In 2023, almost all organizations with a mature cybersecurity posture rely on Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) and Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) systems to aid in fortifying their cybersecurity measures. From this, a significant concern emerges – software fatigue. Also known as ‘alert fatigue’, this phenomenon is a direct consequence of the overwhelming volume of alerts generated by these types of systems, resulting in a diminished effectiveness of security operations. When assessing the efficacy of SIEM and SOAR systems, industry experts and even system users regularly scrutinize software fatigue implications on cybersecurity and the effective management of cybersecurity systems.
The recent state of the cybersecurity industry necessitated the adoption of SIEM and SOAR tools as indispensable resources for organizations aspiring to boost their threat detection, incident response, and overall security programs. Nevertheless, the escalating sophistication of cyber threats has led to a surge in the volume of alerts generated by these systems. This inundation of alerts poses a serious challenge for organizations, as security analysts grapple with the daunting task of discerning between authentic threats and false positives. After all, if the alarms are always going off, nobody will ever take them seriously.
The crux of this issue lies in the intricate nature of modern cyber threats, which create a requirement for vigilant monitoring and analysis within organizations. Consequently, security teams find themselves buried in alerts and filtering through false positives and hunting for false negatives in the hopes of identifying real threats – ultimately making it seemingly impossible to distinguish between critical threats and benign anomalies.
The ramifications of software fatigue are extensive and can have long-lasting (and costly) consequences on an organization’s operations.
The first major implication of software fatigue is an increase in an organization’s Mean Time to Detection (MTTD). MTTD refers to the average amount of time that it takes a security team to identify a potential problem, breach, or attack. The copious number of alerts can impede the timely identification of genuine threats, affording malicious actors more time to exploit vulnerabilities and traverse a network.
Very closely related to the MTTD, is a commensurate decrease in an organization’s Mean Time to Respond (MTTR). This term refers to the average amount of time that it takes for a security team to act after discovering a threat within their environment. Naturally, cybersecurity teams want to respond to incidents as quickly as possible, however if it takes longer to identify a threat, then the response will be delayed, giving malicious actors precious time within an organization’s systems.
Another notable implication of software fatigues is a higher likelihood of false negatives: Analysts, fatigued by the incessant stream of alerts, face an augmented risk of overlooking or dismissing critical alerts, resulting in false negatives, and leaving the organization susceptible to undetected threats. Identifying real threats in a sea of constant software alerts is like trying to hear a single gunshot during a firework show – no matter how hard you try to pinpoint the shot, everything just sounds like fireworks.
A commonly overlooked consequence of software fatigue might be one of the most important, and that is the burnout of security staff. Prolonged exposure to a high volume of alerts can contribute to burnout among security analysts, diminishing their cognitive faculties and overall productivity. Lower productivity ultimately results in weaker cybersecurity postures and increases in compromises.
To effectively address software fatigue, understanding the root cause (or causes) is imperative. No two systems are the same, and every organization has unique nuances that contribute to software fatigue, but there are some common culprits that are regularly identified amongst cybersecurity personnel. They generally include:
a. Rule Overload: SIEM systems often rely on rules and signatures for threat detection. However, an excess of rules, some overly sensitive, can result in a surplus of alerts.
b. Inadequate Tuning: Neglecting to fine-tune SIEM and SOAR systems in alignment with an organization's network specifics can result in a plethora of irrelevant alerts.
c. Lack of Context: Alerts lacking adequate context or pertinent information impede analysts in prioritizing and responding effectively, exacerbating alert fatigue.
d. Duplication of Alerts: Redundant or duplicated alerts from various security tools and sources inundate analysts with superfluous information.
e. Default Configurations: Often, organizations will roll out security software and run it out-of-box with default configurations. In almost all cases, these out-of-box configurations are insufficient for the organizations in which they are being implemented.
Not everything is all doom and gloom when it comes to software fatigue, however. Effectively addressing software fatigue within SIEM and SOAR systems requires a multifaceted approach addressing both technological and human factors.
The first step towards reducing software fatigue is enforcing rule rationalization and optimization in which security personnel conduct regular reviews of SIEM and SOAR rules to eliminate redundancies and reduce false positives. This will ultimately result in more relevant and actionable alerts. Along this vein, it is also important to configure alerts for systems based on assessed value.
An additional tactic may also include what is called “Contextual Enrichment” which is the process of augmenting alert context with additional information such as asset criticality, user behavior analytics, and threat intelligence enables analysts to prioritize and respond more effectively.
Automated response and orchestration can also help, when done correctly. Implementing automated response and orchestration capabilities within SOAR systems streamlines incident response workflows, reducing the manual workload on analysts and improving response times. It goes without saying that despite the potential upside to SOAR tools, they can often contribute to the same alert fatigue at the root of the problem.
The next indispensable solution involves training and skill development for users and analysts. Continuous investment in the training and skill development of employees, encompassing the latest cyber threats, tools, and technologies, enhances their ability to handle complex security incidents. Ultimately, software is useless without having skilled individuals interpreting the data. As such, it is absolutely critical to ensure that all security personnel receive frequent, meaningful cybersecurity training; specifically on the tools that they will be using to identify risks and vulnerabilities.
Having a methodology and mechanism for alert prioritization and triage can also help reduce alert fatigue: Establishing a robust prioritization and triage process enables organizations to focus on critical alerts, alleviating the cognitive load on analysts and ensuring prompt addressing of high-priority threats. When paired with a continuous monitoring and evaluation strategy, these two processes greatly reduce the likelihood of fatigue. Regularly monitoring and evaluating SIEM and SOAR system performance, including analyzing false positives and negatives, empowers organizations to make data-driven improvements.
If your organization is struggling with maintaining an effective cybersecurity program, call SecurityInsecurity today or email cyber@securityinsecurity.com to learn how we can help!
Comments