the potential for ransomware affecting OT to cause severe economic disruption on a national and international scale. And ransomware can wreak havoc on OT systems regardless of whether they directly target OT systems.

As industrial environments continue to converge and evolve — be they IT/OT, ICSaaS, or simply poorly segregated legacy systems — Darktrace stands ready to contain attacks before the damage is done. It is time for organizations with industrial environments to take the quantum leap forward that Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI is uniquely positioned to provide.

Thanks to Darktrace analysts Ash Brice and Andras Balogh for their insights on the above threat find.

Discover more on how Darktrace protects OT environments from ransomware

Darktrace model detections

HMI in chronological order at time of detonation:

  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Unusual SMB Script Write
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity [Enhanced Monitoring]
  • ICS / Unusual Data Transfer By OT Device
  • ICS / Unusual Unresponsive ICS Device

Historian

  • ICS / Rare External from OT Device
  • Anomalous Connection / Anomalous SSL without SNI to New External
  • Anomalous Connection / Multiple Connections to New External TCP Port
  • ICS / Unusual Activity From OT Device
  • Anomalous Connection / SMB Enumeration
  • Anomalous Connection / Suspicious Activity On High Risk Device
  • Unusual Activity / SMB Access Failures
  • Device / Large Number of Model Breaches
  • ICS / Unusual Data Transfer By OT Device
  • Anomalous File / Internal / Additional Extension Appended to SMB File
  • Device / SMB Lateral Movement
  • Compromise / Ransomware / Suspicious SMB Activity [Enhanced Monitoring]
  • Device / Multiple Lateral Movement Model Breaches [Enhanced Monitoring]

Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Author
Oakley Cox
Director of Product

Oakley is a Product Manager within the Darktrace R&D team. He collaborates with global customers, including all critical infrastructure sectors and Government agencies, to ensure Darktrace/OT remains the first in class solution for OT Cyber Security. He draws on 7 years’ experience as a Cyber Security Consultant to organizations across EMEA, APAC and ANZ. His research into cyber-physical security has been published by Cyber Security journals and by CISA. Oakley has a Doctorate (PhD) from the University of Oxford.

Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Share this article

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

February 3, 2025

/

Cloud

CNAPP Alone Isn’t Enough: Focusing on CDR for Real-Time Cross Domain Protection

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Forecasts predict public cloud spending will soar to over $720 billion by 2025, with 90%[1] of organizations embracing a hybrid cloud approach by 2027. These figures could also be eclipsed as more businesses unearth the potential impact that AI can make on their productivity. The pace of evolution is staggering, but one thing hasn’t changed: the cloud security market is a maze of complexity. Filled with acronyms, overlapping capabilities, and endless use cases tailored to every buyer persona.

On top of this, organizations face a fragmented landscape of security tools, each designed to cover just one slice of the cloud security puzzle. Then there’s CNAPP (Cloud-Native Application Protection Platform) — a broad platform promising to do it all but often falling short, especially around providing runtime detection and response capabilities. It’s no wonder organizations struggle to cut through the noise and find the precision they require.

Looking more closely at what CNAPP has to offer, it can feel like as if it is all you would ever need, but is that really the case?

Strengths and limitations of CNAPP

A CNAPP is undeniably a compelling solution, originally coming from CSPM (Cloud Security Posture Management), it provided organizations with a snapshot of their deployed cloud assets, highlighting whether they were as secure as intended. However, this often resulted in an overwhelming list of issues to fix, leaving organizations unsure where to focus their energy for maximum impact.

To address this, CNAPP’s evolved, incorporating capabilities like; identifying software vulnerabilities, mapping attack paths, and understanding which identities could act within the cloud. The goal became clear: prioritize fixes to reduce the risk of compromise.

But what if we could avoid these problems altogether? Imagine deploying software securely from the start — preventing the merging of vulnerable packages and ensuring proper configurations in production environments by shifting left. This preventative approach is vital to any “secure by design” strategy, CNAPP’s again evolving to add this functionality alongside.

However, as applications grow more complex, so do the variety and scope of potential issues. The responsibility for addressing these challenges often falls to engineers, who are left balancing the pressure to write code with the burden of fixing critical findings that may never even pose a real risk to the organization.

While CNAPP serves as an essential risk prevention tool — focusing on hygiene, compliance, and enabling organizations to deploy high-quality code on well-configured infrastructure — its role is largely limited to reducing the potential for issues. Once applications and infrastructure are live, the game changes. Security’s focus shifts to detecting unwanted activity and responding to real-time risks.

Limitations of CNAPP

Here’s where CNAPP shows its limitations:

1. Blind spots for on-premises workloads

Designed for cloud-native environments, it can leave blind spots for workloads that remain on-premises — a significant concern given that 90% of organizations are expected to adopt a hybrid cloud strategy by 2027. These blind spots can increase the risk of cross-domain attacks, underscoring the need for a solution that goes beyond purely prevention but adds real-time detection and response.

2. Detecting and mitigating cross-domain threats

Adversaries have evolved to exploit the complexity of hybrid and cloud environments through cross-domain attacks. These attacks span multiple domains — including traditional network environments, identity systems, SaaS platforms, and cloud environments — making them exceptionally difficult to detect and mitigate. Attackers are human and will naturally choose the path of least resistance, why spend time writing a detailed software exploit for a vulnerability if you can just target the identity?

Imagine a scenario where an attacker compromises an organization via leaked credentials and then moves laterally, similar to the example outlined in this blog: The Price of Admission: Countering Stolen Credentials with Darktrace. If an attacker identifies cloud credentials and moves into the cloud control plane, they could access additional sensitive data. Without a detection platform that monitors these areas for unusual activity, while working to consolidate findings into a unified timeline, detecting these types of attacks becomes incredibly challenging.

A CNAPP might only point to a potential misconfiguration of an identity or for example a misconfiguration around secret storage, but it cannot detect when that misconfiguration has been exploited — let alone respond to it.

Identity + Network: Unlocking cross-domain threats

Identity is more than just a role or username; it is essentially an access point for attackers to leverage and move between different areas of a digital estate. Real-time monitoring of human and non-human identities is crucial for understanding intent, spotting anomalies, and preventing possible attacks before they spread.

Non-human roles, such as service accounts or automation tooling, often operate with trust and without oversight. In 2024, the Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Agency (CISA) [2] released a warning regarding new strategies employed by SolarWinds attackers. These strategies were primarily aimed at cloud infrastructure and non-human identities. The warning details how attackers leverage credentials and valid applications for malicious purposes.

With organizations opting for a hybrid approach, combining network, identity, cloud management and cloud runtime activity is essential to detecting and mitigating cross domain attacks, these are just some of the capabilities needed for effective detection and response:

  • AI driven automated and unified investigation of events – due to the volume of data and activity within businesses digital estates leveraging AI is vital, to enable SOC teams in understanding and facilitating proportional and effective responses.
  • Real-time monitoring auditing combined with anomaly detection for human and non-human identities.
  • A unified investigation platform that can deliver a real-time understanding of Identity, deployed cloud assets, runtime and contextual findings as well as coverage for remaining on premises workloads.
  • The ability to leverage threat intelligence automatically to detect potential malicious activities quickly.

The future of cloud security: Balancing risk management with real-time detection and response

Darktrace / CLOUD's CDR approach enhances CNAPP by providing the essential detection and native response needed to protect against cross-domain threats. Its agentless, default setup is both cost-effective and scalable, creating a runtime baseline that significantly boosts visibility for security teams. While proactive controls are crucial for cloud security, pairing them with Cloud Detection and Response solutions addresses a broader range of challenges.

With Darktrace / CLOUD, organizations benefit from continuous, real-time monitoring and advanced AI-driven behavioural detection, ensuring proactive detection and a robust cloud-native response. This integrated approach delivers comprehensive protection across the digital estate.

Unlock advanced cloud protection

Darktrace / CLOUD solution brief screenshot

Download the Darktrace / CLOUD solution brief to discover how autonomous, AI-driven defense can secure your environment in real-time.

  • Achieve 60% more accurate detection of unknown and novel cloud threats.
  • Respond instantly with autonomous threat response, cutting response time by 90%.
  • Streamline investigations with automated analysis, improving ROI by 85%.
  • Gain a 30% boost in cloud asset visibility with real-time architecture modeling.
  • References

    1. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-11-19-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-public-cloud-end-user-spending-to-total-723-billion-dollars-in-2025
    2. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-057a
    Continue reading
    About the author
    Adam Stevens
    Director of Product, Cloud Security

    Blog

    /

    February 4, 2025

    /
    No items found.

    Reimagining Your SOC: Overcoming Alert Fatigue with AI-Led Investigations  

    Default blog imageDefault blog image

    The efficiency of a Security Operations Center (SOC) hinges on its ability to detect, analyze and respond to threats effectively. With advancements in AI and automation, key early SOC team metrics such as Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) have seen significant improvements:

    • 96% of defenders believing AI-powered solutions significantly boost the speed and efficiency of prevention, detection, response, and recovery.
    • Organizations leveraging AI and automation can shorten their breach lifecycle by an average of 108 days compared to those without these technologies.

    While tool advances have improved performance and effectiveness in the detection phase, this has not been as beneficial to the next step of the process where initial alerts are investigated further to determine their relevance and how they relate to other activities. This is often measured with the metric Mean Time to Analysis (MTTA), although some SOC teams operate a two-level process with teams for initial triage to filter out more obviously uninteresting alerts and for more detailed analysis of the remainder. SOC teams continue to grapple with alert fatigue, overwhelmed analysts, and inefficient triage processes, preventing them from achieving the operational efficiency necessary for a high-performing SOC.

    Addressing this core inefficiency requires extending AI's capabilities beyond detection to streamline and optimize the following investigative workflows that underpin effective analysis.

    Challenges with SOC alert investigation

    Detecting cyber threats is only the beginning of a much broader challenge of SOC efficiency. The real bottleneck often lies in the investigation process.

    Detection tools and techniques have evolved significantly with the use of machine learning methods, improving early threat detection. However, after a detection pops up, human analysts still typically step in to evaluate the alert, gather context, and determine whether it’s a true threat or a false alarm and why. If it is a threat, further investigation must be performed to understand the full scope of what may be a much larger problem. This phase, measured by the mean time to analysis, is critical for swift incident response.

    Challenges with manual alert investigation:

    • Too many alerts
    • Alerts lack context
    • Cognitive load sits with analysts
    • Insufficient talent in the industry
    • Fierce competition for experienced analysts

    For many organizations, investigation is where the struggle of efficiency intensifies. Analysts face overwhelming volumes of alerts, a lack of consolidated context, and the mental strain of juggling multiple systems. With a worldwide shortage of 4 million experienced level two and three SOC analysts, the cognitive burden placed on teams is immense, often leading to alert fatigue and missed threats.

    Even with advanced systems in place not all potential detections are investigated. In many cases, only a quarter of initial alerts are triaged (or analyzed). However, the issue runs deeper. Triaging occurs after detection engineering and alert tuning, which often disable many alerts that could potentially reveal true threats but are not accurate enough to justify the time and effort of the security team. This means some potential threats slip through unnoticed.

    Understanding alerts in the SOC: Stopping cyber incidents is hard

    Let’s take a look at the cyber-attack lifecycle and the steps involved in detecting and stopping an attack:

    First we need a trace of an attack…

    The attack will produce some sort of digital trace. Novel attacks, insider threats, and attacker techniques such as living-off-the-land can make attacker activities extremely hard to distinguish.

    A detection is created…

    Then we have to detect the trace, for example some beaconing to a rare domain. Initial detection alerts being raised underpin the MTTD (mean time to detection). Reducing this initial unseen duration is where we have seen significant improvement with modern threat detection tools.

    When it comes to threat detection, the possibilities are vast. Your initial lead could come from anything: an alert about unusual network activity, a potential known malware detection, or an odd email. Once that lead comes in, it’s up to your security team to investigate further and determine if this is this a legitimate threat or a false alarm and what the context is behind the alert.

    Investigation begins…

    It doesn’t just stop at a detection. Typically, humans also need to look at the alert, investigate, understand, analyze, and conclude whether this is a genuine threat that needs a response. We normally measure this as MTTA (mean time to analyze).

    Conducting the investigation effectively requires a high degree of skill and efficiency, as every second counts in mitigating potential damage. Security teams must analyze the available data, correlate it across multiple sources, and piece together the timeline of events to understand the full scope of the incident. This process involves navigating through vast amounts of information, identifying patterns, and discerning relevant details. All while managing the pressure of minimizing downtime and preventing further escalation.

    Containment begins…

    Once we confirm something as a threat, and the human team determines a response is required and understand the scope, we need to contain the incident. That's normally the MTTC (mean time to containment) and can be further split into immediate and more permanent measures.

    For more about how AI-led solutions can help in the containment stage read here: Autonomous Response: Streamlining Cybersecurity and Business Operations

    The challenge is not only in 1) detecting threats quickly, but also 2) triaging and investigating them rapidly and with precision, and 3) prioritizing the most critical findings to avoid missed opportunities. Effective investigation demands a combination of advanced tools, robust workflows, and the expertise to interpret and act on the insights they generate. Without these, organizations risk delaying critical containment and response efforts, leaving them vulnerable to greater impacts.

    While there are further steps (remediation, and of course complete recovery) here we will focus on investigation.

    Developing an AI analyst: How Darktrace replicates human investigation

    Darktrace has been working on understanding the investigative process of a skilled analyst since 2017. By conducting internal research between Darktrace expert SOC analysts and machine learning engineers, we developed a formalized understanding of investigative processes. This understanding formed the basis of a multi-layered AI system that systematically investigates data, taking advantage of the speed and breadth afforded by machine systems.

    With this research we found that the investigative process often revolves around iterating three key steps: hypothesis creation, data collection, and results evaluation.

    All these details are crucial for an analyst to determine the nature of a potential threat. Similarly, they are integral components of our Cyber AI Analyst which is an integral component across our product suite. In doing so, Darktrace has been able to replicate the human-driven approach to investigating alerts using machine learning speed and scale.

    Here’s how it works:

    • When an initial or third-party alert is triggered, the Cyber AI Analyst initiates a forensic investigation by building multiple hypotheses and gathering relevant data to confirm or refute the nature of suspicious activity, iterating as necessary, and continuously refining the original hypothesis as new data emerges throughout the investigation.
    • Using a combination of machine learning including supervised and unsupervised methods, NLP and graph theory to assess activity, this investigation engine conducts a deep analysis with incidents raised to the human team only when the behavior is deemed sufficiently concerning.
    • After classification, the incident information is organized and processed to generate the analysis summary, including the most important descriptive details, and priority classification, ensuring that critical alerts are prioritized for further action by the human-analyst team.
    • If the alert is deemed unimportant, the complete analysis process is made available to the human team so that they can see what investigation was performed and why this conclusion was drawn.
    Darktrace cyber ai analyst workflow, how it works

    To illustrate this via example, if a laptop is beaconing to a rare domain, the Cyber AI Analyst would create hypotheses including whether this could be command and control traffic, data exfiltration, or something else. The AI analyst then collects data, analyzes it, makes decisions, iterates, and ultimately raises a new high-level incident alert describing and detailing its findings for human analysts to review and follow up.

    Learn more about Darktrace's Cyber AI Analyst

    • Cost savings: Equivalent to adding up to 30 full-time Level 2 analysts without increasing headcount
    • Minimize business risk: Takes on the busy work from human analysts and elevates a team’s overall decision making
    • Improve security outcomes: Identifies subtle, sophisticated threats through holistic investigations

    Unlocking an efficient SOC

    To create a mature and proactive SOC, addressing the inefficiencies in the alert investigation process is essential. By extending AI's capabilities beyond detection, SOC teams can streamline and optimize investigative workflows, reducing alert fatigue and enhancing analyst efficiency.

    This holistic approach not only improves Mean Time to Analysis (MTTA) but also ensures that SOCs are well-equipped to handle the evolving threat landscape. Embracing AI augmentation and automation in every phase of threat management will pave the way for a more resilient and proactive security posture, ultimately leading to a high-performing SOC that can effectively safeguard organizational assets.

    Every relevant alert is investigated

    The Cyber AI Analyst is not a generative AI system, or an XDR or SEIM aggregator that simply prompts you on what to do next. It uses a multi-layered combination of many different specialized AI methods to investigate every relevant alert from across your enterprise, native, 3rd party, and manual triggers, operating at machine speed and scale. This also positively affects detection engineering and alert tuning, because it does not suffer from fatigue when presented with low accuracy but potentially valuable alerts.

    Retain and improve analyst skills

    Transferring most analysis processes to AI systems can risk team skills if they don't maintain or build them and if the AI doesn't explain its process. This can reduce the ability to challenge or build on AI results and cause issues if the AI is unavailable. The Cyber AI Analyst, by revealing its investigation process, data gathering, and decisions, promotes and improves these skills. Its deep understanding of cyber incidents can be used for skill training and incident response practice by simulating incidents for security teams to handle.

    Create time for cyber risk reduction

    Human cybersecurity professionals excel in areas that require critical thinking, strategic planning, and nuanced decision-making. With alert fatigue minimized and investigations streamlined, your analysts can avoid the tedious data collection and analysis stages and instead focus on critical decision-making tasks such as implementing recovery actions and performing threat hunting.

    Stay tuned for part 3/3

    Part 3/3 in the Reimagine your SOC series explores the preventative security solutions market and effective risk management strategies.

    Coming soon!

    Continue reading
    About the author
    Brittany Woodsmall
    Product Marketing Manager, AI & Attack Surface
    Your data. Our AI.
    Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI