March 30, 2015 By Brian Foster 3 min read

Faced with an average of 17,000 security alerts a week, security professionals play the ultimate guessing game when choosing which alerts to investigate. They can investigate an alert that proves to be a true threat and thereby shut down an attack, or they can waste valuable time investigating a security alert that proves to be a false positive, while true positives evade preventive controls. Unfortunately, history shows that security professionals have a poor track record when it comes to guessing which alerts are worth investigating.

Tracking Security Alerts

In a previous post, I wrote about how much time and money enterprises waste hunting down false positives. I cited a study Damballa commissioned from the Ponemon Institute that found enterprises waste an average of 395 hours a week chasing false positives and that, unbelievably, only 1 in 5 malware alerts deemed reliable are investigated.

While these numbers may be a bit unsettling, they don’t come as a surprise when you consider that out of the 17,000 security alerts the average enterprise receives each week, only 3,400 are relevant. The odds are stacked against security professionals, and as the many high-profile data breaches of late have demonstrated, the risk is high. It simply doesn’t make sense to throw more bodies at the problem. Even if enterprises could afford to do so, it would be a tremendous waste of resources.

Benefits of Automation

Instead, enterprises need to address malware analysis and alert investigation in the same way other parts of the business have addressed time-consuming, manual processes: with automation. Enterprises need an intelligent decision-making system (IDMS) that investigates individual security alerts to determine whether they are legitimate. The system essentially prevalidates infections, enabling teams to focus on remediation rather than investigation. But that’s just the beginning.

An IDMS can also corroborate pieces of evidence to determine with much greater confidence whether a threat exists and the severity of the risk it poses by dynamically measuring it against all other infections by device type/class (server versus laptop versus printer), by activity (data exfiltration versus click fraud) and threat intent (nuisance versus IP theft). To be clear, I am not talking about security information and event management. I’m talking about using an artificial intelligence engine to corroborate data and make a decision.

To understand the power of this, consider, for example, the same piece of evidence hitting three different devices on a network. A human would have to investigate each security alert and device separately, effectively in silos. However, an automated IDMS could investigate them simultaneously and corroborate them against every other alert in near-real time. Alone, those alerts may look fairly mundane, but when considered together and in conjunction with additional evidence, the system can determine with a high level of accuracy the risk level posed by the threat, allowing the incident response team to focus its efforts where they are deemed most beneficial.

According to the Ponemon survey, only 41 percent of respondents have automated tools to capture intelligence and evaluate the true threat caused by malware. Those that do, however, reported that an average of 60 percent of malware containment doesn’t require any human input or intervention. As a result, the people who would normally address these threats can be assigned to more strategic or proactive security projects. Meanwhile, those still dedicated to threat response can do so more efficiently and effectively because their efforts are directed at legitimate threats and the time taken to validate them has been reduced.

Manually investigating security alerts is an uphill battle that few, if any, enterprises believe they can win. Like other enterprise business processes, security alert corroboration and at least prevalidation must be automated. An intelligent decision-making system can give security professionals the advantage they need to get out of the guessing game and get into the remediation game.

More from Intelligence & Analytics

What makes a trailblazer? Inspired by John Mulaney’s Dreamforce roast

4 min read - When you bring a comedian to offer a keynote address, you need to expect the unexpected.But it is a good bet that no one in the crowd at Salesforce’s Dreamforce conference expected John Mulaney to tell a crowd of thousands of tech trailblazers that they were, in fact, not trailblazers at all.“The fact that there are 45,000 ‘trailblazers’ here couldn’t devalue the title anymore,” Mulaney told the audience.Maybe it was meant as nothing more than a punch line, but Mulaney’s…

New report shows ongoing gender pay gap in cybersecurity

3 min read - The gender gap in cybersecurity isn’t a new issue. The lack of women in cybersecurity and IT has been making headlines for years — even decades. While progress has been made, there is still significant work to do, especially regarding salary.The recent  ISC2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study highlighted numerous cybersecurity issues regarding women in the field. In fact, only 17% of the 14,865 respondents to the survey were women.Pay gap between men and womenOne of the most concerning disparities revealed by…

Protecting your data and environment from unknown external risks

3 min read - Cybersecurity professionals always keep their eye out for trends and patterns to stay one step ahead of cyber criminals. The IBM X-Force does the same when working with customers. Over the past few years, clients have often asked the team about threats outside their internal environment, such as data leakage, brand impersonation, stolen credentials and phishing sites. To help customers overcome these often unknown and unexpected risks that are often outside of their control, the team created Cyber Exposure Insights…

Topic updates

Get email updates and stay ahead of the latest threats to the security landscape, thought leadership and research.
Subscribe today