How to Cut SOC Alert Volume 40–60% Without Increasing Breach Risk

Posted on February 23, 2026 by Brent Huston

If you’re running a SOC in a 1,000–20,000 employee organization, you don’t have an alert problem.

You have an alert economics problem.

When I talk to CISOs and SOC Directors operating hybrid environments with SIEM and SOAR already deployed, the numbers are depressingly consistent:

10,000–100,000 alerts per day
MTTR under scrutiny
Containment time tracked weekly
Analyst attrition quietly rising
Budget flat (or worse)

And then the question:

“How do we handle more alerts without missing the big one?”

Wrong question.

The right question is:

“Which alerts should not exist?”

This article is a practical, defensible way to reduce alert volume by 40–60% (directionally, based on industry norms) without increasing breach risk. It assumes a hybrid cloud environment with a functioning SIEM and SOAR platform already in place.

This is not theory. This is operating discipline.

AILogAnalyst

First: Define “Without Increasing Breach Risk”

Before you touch a rule, define your safety boundary.

For this exercise, “no increased breach risk” means:

No statistically meaningful increase in missed high-severity incidents
No degradation in detection of your top-impact scenarios
No silent blind spots introduced by automation

That implies instrumentation.

You will track:

Leading metrics

Alerts per analyst per shift
% alerts auto-enriched before triage
Escalation rate (alert → case)
Median time-to-triage

Lagging metrics

MTTR
Incident containment time
Confirmed incident miss rate (via backtesting + sampling)

If you can’t measure signal quality, you will default back to counting volume.

And volume is the wrong KPI.

The Structural Problem Most SOCs Ignore

Alert fatigue is usually not a staffing problem.

It’s structural.

Let’s deconstruct it from first principles.

Alert creation =

Detection rule quality × Data fidelity × Context availability × Threshold design

Alert handling =

Triage logic × Skill level × Escalation clarity × Tool ergonomics

Burnout =

Alert volume × Repetition × Low agency × Poor feedback loops

Most organizations optimize alert handling.

Very few optimize alert creation.

That’s why AI copilots layered on top of noisy systems rarely deliver the ROI promised. They help analysts swim faster — but the flood never stops.

Step 1: Do a Real Pareto Analysis (Not a Dashboard Screenshot)

Pull 90 days of alert data.

Per rule (or detection family), calculate:

Total alert volume
% of total volume
Escalations
Confirmed incidents
Escalation rate (cases ÷ alerts)
Incident yield (incidents ÷ alerts)

What you will likely find:

A small subset of rules generate a disproportionate amount of alerts with negligible incident yield.

Those are your leverage points.

A conservative starting threshold I’ve seen work repeatedly:

<1% escalation rate
Zero confirmed incidents in 6 months
Material volume impact

Those rules go into review.

Not deleted immediately. Reviewed.

Step 2: Eliminate Structural Noise

This is where 40–60% reduction becomes realistic.

1. Kill Duplicate Logic

Multiple tools firing on the same behavior.
Multiple rules detecting the same pattern.
Multiple alerts per entity per time window.

Deduplicate at the correlation layer — not just in the UI.

One behavior. One alert. One case.

2. Convert “Spam Rules” into Aggregated Signals

If a vulnerability scanner fires 5,000 times a day, you do not need 5,000 alerts.

You need one:

“Expected scanner activity observed.”

Or, more interestingly:

“Scanner activity observed from non-approved host.”

Aggregation preserves visibility while eliminating interruption.

3. Introduce Tier 0 (Telemetry-Only)

This is the most underused lever in SOC design.

Not every signal deserves to interrupt a human.

Define:

T0 – Telemetry only (logged, searchable, no alert)
T1 – Grouped alert (one per entity per window)
T2 – Analyst interrupt
T3 – Auto-containment candidate

Converting low-confidence detections into T0 telemetry can remove massive volume without losing investigative data.

You are not deleting signal.

You are removing interruption.

Step 3: Move Enrichment Before Alert Creation

Most SOCs enrich after alert creation.

That’s backward.

If context changes whether an alert should exist, enrichment belongs before the alert.

Minimum viable enrichment that actually changes triage outcomes:

Asset criticality
Identity privilege level
Known-good infrastructure lists
Recent vulnerability context
Entity behavior history

Decision sketch:

If high-impact behavior
AND privileged identity or critical asset
AND contextual risk indicators present
→ Create T2 alert

Else if repetitive behavior with incomplete context
→ Grouped T1 alert

Else
→ T0 telemetry

This is where AI can be valuable.

Not as an auto-closer.

As a pre-alert context aggregator and risk scorer.

If AI is applied after alert creation, you are optimizing cost you didn’t need to incur.

Step 4: Establish a Detection “Kill Board”

Rules should be treated like production code.

They have operational cost. They require ownership.

Standing governance model:

Detection Lead – rule quality
SOC Manager – workflow impact
IR Lead – breach risk validation
CISO – risk acceptance authority

Decision rubric:

Does this rule map to a real, high-impact scenario?
Is its incident yield acceptable relative to volume?
Would enrichment materially improve precision?
Is it duplicative elsewhere?

Rules with zero incident value over defined periods should require justification.

Visibility is not the same as interruption.

Compliance logging can coexist with fewer alerts.

Step 5: Automation — With Guardrails

Automation is not the first lever.

It is the multiplier.

Safe automation patterns:

Context enrichment
Intelligent routing
Alert grouping
Reversible containment with approval gates

Dangerous automation patterns:

Permanent suppression without expiry
Auto-closure without sampling
Logic changes without audit trail

Guardrails I consider non-negotiable:

Suppression TTL (30–90 days)
Random sampling of suppressed alerts (0.5–2%)
Quarterly breach-backtesting
Full automation decision logging

Noise today can become weak signal tomorrow.

Design for second-order effects.

Why AI Fails in Noisy SOCs

If alert volume doesn’t change, analyst workload doesn’t change.

AI layered on broken workflows becomes a coping mechanism, not a transformation.

The highest ROI AI use case in mature SOCs is:

Pre-alert enrichment + risk scoring.

Not post-alert summarization.

Redesign alert economics first.

Then scale AI.

What 40–60% Reduction Actually Looks Like

In environments with:

Default SIEM thresholds
Redundant telemetry
No escalation-rate filtering
No Tier 0
No suppression expiry
No detection governance loop

A 40–60% alert reduction is directionally achievable without loss of high-severity coverage.

The exact number depends on detection maturity.

The risk comes not from elimination.

The risk comes from elimination without measurement.

Two-Week Quick Start

If you need results before the next KPI review:

Export 90 days of alerts.
Compute escalation rate per rule.
Identify bottom 20% of signal drivers.
Convene rule rationalization session.
Pilot suppression or grouping with TTL.
Publish signal-to-noise ratio as a KPI alongside MTTR.

Shift the conversation from:

“How do we close more alerts?”

To:

“Why does this alert exist?”

The Core Shift

SOC overload is not caused by insufficient analyst effort.

It is caused by incentive systems that reward detection coverage over detection precision.

If your success metric is number of detections deployed, you will generate endless noise.

If your success metric is signal-to-noise ratio, the system corrects itself.

You don’t fix alert fatigue by hiring faster triage.

You fix it by designing alerts to be expensive.

And when alerts are expensive, they become rare.

And when they are rare, they matter.

That’s the design goal.

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Beyond Zero Trust: Identity-First Security Strategies That Actually Reduce Risk in 2026

Posted on February 18, 2026 by Brent Huston

A Breach That Didn’t Break In — It Logged In

The email looked routine.

A finance employee received a vendor payment request — well-written, contextually accurate, referencing an actual project. Nothing screamed “phish.” Attached was a short voice note from the CFO explaining the urgency.

The voice sounded right. The cadence, the phrasing — even the subtle impatience.

Moments later, a multi-factor authentication (MFA) prompt appeared. The employee approved it without thinking. They had approved dozens that week. Habit is powerful.

The breach didn’t bypass the firewall.
It didn’t exploit a zero-day vulnerability.
It didn’t even evade detection.

It bypassed identity confidence.

By the time the security team noticed anomalous financial transfers, the attacker had already authenticated, escalated privileges, and pivoted laterally — all using valid credentials.

In 2026, attackers aren’t breaking in.

They’re logging in.

And that reality demands a shift in how we think about security architecture. Zero Trust was a necessary evolution. But in many organizations, it’s stalled at the network layer. Meanwhile, identity has quietly become the primary control plane — and the primary attack surface.

If identity is where trust decisions happen, then identity is where risk must be engineered out.

A hacker is seated in front of a computer fingers poised over the keyboard They are ready to break into a system and gain access to sensitive information 6466041

Zero Trust Isn’t Enough Anymore

Zero Trust began as a powerful principle: “Never trust, always verify.” It challenged perimeter-centric thinking and encouraged segmentation, least privilege, and continuous validation.

But somewhere along the way, it became a marketing label.

Many implementations focus heavily on:

Network micro-segmentation
VPN replacement
Device posture checks
SASE rollouts

All valuable. None sufficient.

Because identity remains the weakest link.

AI Has Changed the Identity Battlefield

Attackers now leverage AI to:

Craft highly personalized spear phishing emails
Generate convincing deepfake audio and video impersonations
Launch MFA fatigue campaigns at scale
Automate credential stuffing with adaptive logic

The tools available to adversaries have industrialized social engineering.

Push-based MFA, once considered strong protection, is now routinely abused through prompt bombing. Deepfake impersonation erodes human intuition. Credential reuse remains rampant.

Perimeter thinking has died.
Device-centric thinking is incomplete.
Identity is now the primary control plane.

If identity is the new perimeter, it must be treated like critical infrastructure — not a checkbox configuration in your IAM console.

The Identity-First Security Framework

An identity-first strategy doesn’t abandon Zero Trust. It operationalizes it — with identity at the center of risk reduction.

Below are five pillars that move identity from access management to risk engineering.

Pillar 1: Reduce the Identity Attack Surface

A simple Pareto principle applies:

20% of identities create 80% of risk.

Privileged users. Service accounts. Automation tokens. Executive access. CI/CD credentials.

The first step isn’t detection. It’s reduction.

Actions

Inventory all identities — human and machine
Eliminate dormant accounts
Reduce standing privileges
Enforce just-in-time (JIT) access for elevated roles

Standing privilege is latent risk. Every persistent admin account is a pre-approved breach path.

Metrics That Matter

Percentage of privileged accounts
Average privilege duration
Dormant account count
Privileged access review frequency

Organizations that aggressively reduce identity sprawl see measurable decreases in lateral movement potential.

Reducing exposure is step one.
Validating behavior is step two.

Pillar 2: Continuous Identity Verification — Not Just MFA

MFA is necessary. It is no longer sufficient.

Push-based MFA fatigue attacks are common. Static authentication events assume trust after login. Attackers exploit both.

We must shift from event-based authentication to session-based validation.

Move Beyond:

Blind push approvals
Static login checks
Binary allow/deny thinking

Add:

Risk-based authentication
Device posture validation
Behavioral biometrics
Continuous session monitoring

Attackers use AI to simulate legitimacy.
Defenders must use AI to detect deviation.

Useful Metrics

MFA approval anomaly rate
Impossible travel detections
Session risk score trends
High-risk login percentage

Authentication should not be a moment. It should be a monitored process.

Pillar 3: Identity Telemetry & Behavioral Baselines

First-principles thinking:
What is compromise?

It is behavior deviation.

A legitimate user logging in from a new country at 3:00 a.m. and accessing sensitive financial systems may have valid credentials — but invalid behavior.

Implementation Steps

Build per-role behavioral baselines
Track privilege escalation attempts
Integrate IAM logs into SOC workflows
Correlate identity data with endpoint and cloud telemetry

Second-order thinking matters here.

More alerts without tuning leads to burnout.

Identity alerts must be high-confidence. Behavioral models must understand role context, not just user anomalies.

Security teams should focus on detecting intent signals — not just login events.

Pillar 4: Machine Identity Governance

Machine identities often outnumber human identities in cloud-native environments.

Consider:

Service accounts
API tokens
Certificates
CI/CD pipeline credentials
Container workload identities

AI-powered attackers increasingly target automation keys. They know that compromising a service account can provide persistent, stealthy access.

Critical Actions

Automatically rotate secrets
Shorten token lifetimes
Continuously scan repositories for hardcoded credentials
Enforce workload identity controls

Key Metrics

Average token lifespan
Hardcoded secret discovery rate
Machine identity inventory completeness
Unused service account count

Machine identities do not get tired. They also do not question unusual requests.

That makes them both powerful and dangerous.

Pillar 5: Identity Incident Response Playbooks

Identity compromise spreads faster than traditional breaches because authentication grants implicit trust.

Incident response must evolve accordingly.

Include in Playbooks:

Immediate token invalidation
Automated session termination
Privilege rollback
Identity forensics logging
Rapid behavioral reassessment

Identity Maturity Model

Level	Capability
Level 1	MFA + Basic IAM
Level 2	JIT Access + Risk-based authentication
Level 3	Behavioral detection + Machine identity governance
Level 4	Autonomous identity containment

The future state is not manual triage.

It is autonomous identity containment.

Implementation Roadmap

Transformation does not require a multi-year overhaul. It requires disciplined sequencing.

First 30 Days

Conduct a full identity inventory audit
Launch a privilege reduction sprint
Review MFA configurations and eliminate push-only dependencies
Identify dormant and orphaned accounts

Immediate wins come from subtraction.

First 90 Days

Deploy risk-based authentication policies
Integrate identity telemetry into SOC workflows
Begin machine identity governance initiatives
Establish behavioral baselines for high-risk roles

Security operations and IAM teams must collaborate here.

Six-Month Horizon

Implement behavioral AI modeling
Automate session risk scoring
Deploy automated identity containment workflows
Establish executive reporting on identity risk metrics

Identity becomes measurable. Measurable becomes manageable.

Real-World Examples

Example 1: Privilege Reduction

One enterprise reduced privileged accounts by 42%. The measurable result: significant reduction in lateral movement pathways and faster containment during simulated breach exercises.

Example 2: MFA Fatigue Prevention

A financial services firm detected abnormal MFA approval timing patterns. Session anomaly detection flagged behavior inconsistent with historical norms. The attack was stopped before funds were transferred.

The lesson: behavior, not just credentials, determines legitimacy.

Measurable Outcomes

Identity Control	Risk Reduced	Measurement Method
JIT Privilege	Lateral movement	Privilege duration logs
Risk-based MFA	Phishing success	Approval anomaly rate
Token rotation	Credential abuse	Token age metrics
Behavioral baselines	Account takeover	Session deviation scores
Machine identity inventory	Automation abuse	Service account audits

Security leaders must shift from tool counts to risk-reduction metrics.

Identity Is the New Control Plane

Attackers scale with AI.

They automate reconnaissance. They generate deepfake executives. They weaponize credentials at industrial scale.

Defenders must scale identity intelligence.

In 2026, the organizations that win will not be those with the most tools. They will be those who understand that identity is infrastructure.

Firewalls inspect traffic.
Endpoints enforce policy.
Identity determines authority.

And authority is what attackers want.

Zero Trust was the beginning. Identity-first security is the evolution.

The question is no longer whether your users are inside the perimeter.

The question is whether your identity architecture assumes breach — and contains it automatically.

Info & Help: Advancing Your Identity Strategy

Identity-first security is not a product deployment. It is an operational discipline.

If your organization is:

Struggling with privilege sprawl
Experiencing MFA fatigue attempts
Concerned about AI-driven impersonation
Lacking visibility into machine identities
Unsure how to measure identity risk

The team at MicroSolved, Inc. can help.

For over three decades, MicroSolved has assisted enterprises, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and critical infrastructure organizations in strengthening identity governance, incident response readiness, and security operations maturity.

Our services include:

Identity risk assessments
Privileged access reviews
IAM architecture design
SOC integration and telemetry tuning
Incident response planning and tabletop exercises

If identity is your new control plane, it deserves engineering rigor.

Reach out to MicroSolved to discuss how to reduce measurable identity risk — not just deploy another control.

Security is no longer about keeping attackers out.

It’s about making sure that when they log in, they don’t get far.

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

The Hidden Cost of Compliance: Why “Checkbox Security” Fails Modern Organizations

Posted on February 9, 2026 by Brent Huston

In today’s threat landscape, simply “checking the boxes” isn’t enough. Organizations invest enormous time and money to satisfy regulatory frameworks like PCI DSS, HIPAA, ISO 27001, GDPR, and NIS2—but too often they stop there. The result? A false sense of cybersecurity readiness that leaves critical vulnerabilities unaddressed and attackers unchallenged.

Compliance should be a foundation—not a finish line. Let’s unpack why checkbox compliance consistently fails modern enterprises and how forward-looking security leaders can close the gap with truly risk-based strategies.

Compliance vs. Security: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Compliance and security are related—but they are emphatically not the same thing.

Compliance is about adherence to external mandates, standards, and audits.
Security is about reducing risk, defending against threats, and protecting data, systems, and business continuity.

Expecting compliance alone to prevent breaches is like believing that owning a fire extinguisher will stop every fire. The checklists in PCI DSS, HIPAA, or ISO standards are minimum controls designed to reduce loss—not exhaustive defenses against every attacker tactic.

“Compliance is not security.” — Security thought leaders have said this many times, and it rings true as organizations equate audit success with risk reduction.

Checkbox Security: Why It Fails

A compliance mindset often devolves into a checkbox mentality—complete documentation, filled-in forms, and green lights from auditors. But this approach contains several fundamental flaws:

1. Compliance Standards Lag Behind Evolving Threats

Most regulatory frameworks are reactive, built around known threats and past incidents. Cyber threats evolve constantly; sticking strictly to compliance means protecting against yesterday’s risks, not today’s or tomorrow’s.

2. Checklists Lack Contextual Risk Prioritization

Compliance is binary—yes/no answers. But not all controls have equal impact. A firewall might be present (box ticked), yet the organization might ignore the most actively exploited vulnerabilities like unpatched software or phishing risk.

3. Audit Success Doesn’t Equal Real-World Security

Auditors assess documentation and evidence of controls; they rarely test adversarial resilience. A compliant organization can still suffer devastating breaches because compliance assessments aren’t adversarial and don’t simulate real attacks.

Real-World Proof: Breaches Despite Compliance

Arguments against checkbox compliance sound theoretical—until you look at real breaches. Examples of organizations meeting compliance requirements yet being breached are widespread:

PCI DSS Compliance Breaches

Despite strict PCI requirements for safeguarding cardholder data, many breached organizations were technically compliant at the time of compromise. Researchers even note that no fully compliant organization examined was breach-free, and compliance fines or gaps didn’t prevent attackers from exploiting weak links in implementation.

Healthcare Data Risks Despite HIPAA

Even with stringent HIPAA requirements, healthcare breaches are rampant. Reports show thousands of HIPAA violations and data exposures annually, demonstrating that merely having compliance frameworks doesn’t stop attackers.

The Hidden Costs of Compliance-Only Security

When organizations chase compliance without aligning to deeper risk strategy, the costs go far beyond audit efforts.

1. Opportunity Cost

Security teams spend incredible hours on documentation, standard operating procedure updates, and audit response—hours that could otherwise support vulnerability remediation, threat hunting, and continuous monitoring.

2. False Sense of Security

Executives and boards often equate compliance with safety. But compliance doesn’t guarantee resilience. That false confidence can delay investments in deeper controls until it’s too late.

3. Breach Fallout

When conformity fails, consequences extend far beyond compliance fines. Reputational damage, customer churn, supply chain impacts, and board-level accountability can dwarf regulatory penalties.

Beyond Checkboxes: What Modern Security Needs

To turn compliance from checkbox security into business-aligned risk reduction, organizations should consider the following advanced practices:

1. Continuous Risk Measurement

Shift from periodic compliance assessments to continuous risk evaluation tied to real business outcomes. Tools that quantify risk exposure in financial and operational terms help prioritize investments where they matter most.

2. Threat Modeling & Adversary Emulation

Map attacker tactics relevant to your business context, then test controls against them. Frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK can help organizations think like attackers, not auditors.

3. Metrics That Measure Security Effectiveness

Move away from compliance metrics (“% of controls implemented”) to outcome metrics (“time to detect/respond to threats,” “reduction in high-risk exposures,” etc.). These demonstrate real improvements versus checkbox completion.

4. Integration of Security and Compliance

Security leaders should leverage compliance requirements as part of broader risk strategy—not substitutes. GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) platforms can tie compliance evidence to risk dashboards for a unified view.

How MicroSolved Can Help

At MicroSolved, we’ve seen these pitfalls firsthand. Organizations often approach compliance automation or external consultants expecting silver bullets—but without continuous risk measurement and business context, security controls still fall short.

MicroSolved’s approach focuses on:

Risk-based security program development
Ongoing threat modeling and adversary testing
Metrics and dashboards tied to business outcomes
Integration of compliance frameworks like PCI, HIPAA, ISO 27001 with enterprise risk strategies

If your team is struggling to move beyond checkbox compliance, we’re here to help align your cybersecurity program with real-world risk reduction—not just regulatory requirements.

➡️ Learn more about how MicroSolved can help bridge the gap between compliance and true security effectiveness.

Conclusion: Compliance Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling

Regulatory frameworks remain essential—they set the minimum expectations for protecting data and privacy. But in a world of rapidly evolving threats, compliance alone can’t be the endpoint of your cybersecurity efforts.

Checkbox security gives boards comfort, but attackers don’t check boxes—they exploit gaps.

Security leaders who integrate risk measurement, continuous validation, and business alignment into their compliance programs not only strengthen defenses—they elevate security into a source of competitive advantage.

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Antifragility in the Age of Cyber Extremistan

Posted on January 14, 2026 by Brent Huston

Why Building Cybersecurity Like the Human Immune System Is the Only Strategy That Survives the Unknown

Unnamed 4

We don’t live in “Mediocristan” anymore.

In the controlled world of Gaussian curves and predictable outcomes, most security strategies make sense—if you’re still living in the realm where human height and blood pressure are your biggest threats. But for cybersecurity practitioners, the real world looks more like “Extremistan”—the place where Black Swan events dominate, where a single breach can wipe out decades of effort, and where average behavior is not just irrelevant, it’s dangerously misleading.

That’s the world Nassim Taleb described in The Black Swan, and it’s the reality we live in every day as defenders of digital infrastructure.

And if you’re using traditional models to manage cyber risk in this world, you’re probably optimizing for failure.

From Robust to Antifragile: Why Survival Isn’t Enough

Taleb coined the term antifragile to describe systems that don’t just resist chaos—they improve because of it. It’s the difference between a glass that doesn’t break and a muscle that gets stronger after lifting heavy weight. Most security programs are designed to be robust—resilient under stress. But that’s not enough. Resilience still assumes a limit. Once you pass the red line, you break.

To thrive in Extremistan, we need to design systems that learn from stress, that benefit from volatility, and that get stronger every time they get punched in the face.

1. Security by Subtraction (Via Negativa)

In medicine, there’s a term called iatrogenics—harm caused by the treatment itself. Sound familiar? That’s what happens when a security stack becomes so bloated with overlapping agents, dashboards, and tools that it becomes its own attack surface.

Antifragile security starts with subtraction:

Decommission Legacy: Every unmonitored web server from 2009 you forgot about is a potential ruin event.
Minimize Privilege: If your domain admin group has more people than your bowling team, you’re in trouble.
Simplify, Aggressively: Complexity is fragility disguised as maturity.

Less isn’t just more—it’s safer.

2. Controlled Stressors: Hormesis for Systems

An immune system kept in a bubble weakens. One that’s constantly challenged becomes elite. The same goes for cyber defenses.

Red Teams as Immune Response Training: Stop treating red teams as adversaries. They’re your vaccine.
Chaos Engineering: Don’t just test recovery—induce failure. Intentionally break things. Break them often. Learn faster than your adversaries.
Study the Misses: Every alert that almost mattered is gold dust. Train on it.

This isn’t about drills. It’s about muscle memory.

3. The Barbell Strategy: Secure Boring + Wild Bets

One of Taleb’s more underappreciated ideas is the barbell strategy: extreme conservatism on one end, high-risk/high-reward exploration on the other. Nothing in the middle.

90%: Lock down the basics. IG1 controls. Patching. Backups. Privilege minimization. The boring stuff that wins wars.
10%: Invest in weird, bleeding-edge experiments. Behavioral traps. Decoy data. Offensive ML. This is your lab.

Never bet on “average” security tools. That’s how you end up with a little risk everywhere—and a big hole somewhere you didn’t expect.

4. Skin in the Game: Incentives That Matter

When the people making decisions don’t bear the cost of failure, systems rot from within.

Vendors Must Own Risk: If your EDR vendor can disclaim all liability for failure, they’ve got no skin in your game.
On-Call Developers: If they wrote the code, they stay up with it. The best SLAs are fear and pride.
Risk-Based Compensation: CISOs must have financial incentives tied to post-incident impact, not checkbox compliance.

Fragility flourishes in environments where blame is diffuse and consequences are someone else’s problem.

5. Tail Risk and the Absorbing Barrier

Most CIS frameworks are built to mitigate average risk. But in Extremistan, ruin is what you plan for. The difference? A thousand phishing attempts don’t matter if one spear phish opens the gates.

Design for Blast Radius: Assume breach. Isolate domains. Install circuit breakers in your architecture.
Plan for the Unseen: Run tabletop exercises where the scenario doesn’t exist in your IR plan. If that makes your team uncomfortable, you’re doing it right.
Offline Backups Are Sacred: If they touch the internet, they’re not a backup—they’re bait.

There are no do-overs after ruin.

6. Beware the Turkey Problem

A turkey fed every day believes the butcher loves him—until Thanksgiving. A network with zero incidents for three years might just be a turkey.

Continuous Validation, Not Annual Audits: Trust your controls as much as you test them.
Negative Empiricism: Don’t learn from the shiny success story. Learn from the company that got wrecked.

You are not safe because nothing has happened. You are safe when you have survived what should have killed you.

Closing Thought: Security as Immune System, Not Armor

If you’re still thinking of your security stack as armor—hard shell, resist all—you’re already brittle. Instead, think biology. Think immune system. Think antifragility.

Expose your system to small, survivable threats. Learn from every wound. Build muscle. Be lean, not large. Be hard to kill, not hard to touch.

In a world governed by Extremistan, the best cybersecurity strategy isn’t to avoid failure—it’s to get stronger every time you fail.

Because someday, something will break through. The question is—will you be better afterward, or gone completely?

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Modernizing Compliance: An OSCAR-Inspired Approach to Automation for Credit Unions in 2026

Posted on December 29, 2025 by Brent Huston

As credit unions navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape in 2026—balancing cybersecurity mandates, fair lending requirements, and evolving privacy laws—the case for modern, automated compliance operations has never been stronger. Yet many small and mid-sized credit unions still rely heavily on manual workflows, spreadsheets, and after-the-fact audits to stay within regulatory bounds.

To meet these challenges with limited resources, it’s time to rethink how compliance is operationalized—not just documented. And one surprising source of inspiration comes from a system many credit unions already touch: e‑OSCAR.

E compliance

What Is “OSCAR-Style” Compliance?

The e‑OSCAR platform revolutionized how credit reporting disputes are processed—automating a once-manual, error-prone task with standardized electronic workflows, centralized audit logs, and automated evidence generation. That same principle—automating repeatable, rule-driven compliance actions and connecting systems through a unified, traceable framework—can and should be applied to broader compliance areas.

An “OSCAR-style” approach means moving from fragmented checklists to automated, event-driven compliance workflows, where policy triggers launch processes without human lag or ambiguity. It also means tighter integration across systems, real-time monitoring of risks, and ready-to-go audit evidence built into daily operations.

Why Now? The 2026 Compliance Pressure Cooker

For credit unions, 2026 brings a convergence of pressures:

New AI and automated decision-making laws (especially at the state level) require detailed documentation of how member data and lending decisions are handled.
BSA/AML enforcement is tightening, with regulators demanding faster responses and proactive alerts.
NCUA is signaling closer cyber compliance alignment with FFIEC’s CAT and other maturity models, especially in light of public-sector ransomware trends.
Exam cycles are accelerating, and “show your work” now means “prove your controls with logs and process automation.”

Small teams can’t keep up with these expectations using legacy methods. The answer isn’t hiring more staff—it’s changing the model.

The Core Pillars of an OSCAR-Inspired Compliance Model

Event-Driven Automation
Triggers like a new member onboarding, a flagged transaction, or a regulatory update initiate prebuilt compliance workflows—notifications, actions, escalations—automatically.
Standardized, Machine-Readable Workflows
Compliance obligations (e.g., Reg E, BSA alerts, annual disclosures) are encoded as reusable processes—not tribal knowledge.
Connected Systems & Data Flows
APIs and batch exchanges tie together core banking, compliance, cybersecurity, and reporting systems—just like e‑OSCAR connects furnishers and bureaus.
Real-Time Risk Detection
Anomalies and policy deviations are detected automatically and trigger workflows before they become audit findings.
Automated Evidence & Audit Trails
Every action taken is logged and time-stamped, ready for examiners, with zero manual folder-building.

How Credit Unions Can Get Started in 2026

1. Begin with Your Pain Points
Where are you most at risk? Where do tasks fall through the cracks? Focus on high-volume, highly regulated areas like BSA/AML, disclosures, or cybersecurity incident reporting.

2. Inventory Obligations and Map to Triggers
Define the events that should launch compliance workflows—new accounts, flagged alerts, regulatory updates.

3. Pilot Automation Tools
Leverage low-code workflow engines or credit-union-friendly GRC platforms. Ensure they allow for API integration, audit logging, and dashboard oversight.

4. Shift from “Tracking” to “Triggering”
Replace compliance checklists with rule-based workflows. Instead of “Did we file the SAR?” it’s “Did the flagged transaction automatically escalate into SAR review with evidence attached?”

✅ More Info & Help: Partner with Experts to Bring OSCAR-Style Compliance to Life

Implementing an OSCAR-inspired compliance framework may sound complex—but you don’t have to go it alone. Whether you’re starting from a blank slate or evolving an existing compliance program, the right partner can accelerate your progress and reduce risk.

MicroSolved, Inc. has deep experience supporting credit unions through every phase of cybersecurity and compliance transformation. Through our Consulting & vCISO (Virtual Chief Information Security Officer) program, we provide tailored, hands-on guidance to help:

Assess current compliance operations and identify automation opportunities
Build strategic roadmaps and implementation blueprints
Select and integrate tools that match your budget and security posture
Establish automated workflows, triggers, and audit systems
Train your team on long-term governance and resilience

Whether you’re responding to new regulatory pressure or simply aiming to do more with less, our team helps you operationalize compliance without overloading staff or compromising control.

📩 Ready to start your 2026 planning with expert support?
Visit www.microsolved.com or contact us directly at info@microsolved.com to schedule a no-obligation strategy call.

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Identity Security Is Now the #1 Attack Vector — and Most Organizations Are Not Architected for It

Posted on December 8, 2025 by Brent Huston

How identity became the new perimeter

In 2025, identity is no longer simply a control at the edge of your network — it is the perimeter. As organizations adopt SaaS‑first strategies, hybrid work, remote access, and cloud identity federation, the traditional notion of network perimeter has collapsed. What remains is the identity layer — and attackers know it.

Today’s breaches often don’t involve malware, brute‑force password cracking, or noisy exploits. Instead, adversaries leverage stolen tokens, hijacked sessions, and compromised identity‑provider (IdP) infrastructure — all while appearing as legitimate users.

SyntheticID

That shift makes identity security not just another checkbox — but the foundation of enterprise defense.

Failure points of modern identity stacks

Even organizations that have deployed defenses like multi‑factor authentication (MFA), single sign‑on (SSO), and conditional access policies often remain vulnerable. Why? Because many identity architectures are:

Overly permissive — long‑lived tokens, excessive scopes, and flat permissioning.
Fragmented — identity data is scattered across IdPs, directories, cloud apps, and shadow IT.
Blind to session risk — session tokens are often unmonitored, allowing token theft and session hijacking to go unnoticed.
Incompatible with modern infrastructure — legacy IAMs often can’t handle dynamic, cloud-native, or hybrid environments.

In short: you can check off MFA, SSO, and PAM, and still be wide open to identity‑based compromise.

Token‑based attack: A walkthrough

Consider this realistic scenario:

An employee logs in using SSO. The browser receives a token (OAuth or session cookie).
A phishing attack — or adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) — captures that token after the user completes MFA.
The attacker imports the token into their browser and now impersonates the user — bypassing MFA.
The attacker explores internal SaaS tools, installs backdoor OAuth apps, and escalates privileges — all without tripping alarms.

A single stolen token can unlock everything.

Building identity security from first principles

The modern identity stack must be redesigned around the realities of today’s attacks:

Identity is the perimeter — access should flow through hardened, monitored, and policy-enforced IdPs.
Session analytics is a must — don’t just authenticate at login. Monitor behavior continuously throughout the session.
Token lifecycle control — enforce short token lifetimes, minimize scopes, and revoke unused sessions immediately.
Unify the view — consolidate visibility across all human and machine identities, across SaaS and cloud.

How to secure identity for SaaS-first orgs

For SaaS-heavy and hybrid-cloud organizations, these practices are key:

Use a secure, enterprise-grade IdP
Implement phishing-resistant MFA (e.g., hardware keys, passkeys)
Enforce context-aware access policies
Monitor and analyze every identity session in real time
Treat machine identities as equal in risk and value to human users

Blueprint: continuous identity hygiene

Use systems thinking to model identity as an interconnected ecosystem:

Pareto principle — 20% of misconfigurations lead to 80% of breaches.
Inversion — map how you would attack your identity infrastructure.
Compounding — small permissions or weak tokens can escalate rapidly.

Core practices:

Short-lived tokens and ephemeral access
Just-in-time and least privilege permissions
Session monitoring and token revocation pipelines
OAuth and SSO app inventory and control
Unified identity visibility across environments

30‑Day Identity Rationalization Action Plan

Day	Action
1–3	Inventory all identities — human, machine, and service.
4–7	Harden your IdP; audit key management.
8–14	Enforce phishing-resistant MFA organization-wide.
15–18	Apply risk-based access policies.
19–22	Revoke stale or long-lived tokens.
23–26	Deploy session monitoring and anomaly detection.
27–30	Audit and rationalize privileges and unused accounts.

More Information

If you’re unsure where to start, ask these questions:

How many active OAuth grants are in our environment?
Are we monitoring session behavior after login?
When was the last identity privilege audit performed?
Can we detect token theft in real time?

If any of those are difficult to answer — you’re not alone. Most organizations aren’t architected to handle identity as the new perimeter. But the gap between today’s risks and tomorrow’s solutions is closing fast — and the time to address it is now.

Help from MicroSolved, Inc.

At MicroSolved, Inc., we’ve helped organizations evolve their identity security models for more than 30 years. Our experts can:

Audit your current identity architecture and token hygiene
Map identity-related escalation paths
Deploy behavioral identity monitoring and continuous session analytics
Coach your team on modern IAM design principles
Build a 90-day roadmap for secure, unified identity operations

Let’s work together to harden identity before it becomes your organization’s softest target. Contact us at microsolved.com to start your identity security assessment.

References

BankInfoSecurity – “Identity Under Siege: Enterprises Are Feeling It”
SecurityReviewMag – “Identity Security in 2025”
CyberArk – “Lurking Threats in Post-Authentication Sessions”
Kaseya – “What Is Token Theft?”
CrowdStrike – “Identity Attacks in the Wild”
Wing Security – “How to Minimize Identity-Based Attacks in SaaS”
SentinelOne – “Identity Provider Security”
Thales Group – “What Is Identity Security?”
System4u – “Identity Security in 2025: What’s Evolving?”
DoControl – “How to Stop Compromised Account Attacks in SaaS”

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Non-Human Identities & Agentic Risk:

Posted on December 1, 2025 by Brent Huston

The Security Implications of Autonomous AI Agents in the Enterprise

Over the last year, we’ve watched autonomous AI agents — not the chatbots everyone experimented with in 2023, but actual agentic systems capable of chaining tasks, managing workflows, and making decisions without a human in the loop — move from experimental toys into enterprise production. Quietly, and often without much governance, they’re being wired into pipelines, automation stacks, customer-facing systems, and even security operations.

And we’re treating them like they’re just another tool.

They’re not.

These systems represent a new class of non-human identity: entities that act with intent, hold credentials, make requests, trigger processes, and influence outcomes in ways we previously only associated with humans or tightly-scoped service accounts. But unlike a cron job or a daemon, today’s AI agents are capable of learning, improvising, escalating tasks, and — in some cases — creating new agents on their own.

That means our security model, which is still overwhelmingly human-centric, is about to be stress-tested in a very real way.

Let’s unpack what that means for organizations.

WorkingWithRobot1

Why AI Agents Must Be Treated as Identities

Historically, enterprises have understood identity in human terms: employees, contractors, customers. Then we added service accounts, bots, workloads, and machine identities. Each expansion required a shift in thinking.

Agentic AI forces the next shift.

These systems:

Authenticate to APIs and services
Consume and produce sensitive data
Modify cloud or on-prem environments
Take autonomous action based on internal logic or model inference
Operate 24/7 without oversight

If that doesn’t describe an “identity,” nothing does.

But unlike service accounts, agentic systems have:

Adaptive autonomy – they make novel decisions, not just predictable ones
Stateful memory – they remember and leverage data over time
Dynamic scope – their “job description” can expand as they chain tasks
Creation abilities – some agents can spawn additional agents or processes

This creates an identity that behaves more like an intern with root access than a script with scoped permissions.

That’s where the trouble starts.

What Could Go Wrong? (Spoiler: A Lot)

Most organizations don’t yet have guardrails for agentic behavior. When these systems fail — or are manipulated — the impacts can be immediate and severe.

1. Credential Misuse

Agents often need API keys, tokens, or delegated access.
Developers tend to over-provision them “just to get things working,” and suddenly you’ve got a non-human identity with enough privilege to move laterally or access sensitive datasets.

2. Data Leakage

Many agents interact with third-party models or hosted pipelines.
If prompts or context windows inadvertently contain sensitive data, that information can be exposed, logged externally, or retained in ways the enterprise can’t control.

3. Shadow-Agent Proliferation

We’ve already seen teams quietly spin up ChatGPT agents, GitHub Copilot agents, workflow bots, or LangChain automations.

In 2025, shadow IT has a new frontier:
Shadow agents — autonomous systems no one approved, no one monitors, and no one even knows exist.

4. Supply-Chain Manipulation

Agents pulling from package repositories or external APIs can be tricked into consuming malicious components. Worse, an autonomous agent that “helpfully” recommends or installs updates can unintentionally introduce compromised dependencies.

5. Runaway Autonomy

While “rogue AI” sounds sci-fi, in practice it looks like:

An agent looping transactions
Creating new processes to complete a misinterpreted task
Auto-retrying in ways that amplify an error
Overwriting human input because the policy didn’t explicitly forbid it

Think of it as automation behaving badly — only faster, more creatively, and at scale.

A Framework for Agentic Hygiene

Organizations need a structured approach to securing autonomous agents. Here’s a practical baseline:

1. Identity Management

Treat agents as first-class citizens in your IAM strategy:

Unique identities
Managed lifecycle
Documented ownership
Distinct authentication mechanisms

2. Access Control

Least privilege isn’t optional — it’s survival.
And it must be dynamic, since agents can change tasks rapidly.

3. Audit Trails

Every agent action must be:

Traceable
Logged
Attributable

Otherwise incident response becomes guesswork.

4. Privilege Segregation

Separate agents by:

Sensitivity of operations
Data domains
Functional responsibilities

An agent that reads sales reports shouldn’t also modify Kubernetes manifests.

5. Continuous Monitoring

Agents don’t sleep.
Your monitoring can’t either.

Watch for:

Unexpected behaviors
Novel API call patterns
Rapid-fire task creation
Changes to permissions
Self-modifying workflows

6. Kill-Switches

Every agent must have a:

Disable flag
Credential revocation mechanism
Circuit breaker for runaway execution

If you can’t stop it instantly, you don’t control it.

7. Governance

Define:

Approval processes for new agents
Documentation expectations
Testing and sandboxing requirements
Security validation prior to deployment

Governance is what prevents “developer convenience” from becoming “enterprise catastrophe.”

Who Owns Agent Security?

This is one of the emerging fault lines inside organizations. Agentic AI crosses traditional silos:

Dev teams build them
Ops teams run them
Security teams are expected to secure them
Compliance teams have no framework to govern them

The most successful organizations will assign ownership to a cross-functional group — a hybrid of DevSecOps, architecture, and governance.

Someone must be accountable for every agent’s creation, operation, and retirement.
Otherwise, you’ll have a thousand autonomous processes wandering around your enterprise by 2026, and you’ll only know about a few dozen of them.

A Roadmap for Enterprise Readiness

Short-Term (0–6 months)

Inventory existing agents (you have more than you think).
Assign identity profiles and owners.
Implement basic least-privilege controls.
Create kill-switches for all agents in production.

Medium-Term (6–18 months)

Formalize agent governance processes.
Build centralized logging and monitoring.
Standardize onboarding/offboarding workflows for agents.
Assess all AI-related supply-chain dependencies.

Long-Term (18+ months)

Integrate agentic security into enterprise IAM.
Establish continuous red-team testing for agentic behavior.
Harden infrastructure for autonomous decision-making systems.
Prepare for regulatory obligations around non-human identities.

Agentic AI is not a fad — it’s a structural shift in how automation works.
Enterprises that prepare now will weather the change. Those that don’t will be chasing agents they never knew existed.

More Info & Help

If your organization is beginning to deploy AI agents — or if you suspect shadow agents are already proliferating inside your environment — now is the time to get ahead of the risk.

MicroSolved can help.
From enterprise AI governance to agentic threat modeling, identity management, and red-team evaluations of AI-driven workflows, MSI is already working with organizations to secure autonomous systems before they become tomorrow’s incident reports.

For more information or to talk through your environment, reach out to MicroSolved.
We’re here to help you build a safer, more resilient future.

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Racing Ahead of the AI‑Driven Cyber Arms Race

Posted on November 18, 2025 by Brent Huston

Introduction

The cyber-threat landscape is shifting under our feet. Attacker tools powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (Gen AI) are accelerating vulnerability discovery and exploitation, outpacing many traditional defence approaches. Organisations that delay adaptation risk being overtaken by adversaries. According to recent reporting, nearly half of organisations identify adversarial Gen AI advances as a top concern. With this blog, I walk through the current threat landscape, spotlight key attack vectors, explore defensive options, examine critical gaps, and propose a roadmap that security leaders should adopt now.

The Landscape: Vulnerabilities, AI Tools, and the Adversary Advantage

Attackers now exploit a converging set of forces: an increasing rate of disclosed vulnerabilities, the wide availability of AI/ML-based tools for crafting attacks, and automation that scales old-school tactics into far greater volume. One report notes 16% of reported incidents involved attackers leveraging AI tools like language or image generation models. Meanwhile, researchers warn that AI-generated threats could make up to 50% of all malware by 2025. Gen AI is now a game-changer for both attackers and defenders.

The sheer pace of vulnerability disclosure also matters. The more pathways available, the more that automation + AI can do damage. Gen AI will be the top driver of cybersecurity in 2024 and beyond—both for malicious actors and defenders.

The baseline for attackers is being elevated. The attacker toolkit is becoming smarter, faster and more scalable. Defenders must keep up — or fall behind.

Specific Threat Vectors to Watch

Deepfakes & Social Engineering

Realistic voice- and video-based deepfakes are no longer novel. They are entering the mainstream of social engineering campaigns. Gen AI enables image and language generation that significantly boosts attacker credibility.

Automated Spear‑Phishing & AI‑Assisted Content Generation

Attackers use Gen AI tools to generate personalised, plausible phishing lures and malicious payloads. LLMs make phishing scalable and more effective, turning what used to take hours into seconds.

Supply Chain & Model/API Exploitation

Third-party AI or ML services introduce new risks—prompt-injection, insecure model APIs, and adversarial data manipulation are all growing threats.

Polymorphic Malware & AI Evasion

AI now drives polymorphic malware capable of real-time mutation, evading traditional static defences. Reports cite that over 75% of phishing campaigns now include this evasion technique.

Defensive Approaches: What’s Working?

AI/ML for Detection and Response

Defenders are deploying AI for behaviour analytics, anomaly detection, and real-time incident response. Some AI systems now exceed 98% detection rates in high-risk environments.

Continuous Monitoring & Automation

Networks, endpoints, cloud workloads, and AI interactions must be continuously monitored. Automation enables rapid response at machine speed.

Threat Intelligence Platforms

These platforms enhance proactive defence by integrating real-time adversary TTPs into detection engines and response workflows.

Bug Bounty & Vulnerability Disclosure Programs

Crowdsourcing vulnerability detection helps organisations close exposure gaps before adversaries exploit them.

Challenges & Gaps in Current Defences

Many organisations still cannot respond at Gen AI speed.
Defensive postures are often reactive.
Legacy tools are untested against polymorphic or AI-powered threats.
Severe skills shortages in AI/cybersecurity crossover roles.
Data for training defensive models is often biased or incomplete.
Lack of governance around AI model usage and security.

Roadmap: How to Get Ahead

Pilot AI/Automation – Start with small, measurable use cases.
Integrate Threat Intelligence – Especially AI-specific adversary techniques.
Model AI/Gen AI Threats – Include prompt injection, model misuse, identity spoofing.
Continuous Improvement – Track detection, response, and incident metrics.
Governance & Skills – Establish AI policy frameworks and upskill the team.
Resilience Planning – Simulate AI-enabled threats to stress-test defences.

Metrics That Matter

Time to detect (TTD)
Number of AI/Gen AI-involved incidents
Mean time to respond (MTTR)
Alert automation ratio
Dwell time reduction

Conclusion

The cyber-arms race has entered a new era. AI and Gen AI are force multipliers for attackers. But they can also become our most powerful tools—if we invest now. Legacy security models won’t hold the line. Success demands intelligence-driven, AI-enabled, automation-powered defence built on governance and metrics.

The time to adapt isn’t next year. It’s now.

More Information & Help

At MicroSolved, Inc., we help organisations get ahead of emerging threats—especially those involving Gen AI and attacker automation. Our capabilities include:

AI/ML security architecture review and optimisation
Threat intelligence integration
Automated incident response solutions
AI supply chain threat modelling
Gen AI table-top simulations (e.g., deepfake, polymorphic malware)
Security performance metrics and strategy advisory

Contact Us:
🌐 microsolved.com
📧 info@microsolved.com
📞 +1 (614) 423‑8523

References

IBM Cybersecurity Predictions for 2025
Mayer Brown, 2025 Cyber Incident Trends
WEF Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025
CyberMagazine, Gen AI Tops 2025 Trends
Gartner Cybersecurity Trends 2025
Syracuse University iSchool, AI in Cybersecurity
DeepStrike, Surviving AI Cybersecurity Threats
SentinelOne, Cybersecurity Statistics 2025
Ahi et al., LLM Risks & Roadmaps, arXiv 2506.12088
Lupinacci et al., Agent-based AI Attacks, arXiv 2507.06850
Wikipedia, Prompt Injection

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

Aligning Cybersecurity with Business Objectives & ROI

Posted on November 14, 2025 by Brent Huston

Why the C-Suite must hear more than “We blocked X threats.”

Problem statement

Security teams around the world face a persistent challenge: articulating the value of cybersecurity in business terms—and thereby justifying budget and ROI. Too often the story falls into the “we reduced vulnerabilities” or “we blocked attacks” bucket, which resonates with the technical team—but not with the board, the CFO, or the business units. The result: under‑investment or misalignment of security with business goals.

In an era of tighter budgets and competing priorities, this gap has become urgent. Framing cybersecurity as a cost centre invites cuts; framing it as a business enabler invites investment.

Why business alignment matters

When security operates in a silo—focused purely on threats, alerts, tools—the conversation stays technical. But business leaders speak different language: revenue, growth, brand, customer trust. A recent analysis found that fewer than half of security organisations can tie controls to business impacts.

Misalignment leads to several risks:

Security investments that don’t map to the assets or processes that drive business value.
Metrics that matter to the security team but not to executives (e.g., number of vulnerabilities patched).
A perception of security as an overhead rather than a strategic lever.
Vulnerability to budget cuts or being deprioritised when executive attention shifts.

By aligning security with business objectives—whether that’s enabling cloud transformation, protecting key revenue streams, or ensuring operational continuity—security becomes part of the value chain, not just the defence chain.

Translating threat/risk into business impacts

One of the central tasks for today’s security leader is translation. It’s not enough to know that a breach could occur—it’s about articulating “if this happens, here’s what it cost the business.”

Determine the business value at risk: downtime, lost revenue, brand damage, regulatory fines.
Use financial terms whenever possible. For example: “A two‑week outage in our payments system could cost us $X in lost transactions, plus $Y in remediation, plus $Z in churn.”
Link initiatives to business outcomes: for example, “By reducing mean time to recover (MTTR) we reduce revenue downtime by N hours” rather than “we improved MTTR by X %.”
Employ frameworks such as the Gordon–Loeb model that help model optimal investment levels (though they require assumptions).
Recognise that not all value is in avoided loss; some lies in enabling business growth, winning deals because you have credible security, or supporting new business models.

Metrics and dashboards: shifting from tech to business

A recurring complaint: security dashboards measure what’s easy, not what’s meaningful. For example, counting “number of alerts” or “vulnerabilities remediated” is fine—but it doesn’t always tie to business risk.

More business‑centric metrics include:

Cost of breach avoided (or estimated)
Time to revenue recovery after an incident
Customer churn attributable to a security incident
Brand impact or contract losses following a breach or non‑compliance
Percentage of revenue protected by controls
Time to market or new product enabled because security risk was managed

Dashboards should present these in a language executives expect: dollars, days, revenue impact, strategic enablement. Security leaders who are business‑aligned reportedly are eight times more likely to be confident in reporting their organisation’s state of risk.

Frameworks that support alignment

To bridge the gap between security activity and business outcome, various frameworks and approaches help:

Use‑case based strategy: Define concrete security use‑cases (e.g., “we protect the digital sales channel from disruption”) and link them directly to business functions.
Enterprise architecture alignment: Map security controls into business processes, so protection of critical business services is visible.
Risk‑based approach: Rather than “patch everything,” focus on the assets and threats that, if realised, would damage business.
Governance and stakeholder structure: Organisations with a security‑business interface (e.g., a BISO) tend to align better.
Metric derivation methodologies: Academic work (e.g., the GQM‑based methodology) shows how to trace business goals to security metrics in context.

Communicating to executives/board

Communication is where many security programmes stumble. Here are key pointers:

Speak business language: Avoid security jargon; translate into risk reduction, revenue protection, competitive advantage.
Use stories + numbers: A well‑chosen anecdote (“What would happen if our customer billing system went down?”) combined with financial impact earns attention.
Show progress and lead‑lag metrics: Not just “we did X,” but “here’s what that means for business today and tomorrow.”
Link to business drivers: Highlight how security supports strategic initiatives (digital transformation, customer trust, brand, M&A).
Frame security as an enabler: “Our investment in security enables us to go to market faster with product Y” rather than “we need money to buy product Z.”
Prepare for the uncomfortable: Be ready to answer “How secure are we?” with confidence, backed by data.

Implementation steps

Here is a practical sequence for moving from alignment theory to execution:

Audit your current metrics
• Catalogue all current security metrics (technical, operational) and gauge how many map to business outcomes.
• Identify which metrics executives care about (revenue, brand, competitive risk).
Engage business stakeholders
• Identify key business functions and owners (CIO, CFO, business units) and ask: what keeps you up at night? What business processes are critical?
• Jointly map which assets/processes support those business functions, and the security risks associated.
Link security programmes to business outcomes
• For each major initiative, define the business outcome it supports, the risk it mitigates, and the metric you’ll use to show progress.
• Prioritise initiatives that support high‑value business functions or high‑risk scenarios.
Build business‑centric dashboards
• Create a dashboard for executives/board that shows metrics like “% of revenue protected”, “estimated downtime cost if outage X occurs”, “time to recovery”.
• Supplement with strategic commentary (what’s changing, what decisions are required).
Embed continuous feedback and iteration
• Periodically (quarterly or more) revisit alignment: Are business priorities shifting? Are new threats emerging?
• Adjust metrics and initiatives accordingly to maintain alignment.
Communicate outcomes, not just activity
• Present progress in business terms: “Because of our work we reduced our estimated exposure by $X over Y months,” or “We enabled the rollout of product Z with acceptable risk and no delay.”
• Use these facts to support budget discussions, not just ask for funds.

Conclusion

In today’s constrained environment, simply having a solid firewall or endpoint solution isn’t enough. For security to earn its seat at the table, it must speak the language of business: risk, cost, revenue, growth.
When security teams shift from being defenders of the perimeter to enablers of the enterprise, they unlock greater trust, stronger budgets, and a role that transcends compliance.

If you’re leading a security function today, ask yourself: “When the CFO asks what we achieved last quarter, can I answer in dollars and days, or just number of patches and alerts?” The answer will determine whether you’re seen as a cost centre—or a strategic partner.

More Information & Help

If your organization is struggling to align cybersecurity initiatives with business objectives—or if you need to translate risk into financial impact—MicroSolved, Inc. can help.

For over 30 years, we’ve worked with CISOs, risk teams, boards, and executive leadership to:

Design and implement risk-centric, business-aligned cybersecurity strategies
Develop security KPIs and dashboards that communicate effectively at the executive level
Assess existing security programs for gaps in business alignment and ROI
Provide CISO-as-a-Service engagements that focus on strategic enablement, not just compliance
Facilitate security-business stakeholder engagement sessions to unify priorities

Whether you need a workshop, a second opinion, or a comprehensive security-business alignment initiative, we’re ready to partner with you.

To start a conversation, contact us at:
📧 info@microsolved.com
🌐 https://www.microsolved.com
📞 +1-614-351-1237

Let’s move security from overhead to overachiever—together.

References

Global Cyber Alliance. “Facing the Challenge: Aligning Cybersecurity and Business.” https://gca.isa.org
Transformative CIO. “Cybersecurity ROI: How to Align Protection and Performance.” https://transformative.cio.com
CDG. “How to Build and Justify Your Cybersecurity Budget.” https://www.cdg.io
Wikipedia. “Gordon–Loeb Model.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon–Loeb_model
Impact. “Maximizing ROI Through Cybersecurity Strategy.” https://www.impactmybiz.com
SecurityScorecard. “How to Justify Your Cybersecurity Budget.” https://securityscorecard.com
PwC. “Elevating Business Alignment in Cybersecurity Strategies.” https://www.pwc.com
Rivial Security. “Maximizing ROI With a Risk-Based Cybersecurity Program.” https://www.rivialsecurity.com
Arxiv. “Deriving Cybersecurity Metrics From Business Goals.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.05263
TechTarget. “Cybersecurity Budget Justification: A Guide for CISOs.” https://www.techtarget.com

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.

When the Tools We Embrace Become the Tools They Exploit — AI and Automation in the Cybersecurity Arms Race

Posted on October 27, 2025 by Brent Huston

Introduction
We live in a world of accelerating change, and nowhere is that more evident than in cybersecurity operations. Enterprises are rushing to adopt AI and automation technologies in their security operations centres (SOCs) to reduce mean time to detect (MTTD), enhance threat hunting, reduce cyberalert fatigue, and generally eke out more value from scarce resources. But in parallel, adversaries—whether financially motivated cybercriminal gangs, nation‑states, or hacktivists—are themselves adopting (and in some cases advancing) these same enabling technologies. The result: a moving target, one where the advantage is fleeting unless defenders recognise the full implications, adapt processes and governance, and invest in human‑machine partnerships rather than simply tool acquisition.

A digital image of a brain thinking 4684455

In this post I’ll explore the attacker/defender dynamics around AI/automation, technology adoption challenges, governance and ethics, how to prioritise automation versus human judgement, and finally propose a roadmap for integrating AI/automation into your SOC with realistic expectations and process discipline.

1. Overview of Attacker/Defender AI Dynamics

The basic story is: defenders are trying to adopt AI/automation, but threat actors are often moving faster, or in some cases have fewer constraints, and thus are gaining asymmetric advantages.

Put plainly: attackers are weaponising AI/automation as part of their toolkit (for reconnaissance, social engineering, malware development, evasion) and defenders are scrambling to catch up. Some of the specific offensive uses: AI to craft highly‑persuasive phishing emails, to generate deep‑fake audio or video assets, to automate vulnerability discovery and exploitation at scale, to support lateral movement and credential stuffing campaigns.

For defenders, AI/automation promises faster detection, richer context, reduction of manual drudge work, and the ability to scale limited human resources. But the pace of adoption, the maturity of process, the governance and skills gaps, and the need to integrate these into a human‑machine teaming model mean that many organisations are still in the early innings. In short: the arms race is on, and we’re behind.

2. Key Technology Adoption Challenges: Data, Skills, Trust

As organisations swallow the promise of AI/automation, they often underestimate the foundational requirements. Here are three big challenge areas:

a) Data

AI and ML need clean, well‑structured data. Many security operations environments are plagued with siloed data, alert overload, inconsistent taxonomy, missing labels, and legacy tooling. Without good data, AI becomes garbage‑in/garbage‑out.
Attackers, on the other hand, are using publicly available models, third‑party tools and malicious automation pipelines that require far less polish—so they have a head start.

b) Skills and Trust

Deploying an AI‑powered security tool is only part of the solution. Tuning the models, understanding their outputs, incorporating them into workflows, and trusting them requires skilled personnel. Many SOC teams simply don’t yet have those resources.
Trust is another factor: model explainability, bias, false positives/negatives, adversarial manipulation of models—all of these undermine operator confidence.

c) Process Change vs Tool Acquisition

Too many organisations acquire “AI powered” tools but leave underlying processes, workflows, roles and responsibilities unchanged. The tool then becomes a silos‑in‑a‑box rather than a transformational capability.
Without adjusted processes, organisations can end up with “alert‑spam on steroids” or AI acting as a black box forcing humans to babysit again.
In short: People and process matter at least as much as technology.

3. Governance & Ethics of AI in Cyber Defence

Deploying AI and automation in cyber defence doesn’t simply raise technical questions — it raises governance and ethics questions.

Organisations need to define who is accountable for AI‑driven decisions (for example a model autonomously taking containment action), how they audit and validate AI output, how they respond if the model is attacked or manipulated, and how they ensure human oversight.
Ethical issues include: (i) making sure model biases don’t produce blind spots or misclassifications; (ii) protecting privacy when feeding data into ML systems; (iii) understanding that attackers may exploit the same models or our systems’ dependence on them; and (iv) ensuring transparency where human decision‑makers remain in the loop.

A governance framework should address model lifecycle (training, validation, monitoring, decommissioning), adversarial threat modeling (how might the model itself be attacked), and human‑machine teaming protocols (when does automation act, when do humans intervene).

4. Prioritising Automation vs Human Judgement

One of the biggest questions in SOC evolution is: how do we draw the line between automation/AI and human judgment? The answer: there is no single line — the optimal state is human‑machine collaboration, with clearly defined tasks for each.

Automation‑first for repetitive, high‑volume, well‑defined tasks: For example, triage of alerts, enrichment of IOC/IOA (indicators/observables), initial containment steps, known‑pattern detection. AI can accelerate these tasks, free up human time, and reduce mean time to respond.
Humans for context, nuance, strategy, escalation: Humans bring judgement, business context, threat‑scenario understanding, adversary insight, ethics, and the ability to handle novel or ambiguous situations.
Define escalation thresholds: Automation might execute actions up to a defined confidence level; anything below should escalate to a human analyst.
Continuous feedback loop: Human analysts must feed back into model tuning, rules updates, and process improvement — treating automation as a living capability, not a “set‑and‑forget” installation.
Avoid over‑automation risks: Automating without oversight can lead to automation‑driven errors, cascading actions, or missing the adversary‑innovation edge. Also, if you automate everything, you risk deskilling your human team.

The right blend depends on your maturity, your toolset, your threat profile, and your risk appetite — but the underlying principle is: automation should augment humans, not replace them.

5. Roadmap for Successful AI/Automation Integration in the SOC

Assess your maturity and readiness
Define use‑cases with business value
Build foundation: data, tooling, skills
Pilot, iterate, scale
Embed human‑machine teaming and continuous improvement
Maintain governance, ethics and risk oversight
Stay ahead of the adversary

(See main post above for in-depth detail on each step.)

Conclusion: The Moving Target and the Call to Action

The fundamental truth is this: when defenders pause, attackers surge. The race between automation and AI in cyber defence is no longer about if, but about how fast and how well. Threat actors are not waiting for your slow adoption cycles—they are already leveraging automation and generative AI to scale reconnaissance, craft phishing campaigns, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities at speed and volume. Your organisation must not only adopt AI/automation, but adopt it with the right foundation, the right process, the right governance and the right human‑machine teaming mindset.

At MicroSolved we specialise in helping organisations bridge the gap between technological promise and operational reality. If you’re a CISO, SOC manager or security‑operations leader who wants to –

understand how your data, processes and people stack up for AI/automation readiness
prioritise use‑cases that drive business value rather than hype
design human‑machine workflows that maximise SOC impact
embed governance, ethics and adversarial AI awareness
stay ahead of threat actors who are already using automation as a wedge into your environment

… then we’d welcome a conversation. Reach out to us today at info@microsolved.com or call +1.614.351.1237and let’s discuss how we can help you move from reactive to resilient, from catching up to keeping ahead.

Thanks for reading. Be safe, be vigilant—and let’s make sure the advantage stays with the good guys.

References

ISC2 AI Adoption Pulse Survey 2025
IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2025
Accenture State of Cybersecurity Resilience 2025
Cisco 2025 Cybersecurity Readiness Index
Darktrace State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2025
World Economic Forum: Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity Report 2025

* AI tools were used as a research assistant for this content, but human moderation and writing are also included. The included images are AI-generated.