Skip to Content

Book of Five Keys

Home

About

Cyber OODA

0

Book of Five Keys

Home

About

Cyber OODA

Cyber OODA

Observe orient decide act

Appendix A: The Human Firewall in Cybersecurity – An Industry Analysis of its Validity and Relevance

1. Introduction: Defining the "Human Firewall"

The term "human firewall" in cybersecurity refers to the collective capability of an organization's employees to act as a primary line of defense against cyber threats.1 This concept moves beyond the traditional reliance on technological safeguards, highlighting the crucial role each individual plays in maintaining a secure digital environment.1 It encompasses the support and training provided to the workforce to ensure adherence to and active implementation of cybersecurity best practices, including the timely reporting of any suspicious cyber activity, whether potential threats originate internally or externally.4 The term draws inspiration from the function of a traditional technological firewall, which serves as a barrier to prevent unauthorized access to a network or system; the human firewall, in parallel, acts as a human-based defense mechanism aimed at shielding against various cyber threats.6

The objective of this report is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the "human firewall" concept within the realm of cybersecurity. This analysis will explore the historical emergence of the term, examine the perspectives of cybersecurity experts who advocate for and critique its validity, and ultimately assess its relevance in the context of contemporary cybersecurity practices. By delving into the origins, evolution, benefits, and limitations of the "human firewall," this report aims to provide cybersecurity professionals, IT managers, and business leaders with a thorough understanding of this concept and its implications for organizational security strategies.

2. The Historical Context and Evolution of the "Human Firewall" Concept

The term "human firewall" entered the cybersecurity lexicon with the growing understanding that security is not solely a technological concern but fundamentally involves people and the processes they follow.7 Its origin lies in the increasing recognition that cybercriminals were shifting their focus towards exploiting the "human factor" through sophisticated social engineering tactics and direct human interaction8 This realization underscored the point that even the most robust technical defenses could be circumvented if individuals within an organization were not vigilant and knowledgeable about potential threats.9

The development of the "human firewall" concept was driven by a significant shift in the cybersecurity landscape. Initially, organizational efforts to secure digital assets primarily revolved around the implementation of technical solutions, such as network firewalls and antivirus software, designed to ward off external threats.10 However, as cyber threats evolved in complexity, threat actors began to increasingly target human vulnerabilities. Tactics like phishing and social engineering emerged as highly effective methods for gaining unauthorized access to sensitive information and systems, highlighting the critical need to educate and empower employees as a crucial first line of defense.10 The rise of "people-centered attacks," which capitalize on innate human instincts such as curiosity and trust to trick users into clicking on malicious links, downloading harmful software, or divulging confidential information, further emphasized the necessity of a human-centric approach to security.8 Moreover, the increasing prevalence of remote working arrangements has amplified the importance of a well-defined human firewall. With employees operating outside the traditional security perimeter, often relying on personal devices and less secure networks, individual awareness and adherence to security best practices have become paramount.4

The understanding and application of the "human firewall" have undergone considerable evolution over time. Initial approaches may have been limited to basic security awareness training sessions. However, the concept has matured into a more comprehensive and integrated strategy that emphasizes the need for continuous education, the cultivation of a strong security-conscious culture throughout the organization, and the empowerment of employees to proactively identify and report suspicious activities.2 Contemporary strategies often incorporate principles of adult learning, change management methodologies, gamification techniques, and personalized training programs to foster lasting and effective security habits among employees.3 The "human firewall" is now widely recognized as an indispensable component of any robust organizational cybersecurity strategy, considered a critical element that works in tandem with and complements traditional technological defenses.2 This evolution reflects a deeper understanding of the human element in security and a move towards creating a more resilient and adaptable defense against an ever-changing threat landscape.

3. Arguments in Favor: The "Human Firewall" as a Vital Security Layer

Cybersecurity experts who champion the "human firewall" concept underscore that the human element frequently represents the most vulnerable point in an organization's security infrastructure, thereby making a well-trained and vigilant workforce an absolutely essential layer of defense.2 In an era characterized by increasingly sophisticated, often AI-driven cyberattacks, these experts argue that human intuition, critical thinking capabilities, and the capacity for nuanced judgment remain indispensable assets that effectively complement the pattern recognition and data processing strengths of artificial intelligence in the detection and mitigation of threats.11 Leading voices in the cybersecurity field advocate for a proactive approach that involves actively nurturing a security-aware culture within organizations and making sustained investments in continuous training initiatives designed to transform every employee into a frontline defender against cyber threats.12 Furthermore, the "human firewall" is viewed as a mechanism to standardize the involvement of all personnel in an organization's cyber defense efforts, thereby promoting a comprehensive and "human-first" approach to cybersecurity.14

The benefits of cultivating a security-aware workforce, often referred to as a "human firewall," are extensive and contribute significantly to an organization's overall security posture. Employees trained as part of the human firewall serve as the initial point of defense, equipped to recognize and appropriately respond to suspicious activities such as phishing attempts and social engineering tactics before these can infiltrate and compromise organizational systems and sensitive data.2 This approach directly addresses the acknowledged "human factor," widely considered the weakest link in an organization's security. By fostering a culture of security awareness and shared responsibility, organizations can mitigate both technological and psychological vulnerabilities.2 While technological security measures are undeniably vital, they are not infallible. A well-trained human firewall acts as a crucial supplementary layer, providing an additional level of defense against threats that may successfully bypass or exploit weaknesses in technical controls.2 Moreover, employees who are part of a human firewall are better positioned to quickly identify and report potential security incidents, enabling the organization to mount a more swift and effective response, thereby minimizing the potential impact of a successful cyberattack.2 Empowering all employees to actively participate in cybersecurity cultivates a security-conscious culture throughout the organization, fostering a collective sense of responsibility for safeguarding valuable assets, which is particularly critical in the face of increasingly elaborate and deceptive cyber threats.2 Many industry-specific regulations and standards, such as HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and GDPR, mandate the implementation of comprehensive security awareness training programs for employees. Adopting a human firewall approach can assist organizations in meeting these crucial compliance requirements.2 By equipping employees with the necessary knowledge and skills to recognize and avoid common cybersecurity threats, such as phishing emails and social engineering attacks, organizations can significantly mitigate the risk of human error leading to security breaches.3 Unlike automated security tools that primarily detect known threats, a vigilant human firewall can identify novel or unique threats that might otherwise evade traditional detection methods.3 Given the constantly evolving nature of the cyber threat landscape, ongoing training and awareness programs ensure that employees remain adaptable and informed about emerging threats.3 In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a robust human firewall strategy can significantly enhance incident response efforts as prepared employees will be more likely to follow established protocols, report incidents promptly, and take appropriate action.3 Furthermore, implementing a human firewall strategy can contribute to simplifying complex security protocols, making them more comprehensible and actionable for everyone within the organization.14

Human vigilance plays a pivotal role as both the initial point of defense and a crucial final safeguard against a wide spectrum of cyber threats. Employees often serve as the first to encounter various forms of attacks, including sophisticated phishing emails, subtle social engineering attempts designed to manipulate trust, and other suspicious activities that target human psychology.2 In scenarios where advanced and persistent attacks manage to bypass an organization's technological defenses, a vigilant and well-informed employee might represent the last line of defense capable of recognizing an anomaly, questioning an unusual request, or reporting suspicious behavior that could otherwise lead to a significant security breach.3 The inherent human capacity for intuition and the ability to discern requests or situations that seem out of context are particularly valuable in thwarting attacks that heavily rely on deception and manipulation, characteristics often missed by purely technical detection systems.2 This dual role, as both the first sensor and the ultimate arbiter of suspicious activity, underscores the critical importance of cultivating a strong human firewall as an integral component of a comprehensive and layered cybersecurity strategy.

4. Criticisms and Limitations: Expert Skepticism Towards the "Human Firewall"

While the potential benefits of a "human firewall" are widely acknowledged, some cybersecurity experts express skepticism regarding the concept, primarily due to the inherent limitations associated with relying on human behavior for security. These experts point out that despite training and awareness initiatives, the possibility of human error remains a significant factor, making it unrealistic to consider individuals as an impenetrable "firewall."16 The human element is consistently identified as a primary weakness in the overall security chain, with a substantial percentage of successful data breaches directly attributed to mistakes made by employees.2 Critics emphasize the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals, who are adept at developing and deploying highly effective social engineering tactics that exploit fundamental human psychological vulnerabilities, making even well-trained individuals susceptible to manipulation.2 A key concern raised by these experts is that an over-reliance on the "human firewall" concept might inadvertently lead organizations to neglect or underinvest in the development and maintenance of robust and essential technological security measures, creating a potentially dangerous imbalance in their overall security strategy.20

The effectiveness of relying on humans as a primary security mechanism is challenged by several inherent limitations and concerns. Human error remains a significant vulnerability, with employees potentially falling victim to increasingly sophisticated phishing scams, adopting weak and easily compromised passwords, or making unintentional errors in judgment that can lead to security breaches.2 Cyber attackers frequently employ various social engineering tactics, including phishing emails designed to trick users into revealing sensitive information, pretexting scenarios where attackers impersonate trusted entities, baiting techniques that lure victims with enticing offers, and scareware tactics that induce fear to prompt harmful actions2. The threat from within also poses a significant risk, as malicious or simply negligent insiders can intentionally or unintentionally compromise an organization's security.2 Over time, users can experience security fatigue or complacency, becoming desensitized to frequent security warnings and protocols, potentially leading to lapses in vigilance.17 Maintaining a state of constant vigilance and security awareness can be particularly challenging for individuals whose primary responsibilities lie outside of cybersecurity.2 The ever-evolving nature of the cyber threat landscape necessitates continuous and adaptive training programs, which can be resource-intensive and may not always keep pace with the latest attack vectors.3 Furthermore, attackers often exploit psychological principles, leveraging emotions such as urgency, fear, and curiosity to bypass rational decision-making processes and manipulate individuals into taking actions that compromise security.19

The significant role of human error in the vast majority of data breaches underscores the inherent vulnerabilities associated with placing excessive reliance on individuals as a primary security control. Numerous studies and reports consistently indicate that a substantial percentage of security incidents can be traced back to human actions or inactions.5 Employees, often burdened with numerous responsibilities and facing time constraints, can be easily deceived by well-crafted malicious emails or sophisticated social engineering tactics that appear legitimate.5 A lack of sufficient awareness or the development of a false sense of security can lead employees to believe that their organization's security measures are infallible, potentially fostering risky online behaviors.17 It is important to recognize that even the most well-intentioned and diligently trained employees are still human and therefore susceptible to making mistakes or falling prey to highly sophisticated attacks that exploit their emotions, trust, or lack of complete contextual information.19 This inherent potential for human fallibility highlights the critical need for organizations to adopt a balanced cybersecurity strategy that incorporates robust technical safeguards as the foundational layer of defense, rather than solely depending on the vigilance and actions of their employees.

5. Comparing and Contrasting Expert Perspectives on the "Human Firewall"

The discourse surrounding the "human firewall" in cybersecurity reveals a comparative landscape where proponents and critics present distinct yet often overlapping arguments. Those who advocate for the concept emphasize the critical need for a human layer of defense, particularly against the growing prevalence of social engineering attacks that specifically target human vulnerabilities. They rightly point out that employees are frequently the initial point of contact for various types of cyber threats and highlight the significant potential to empower these individuals through targeted training and awareness programs, transforming them into active and effective defenders of organizational assets.

Conversely, experts who express skepticism towards the "human firewall" concept primarily focus on the inherent unreliability of human behavior in the context of security. Their arguments are often grounded in the consistently high rates of human error observed in security breaches, suggesting that while security awareness is undoubtedly important, placing primary reliance on individuals as a "firewall" is inherently flawed. They contend that the primary focus of an organization's security efforts should remain on the implementation and maintenance of robust technical controls that do not depend on flawless human behavior to be effective.

It is important to note that both sides of this discussion generally concur on the fundamental importance of security awareness and training for employees within any organization. The core point of divergence lies in the degree to which humans can be considered a truly reliable and consistent "firewall" against cyber threats and, consequently, the appropriate allocation of resources and strategic focus in building a comprehensive cybersecurity posture. The debate centers on whether the term "human firewall" accurately reflects the capabilities and, more importantly, the limitations of human vigilance and behavior in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats.

The central points of agreement among experts revolve around the necessity of security awareness and training for all employees. There is a broad consensus that educating individuals about common cyber threats, particularly social engineering tactics, is a crucial step in mitigating risks. However, the primary areas of disagreement include the appropriateness and validity of the term "human firewall" itself, the extent to which human vigilance can be considered a reliable primary security layer compared to automated technological controls, and the optimal balance that organizations should strive for between human-centric and technology-centric cybersecurity strategies. Ultimately, the contrasting perspectives underscore the critical need for organizations to adopt a balanced and layered approach to security. This approach should strategically leverage the inherent strengths of both a well-informed and vigilant workforce and the robust capabilities of technological security controls, while simultaneously acknowledging the inherent limitations and potential vulnerabilities associated with each.

6. The "Human Firewall" in Action: Examples of Successes and Failures

Numerous instances demonstrate the positive impact of successfully implemented "human firewall" strategies on an organization's security. For example, employees who are trained to recognize and promptly report suspicious emails play a crucial role in strengthening an organization's overall threat detection capabilities.3 Encouraging and enabling staff to create strong, unique passwords for their accounts and to utilize multi-factor authentication significantly enhances the security of sensitive information and reduces the risk of unauthorized access.3 Similarly, when employees are educated about the dangers of unauthorized software downloads and adhere to policies that restrict such activities, the risk of malware infections and subsequent system compromise is significantly reduced.3 Organizations that invest in comprehensive and engaging training programs have reported tangible improvements in their security posture, such as a substantial increase in the rate at which employees report suspicious activity and a notable decrease in the rate at which they fall victim to simulated phishing attacks.3 Real-world examples further illustrate the effectiveness of a human firewall. In one instance, vigilant employees at a major bank in Southeast Asia successfully identified inconsistencies within a phishing email, promptly reporting it and thereby preventing a potentially significant security breach.24 Another notable case involved a Tesla employee who recognized and reported a lucrative bribery attempt aimed at planting malware within the company's systems, demonstrating how employee awareness and responsible action can thwart even well-funded cybercriminal activities.24 Implementing ongoing cybersecurity training sessions that cover topics such as recognizing phishing scams, avoiding malware downloads, and identifying malicious links are common and often effective strategies for bolstering the human firewall.25 Establishing clear and accessible procedures for employees to report any suspicious activity they encounter and fostering a culture where questioning unusual requests is encouraged further strengthens this human layer of defense.25

Despite the documented successes, there are also numerous instances where reliance on the "human firewall" has proven insufficient or has failed entirely, often leading to significant security incidents. Statistics consistently reveal that a substantial proportion of data breaches can be directly attributed to human error, such as employees inadvertently clicking on malicious links embedded in phishing emails or falling victim to sophisticated social engineering tactics 6. Cybercriminals frequently exploit various social engineering techniques, including vishing (voice phishing) attacks conducted over the phone, the use of malware-laden email attachments designed to install malicious software upon opening, and tailgating, where unauthorized individuals gain physical access to secure areas by closely following authorized personnel.26 Phishing attacks, in particular, remain a highly effective attack vector, successfully tricking unsuspecting employees into divulging sensitive personal or organizational information or unknowingly downloading malicious software onto their devices.2 The adoption of weak or easily guessable passwords by employees continues to be a significant vulnerability that can lead to unauthorized access to critical systems and data.18 The loss or theft of unencrypted laptops, smartphones, or other portable devices can provide malicious actors with direct access to sensitive company networks and data, often bypassing other security measures that rely on network perimeter defenses.2 Organizations with inadequately trained employees are demonstrably more susceptible to a wide range of scams and attacks orchestrated by cybercriminals.16 Even seemingly innocuous actions, such as clicking on a link in an email that appears to be legitimate, can have severe consequences, as highlighted in numerous data breach reports where such actions served as the initial point of compromise.17 These examples of failures underscore the persistent challenge of human error in cybersecurity and emphasize the critical need for organizations to implement robust technical controls and to continuously reinforce security awareness and best practices among their employees.

7. Analyzing the Validity and Relevance of the "Human Firewall" in Contemporary Cybersecurity

Based on the analysis of expert opinions and historical context, the concept of the "human firewall" retains significant validity and relevance in contemporary cybersecurity practices. This is primarily due to the fact that social engineering attacks continue to be a prevalent and highly effective threat vector, directly exploiting inherent human vulnerabilities.2 While it is clear that humans are not infallible and can be susceptible to deception and error, a well-trained and security-aware workforce provides a crucial and often indispensable layer of defense that effectively complements the array of technological security solutions deployed by organizations.2 The emphasis on the human element signifies a necessary and positive shift towards a more holistic cybersecurity strategy, one that acknowledges that technology alone cannot provide complete protection against all forms of attack, particularly those that rely on manipulating human behavior.2

However, it is worth considering whether the term "firewall" accurately reflects the nature and capabilities of this human-centric security layer. The term "firewall" typically implies a consistent, rule-based, and largely automated system of protection. Human behavior, by its very nature, is subject to variability, emotions, and the potential for error, making the analogy somewhat imperfect. Alternative terms, such as "human sensor network" or "security-aware workforce," might more accurately convey the active and responsive role of individuals in identifying and reporting potential threats, rather than implying a purely preventative and impermeable barrier.

In the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, including the growing utilization of artificial intelligence in attack methodologies, the role of human awareness and critical thinking becomes even more paramount. As AI is increasingly leveraged by both threat actors to create more convincing and targeted attacks and by security teams to enhance detection and response capabilities, the ability of humans to identify anomalies and contextual inconsistencies that AI might overlook remains a vital asset.11 Human awareness is particularly crucial for recognizing and reporting novel and evolving attack methods that may not yet be cataloged or detectable by automated security systems.3 Consequently, cybersecurity training programs must continuously adapt to address these emerging threats, including sophisticated techniques like deepfake impersonation and increasingly elaborate business email compromise (BEC) schemes designed to deceive even discerning individuals.24 A "human-first" approach to cybersecurity underscores the importance of ensuring that individuals within an organization not only understand the potential threats but also comprehend how the security technologies deployed work and how to effectively utilize them in conjunction with their own vigilance and awareness to maintain a strong security posture.14

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the "human firewall" concept emerged from the critical understanding that cybersecurity encompasses not only technological defenses but also the vigilance and actions of individuals within an organization, particularly as social engineering attacks became a dominant threat. While experts broadly agree on the fundamental importance of security awareness and training for employees, there are varying perspectives on the extent to which humans can be considered a consistently reliable "firewall" due to the inherent potential for human error. Despite these limitations, the concept remains highly relevant in contemporary cybersecurity. With social engineering continuing to be a significant threat vector, a well-trained and security-aware workforce provides a vital layer of defense that complements and enhances the effectiveness of technological security controls.

To effectively leverage the human element in their cybersecurity strategy while acknowledging its inherent limitations, organizations should consider the following recommendations:

· Implement continuous and engaging security awareness training programs: These programs should utilize a variety of methods, including interactive sessions, realistic simulations, and relevant real-world examples, to ensure that employees remain informed about the latest threats and best practices.3

· Foster a strong security-conscious culture: Create an environment where employees feel empowered and encouraged to report any suspicious activities without fear of reprisal, reinforcing the idea that security is a shared responsibility that extends across all levels of the organization.2

· Conduct regular phishing simulations and other security drills: These exercises are crucial for testing the effectiveness of training programs, assessing employee vigilance, and reinforcing learned security behaviors in a controlled environment.18

· Establish clear and easily accessible policies and procedures: Ensure that employees have access to comprehensive guidelines on cybersecurity best practices, covering areas such as password management, the appropriate handling of sensitive information, and the established protocols for reporting security incidents.3

· Provide employees with the necessary tools and technologies: Equip the workforce with user-friendly security tools such as password managers, multi-factor authentication mechanisms, and secure communication channels to support their role in maintaining a secure environment.3

· Implement robust technical security controls as the primary layer of defense: Recognize that while the "human firewall" is a valuable complementary layer, it should not be considered a replacement for essential technological safeguards such as advanced firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and endpoint security solutions.2

· Focus on creating a balanced cybersecurity strategy: Strive for an optimal equilibrium between human-centric security awareness initiatives and the deployment of robust technological defenses, acknowledging the inherent strengths and limitations of each approach.11

· Measure the effectiveness of human firewall initiatives: Utilize relevant metrics, such as phishing reporting rates, overall threat reporting rates, and employee feedback gathered through surveys, to assess the impact and identify areas for improvement in security awareness programs.23

· Encourage strong leadership buy-in and support: Secure visible commitment and active participation from organizational leaders to underscore the importance of security awareness and foster a culture where security is prioritized at all levels.3

· Adapt training and awareness efforts to address emerging threats: Continuously update training content and methodologies to effectively address new and evolving cyber threats, including sophisticated attacks that leverage artificial intelligence and other advanced techniques.3

By implementing these recommendations, organizations can more effectively harness the potential of their employees as a crucial layer of defense against the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats, while also recognizing and mitigating the inherent limitations of relying solely on human vigilance.

Works cited

1. www.proofpoint.com, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/human-firewall#:~:text=A%20human%20firewall%20represents%20the,mere%20reliance%20on%20technological%20safeguards.

2. What Is a Human Firewall? Meaning | Proofpoint US, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/human-firewall

3. What is a Human Firewall? Examples, Strategies + Training Tips - Hoxhunt, accessed March 20, 2025, https://hoxhunt.com/blog/human-firewall

4. What is a human firewall and how can it help my business?, accessed March 20, 2025, https://business.bt.com/insights/human-firewall/

5. Human firewalling - KPMG International, accessed March 20, 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2023/human-firewalling.html

6. What Is a Human Firewall and How Do You Build One For Your ..., accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.globalguardian.com/global-digest/human-firewall

7. www.ou.edu, accessed March 20, 2025, http://www.ou.edu/ouit/cybersecurity/human-firewall.html#:~:text=Human%20Firewall%20comes%20from%20the,a%20people%20and%20process%20issue.

8. Human Firewall Training - The University of Oklahoma, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.ou.edu/ouit/cybersecurity/human-firewall

9. What is a Human Firewall? | NordLayer Learn, accessed March 20, 2025, https://nordlayer.com/learn/firewall/human/

10. What is Human Firewall: The Unsung Heroes of Cybersecurity ..., accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.bytagig.com/articles/what-is-human-firewall-the-unsung-heroes-of-cybersecurity/

11. The Human Firewall: Why Cybersecurity Still Needs a Human Touch | CDOTrends, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.cdotrends.com/story/4294/human-firewall-why-cybersecurity-still-needs-human-touch

12. The Human Element in Cybersecurity: Overlooked Challenges and Opportunities, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.insightsfromanalytics.com/post/the-human-element-in-cybersecurity-overlooked-challenges-and-opportunities

13. Updating the Human Firewall and Demystifying Cybersecurity - TriNet, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.trinet.com/insights/cybersecurity-month-updating-the-human-firewall-and-demystifying-cybersecurity

14. Amid all the AI, a 'human-first' cybersecurity approach must prevail | SC Media, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.scworld.com/perspective/amid-all-the-ai-a-human-first-cybersecurity-approach-must-prevail

15. hoxhunt.com, accessed March 20, 2025, https://hoxhunt.com/blog/human-firewall#:~:text=Mitigate%20human%20error%3A%20Human%20firewalls,emails%20and%20social%20engineering%20attacks.

16. 5 Examples of a Potential Weakness to the Human Firewall - CyberReady, accessed March 20, 2025, https://cybeready.com/awareness-training/5-examples-of-a-potential-weakness-to-the-human-firewall

17. THE HUMAN FIREWALL - THE HUMAN SIDE OF CYBER SECURITY, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.cybersecurity-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Annama%CC%81ria-Bela%CC%81z-and-Zsolt-Szabo%CC%81-article-Cyber-Security-Review-online-September-2020.pdf

18. The Power of the Human Firewall: Your First Line of Defense - RedZone Technologies, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.redzonetech.net/blog-posts/human-firewall

19. How to create a resilient human firewall: a talk with Mark T. Hofman - NordLayer, accessed March 20, 2025, https://nordlayer.com/blog/how-to-create-a-resilient-human-firewall/

20. The Limitations of Firewalls in Modern Security | ArmorPoint, accessed March 20, 2025, https://armorpoint.com/2024/01/04/the-limitations-of-firewalls-in-modern-security/

21. What is the Human Firewall in Cyber Security? Why it's Important & How to Build One, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.metomic.io/resource-centre/what-is-the-human-firewall-and-why-is-it-important

22. 5 Traits of a Human Firewall: The Heart of Cybersecurity - WebCE Blog, accessed March 20, 2025, https://blog.webce.com/article/5-traits-of-a-human-firewall%3A-the-heart-of-cybersecurity-

23. How To Strengthen Your Company's Human Firewall - IT Security Guru, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.itsecurityguru.org/2024/11/18/how-to-strengthen-your-companys-human-firewall/

24. What is a Human Firewall? Definition, Examples & More - StrongDM, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.strongdm.com/what-is/human-firewall

25. Cyber Security Gaps: The Human Firewall - Ascendant Technologies, Inc., accessed March 20, 2025, https://ascendantusa.com/2023/02/11/human-firewall/

26. hoxhunt.com, accessed March 20, 2025, https://hoxhunt.com/blog/human-firewall#:~:text=Vishing%20(voice%20phishing)%3A%20Using,areas%20by%20following%20authorized%20personnel.

27. The Role of a Human Firewall in Cyber Resilience - Esevel, accessed March 20, 2025, https://esevel.com/blog/human-firewall

28. 5 Effective Human Firewall Traits: The Key To Protecting SaaS Data - Forbes, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/11/14/5-effective-human-firewall-traits-the-key-to-protecting-saas-data/

29. Human Firewall's Guide to Security - Eccezion, accessed March 20, 2025, https://eccezion.com/human-firewalls-guide-to-security/

30. Human Firewall: The Essential Guide - Nightfall AI, accessed March 20, 2025, https://www.nightfall.ai/blog/human-firewall-the-essential-guide

Appendix B The Evolution and Impact of "Not If, But When" in Cybersecurity Discourse

I. Introduction: Setting the Stage - The Ubiquitous "Not If, But When" in Cybersecurity

The phrase "Cybersecurity incidents are not a matter of 'if' but 'when'" has become a pervasive adage within the cybersecurity industry. It frequently appears in marketing materials, presentations by experts, and general discussions concerning the ever-present threats in the digital landscape. This statement, while intended to underscore the inevitability of cyberattacks, has also drawn criticism for its potentially fatalistic tone, prompting a search for more constructive approaches to cybersecurity communication. This report aims to investigate the history of this widely used phrase, trace its evolution within the cybersecurity domain, analyze its adoption and adaptation by various stakeholders, explore the arguments against its potentially discouraging nature, and identify alternative messaging strategies that promote a more proactive and empowering stance in the face of cyber threats. By examining the origins, usage patterns, and critiques of this phrase, this report seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of its impact on cybersecurity discourse and explore avenues for more effective communication.

II. Genesis of the Phrase: Investigating Early Instances and Similar Phrasing

While the specific phrasing "Cybersecurity incidents are not a matter of 'if' but 'when'" gained prominence in the cybersecurity field, the underlying concept of inevitable negative events has a longer history. An early recorded use of a similar phrase, "It's not if, but when," dates back to an 1867 English periodical referencing an Italian politician.1 This suggests that the notion of certain events being unavoidable predates the emergence of cybersecurity as a distinct field. The cybersecurity community appears to have adopted an existing idiom to convey the increasing certainty of cyber intrusions. This pre-existing understanding of inevitability might explain the rapid acceptance and widespread use of the phrase within the industry. The core idea it conveys – that negative events are bound to occur – is not unique to the realm of digital security.

Within the context of early cybersecurity discussions, a similar sentiment, though not the exact phrasing, was conveyed by prominent figures. In 2012, then FBI Director Robert Mueller reportedly stated, "There are only two types of companies; those who have been hacked and those who will be."2 This statement, while differing in its specific wording, delivers a very similar message of inevitability concerning cyberattacks. The fact that a high-ranking law enforcement official like the FBI Director articulated this view suggests that the concept of cyberattacks being unavoidable was gaining traction and being communicated by influential voices even before the precise "not if, but when" phrasing became dominant. Mueller's quote might have laid the groundwork for the later adoption of the more concise and impactful phrasing. This narrative around inevitability further evolved with an updated version of Mueller's quote: "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that don't know they have been hacked."3 This evolution emphasizes the potential for breaches to occur and remain undetected, further reinforcing the idea that experiencing a cyber incident is not a matter of chance but a matter of time, and potentially, current awareness. This subtle shift in the narrative adds a layer of urgency, implying that organizations should not be complacent even if they have not yet detected an attack, suggesting a more sophisticated understanding of the threat landscape where intrusions can be silent and persistent.

The specific phrasing "it's not if you get breached, but when" is also attributed to a former FBI director, likely Robert Mueller, in a YouTube video transcript discussing cybersecurity.4 This reinforces the idea that a prominent figure in law enforcement played a role in popularizing this type of messaging within the cybersecurity domain. Such pronouncements from individuals in positions of authority likely carried significant weight and contributed to the widespread acceptance of this perspective within the industry. Examining other early mentions in publications or speeches reveals that by 2016, the specific phrasing was in use in educational and professional contexts, as evidenced by a webinar titled "Cybersecurity: It's not a matter of “if” but “when” there will be a breach."5 This indicates that the exact phrase was circulating within the cybersecurity community and being used to frame discussions about organizational risk well before it became a ubiquitous industry catchphrase.

III. The Role of Law Enforcement: Examining Mentions by FBI Directors Comey and Mueller

While the user's initial query suggests that former FBI Director James Comey might have been the first to use the phrase "Cybersecurity incidents are not a matter of 'if' but 'when'," a review of available materials does not directly support this attribution. Snippets from various speeches and interviews by Comey 6 highlight his focus on the increasing threat from nation-state actors, the critical need for enhanced collaboration between the private sector and the FBI in addressing cyber intrusions, and the "epidemic proportions" of cybercrime. While Comey's rhetoric consistently emphasized the pervasive and serious nature of cyber threats, aligning with the underlying message of inevitability, these sources do not contain the specific phrase in question. His strong warnings about the growing sophistication and frequency of attacks likely contributed to the overall sense of urgency within the cybersecurity community and the acceptance of the idea that breaches are highly probable, even without using the exact "not if, but when" formulation.

In contrast, the research material explicitly indicates that former FBI Director Robert Mueller used a very close variation of the phrase. One source states, "Moreover, as FBI Director Robert Mueller highlighted in 2012, it is not a matter of if you will be attacked, but when."2 This directly confirms that Mueller employed this type of messaging as early as 2012. His broader communication strategy consistently underscored the seriousness and increasing likelihood of cyberattacks, emphasizing the growing cyber threat, the involvement of nation-states, and the necessity of robust collaboration between government agencies and the private sector.11 Therefore, while James Comey undoubtedly contributed to raising awareness about cyber threats, the available evidence points to Robert Mueller as a key figure in popularizing the sentiment, if not the exact phrasing, of "not if, but when" within the cybersecurity landscape.

IV. Industry Embrace: How Cybersecurity Companies Have Adopted and Evolved the Statement

The sentiment that cyberattacks are inevitable has been widely adopted and adapted by cybersecurity companies and experts in their communication strategies. IT Governance USA, for example, directly uses the phrase "Cyber incidents are a matter of when, not if" in their content.14 This demonstrates how the exact phrasing has been integrated into the messaging of organizations offering cybersecurity services and products. Experts and thought leaders in the field have also embraced this perspective. Professor Kamal Bechkoum, head of Business and Technology at the University of Gloucestershire, is quoted as saying, "In the first instance understand that a cyber-attack on your organisation is inevitable. It's really not a question of 'if', but 'when.'"15 The use of the phrase by academics and industry commentators further solidifies its acceptance and dissemination within the cybersecurity community.

The phrase frequently appears in discussions and warnings within the business and cybersecurity sectors. At an Alliance MBS event, a panelist warned, "Companies have done a lot of things right, but it is not a matter of if but when they will come under attack."16 This highlights its role in shaping the narrative around cybersecurity risk for businesses. Furthermore, the title of an article in Applied Radiology, "Cyberattacks: Not a Matter of If, but When," demonstrates the use of the phrase across different industries, including healthcare.17 This indicates its perceived relevance across various sectors facing cyber threats. Palo Alto Networks, a major cybersecurity vendor, states that "The general consensus among industry experts is that an organization facing a cybersecurity breach or attack is not a matter of “if,” but rather “when.”"18 This confirms the widespread acceptance of the sentiment as a "general consensus" within the cybersecurity industry.

Consulting firms like Oliver Wyman have also adopted the phrase, using it in the title of their insights, such as "Cyberattack: Not If, But When."19 This indicates its role in framing the discussion around cyber risk for business leaders. Even individuals with direct experience in cybersecurity within law enforcement echo this sentiment. Tim Gallagher, a former FBI special agent in charge, stated, "Everybody's going to get hit."20 While not the exact phrase, this reinforces the pervasive belief in the inevitability of attacks among cybersecurity professionals. The phrase is also commonly used in the context of data breaches, as seen in the title of a report by RWK Goodman: "Data Breach: When, Not If."21 This shows how the general idea of inevitable cyber incidents is often narrowed down to the specific concern of data breaches for many organizations. The Oklahoma Bar Association uses the heading "NOT IF, BUT WHEN" in an article discussing cyber-attacks and the need for incident response plans.22 This indicates the phrase's adoption even within legal and professional organizations discussing cybersecurity risks. Organizations focused on corporate governance and director education, such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), also use the phrase in their materials, as in the title "It's not if but when a cyber security attack will happen."23 This highlights its importance at the board level, suggesting that the inevitability of cyberattacks is a key message being communicated to business leaders. The widespread and consistent use of the "not if, but when" statement and its variations across different segments of the cybersecurity landscape underscores its entrenchment as a core tenet in the industry's understanding of cyber risk.

V. A Critical Examination: Arguments Against the Fatalistic Nature of the Phrase

Despite its widespread use, the "not if, but when" statement has faced criticism for its potentially fatalistic nature and its limitations in fostering a proactive security mindset. A YouTube video transcript discussing this very phrase highlights the concern that starting with "it's not if we get breached, but when" can be counterproductive, potentially discouraging executives from investing in necessary security initiatives.4 The argument is that if leaders are presented with a seemingly unavoidable outcome, they might be less inclined to allocate resources towards prevention, leading to underfunding of crucial security measures. This messaging can inadvertently create a sense of helplessness, undermining efforts to improve an organization's security posture. Furthermore, the speaker in the video suggests that the fatalistic nature of the statement might lead to an overemphasis on cyber insurance as a primary mitigation strategy, rather than focusing on proactive security measures aimed at preventing breaches in the first place. If attacks are perceived as inevitable, organizations might prioritize financial recovery after an incident over investing in stronger defenses to prevent the incident from occurring.

The "not if, but when" sentiment has also been critiqued for potentially overstating the certainty of an attack for every single organization. An article in Domestic Preparedness discusses the "not if, but when" fallacy in the context of active shooter preparedness, arguing that while the phrase might be well-intentioned, it can be misleading about the likelihood of an event at a specific location.1 Applying this logic to cybersecurity, while cyberattacks are increasingly common, the likelihood of a significant breach can vary considerably depending on an organization's size, industry, and the robustness of its security measures. The "not if, but when" statement might create a uniform sense of imminent threat that doesn't always accurately reflect the varying levels of risk across different organizations. In response to these criticisms, the speaker in the aforementioned YouTube video proposes reframing the narrative to focus on resilience rather than solely on the inevitability of breaches.4 This alternative approach acknowledges the possibility of cyber incidents but emphasizes an organization's ability to withstand and recover from them, shifting the focus from a passive acceptance of attacks to an active preparation for them, fostering a sense of control and empowerment.

VI. Moving Beyond Fatalism: Exploring Proactive and Empowering Messaging Alternatives

Recognizing the potential drawbacks of the "not if, but when" statement, the cybersecurity field has explored alternative messaging strategies that aim to be more proactive and empowering. One prominent alternative focuses on the concept of "resiliency," emphasizing the importance of detection, response, and limiting the damage caused by cyber incidents.4 This approach acknowledges the likelihood of breaches but centers on an organization's ability to minimize their impact, reframing the conversation from a passive acceptance of attacks to an active preparation for them, thereby fostering a sense of control and empowerment. This shift in focus is also highlighted by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), which emphasizes the need to move from "pure prevention to detection and response planning" with the ultimate goal of becoming "resilient organisations that can bounce back quickly from attacks."23 This suggests that a balanced approach that includes prevention, detection, and response is more effective than solely concentrating on prevention under the assumption of inevitability.

Beyond the concept of resilience, messaging that highlights actionable steps empowers individuals and organizations to take control of their security posture. Recommendations such as using encrypted messaging applications, enabling multi-factor authentication, and practicing good password hygiene24 provide concrete ways for users to mitigate risks. By offering specific, implementable advice, this type of messaging shifts from a sense of impending doom to a sense of agency and the ability to influence security outcomes. The concept of "proactive cybersecurity" has also gained traction, emphasizing prevention, continuous monitoring, threat detection, and comprehensive employee training programs.29 Focusing on these proactive measures communicates a sense of control and the ability to actively defend against threats, rather than passively waiting for an attack to occur. This approach encourages taking initiative and implementing strategies to reduce both the likelihood and the potential impact of cyber incidents, fostering a more optimistic and action-oriented mindset. Strategies for achieving "cybersecurity success" further emphasize this proactive stance, including regular training sessions, the development of clear and concise security policies, encouraging leadership engagement in security practices, establishing incident reporting mechanisms, and actively seeking feedback to continuously improve security measures.34 This holistic approach focuses on building a strong security culture through active participation and continuous improvement, emphasizing a shared responsibility for maintaining a secure environment.

VII. Contextual Usage Today: Analyzing the Target Audience and Intended Message

The "not if, but when" phrase is typically employed in specific contexts depending on the target audience and the intended message. When addressing business leaders and executives, as seen in materials from ChiefExecutive.net, AICD, and Oliver Wyman, the intended message is often to underscore the critical importance of taking cybersecurity seriously at the highest levels of the organization and allocating the necessary resources to address the ever-present threat.19 By highlighting the inevitability of cyberattacks, the messaging aims to overcome potential complacency among leadership and drive investment in both preventative security measures and comprehensive preparedness plans. Cybersecurity vendors frequently utilize the phrase in their marketing materials, as exemplified by IT Governance USA and Palo Alto Networks.14 In this context, the intended message is likely to create a sense of urgency and emphasize the necessity of the vendor's products or services to help organizations effectively prepare for the inevitable "when" an attack occurs. By stressing the inevitability, these vendors position themselves as essential partners in mitigating the potential impact of an eventual breach.

Educational content and expert discussions also commonly employ the "not if, but when" phrase, as seen in materials from Alliance MBS and Applied Radiology.16 In these settings, the goal is often to establish a realistic understanding of the current threat landscape and the ongoing need for constant vigilance and preparedness. By acknowledging the high likelihood of cyberattacks, educators and experts aim to move the conversation beyond basic prevention strategies and towards a more comprehensive and adaptive security posture. The specific nuance of the message is often tailored to the intended audience. When communicating with technical audiences, the discussion might quickly transition to specific defensive strategies and incident response protocols after acknowledging the inevitability of an attack. Conversely, when addressing non-technical audiences, the emphasis might be on the broader business and organizational implications of cyber incidents and the importance of fostering a security-aware culture throughout the entire organization. Therefore, while the "not if, but when" statement serves as a common starting point, the specific message and subsequent discussion are often adapted based on the audience's level of understanding, their specific concerns, and the desired call to action.

VIII. Variations and Related Phrases in Cybersecurity Discourse

Over time, the original "Cybersecurity incidents are not a matter of 'if' but 'when'" statement has spawned several variations and related phrases within cybersecurity discourse. These include:

· "It's not if you get breached, but when."4

· "Cyber incidents are a matter of when, not if."14

· "Data breach: When, not if."21

· "It's not a matter of if but when they will come under attack."16

· "The question organizations are facing is not if a cyberattack will happen, but when."19

· Robert Mueller's quote: "There are only two types of companies; those who have been hacked and those who will be."2

· The evolved version of Mueller's quote: "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that don't know they have been hacked."3

· "Everybody's going to get hit."20

· "A data breach is a question of when, not if."21

The subtle differences in these variations can have specific implications for the message being conveyed. For instance, phrases like "data breach: when, not if" or "it's not if you get breached, but when" focus specifically on the compromise of data, tailoring the message to the particular concern of data security and privacy. This specialization allows for more targeted communication about specific risks. The evolution of Robert Mueller's quote to include the idea that some companies "don't know they have been hacked" highlights the increasing sophistication of cyberattacks and the potential for them to go undetected for extended periods. This reflects a deeper understanding of the threat landscape and the significant challenges associated with threat detection, emphasizing the need for continuous monitoring and proactive threat hunting capabilities.

IX. Conclusion: Synthesizing Findings and Offering a Balanced Perspective on Cybersecurity Communication

The phrase "Cybersecurity incidents are not a matter of 'if' but 'when'" has become a cornerstone of cybersecurity communication, with its origins likely tracing back to similar sentiments expressed in other fields and popularized within cybersecurity by figures like former FBI Director Robert Mueller as early as 2012. The phrase and its variations have been widely adopted and adapted by cybersecurity companies, experts, and various organizations to underscore the increasing inevitability of cyberattacks across all sectors.

While the phrase effectively conveys the serious and pervasive nature of cyber threats, concerns have been raised about its potential to foster a sense of fatalism, potentially discouraging investment in preventative measures and leading to an overreliance on reactive strategies like cyber insurance. The analysis suggests a growing recognition of these limitations, with a discernible shift towards more proactive and empowering messaging strategies that emphasize resilience, continuous monitoring, threat detection, and the importance of building a strong security culture through education and engagement.

Moving forward, a balanced approach to cybersecurity communication appears most effective. While acknowledging the high likelihood of cyber incidents is crucial for driving awareness and prioritizing security, this message should be coupled with a strong emphasis on proactive measures, the development of robust incident response plans, and the cultivation of organizational resilience. By empowering organizations and individuals with actionable strategies and fostering a sense of control over their security posture, the cybersecurity community can move beyond a potentially discouraging narrative of inevitability towards a more constructive and impactful approach to mitigating cyber risks.

Table 1: Timeline of Key Mentions of "Not If, But When" and Similar Phrases

Year

Source (Speaker/Publication)

Exact Phrase or Similar Sentiment

Context/Significance

1867

English Periodical

"It's not if, but when"

Earliest recorded use of the phrase in a general context 1

2012

Robert Mueller, FBI Director

"There are only two types of companies; those who have been hacked and those who will be"

Early articulation of the inevitability of cyberattacks by a prominent figure 2

2016

Webinar Title

"Cybersecurity: It's not a matter of “if” but “when” there will be a breach"

Early use of the specific phrasing in an educational context 5

2020

Professor Kamal Bechkoum, University of Gloucestershire

"It's really not a question of 'if', but 'when'"

Expert opinion emphasizing the inevitability of cyberattacks 15

2021

Palo Alto Networks

"Not a matter of “if,” but rather “when.”"

Statement reflecting industry consensus on the inevitability of breaches 18

Year

Source (Speaker/Publication)

Exact Phrase or Similar Sentiment

Context/Significance

1867

English Periodical

"It's not if, but when"

Earliest recorded use of the phrase in a general context 1

2012

Robert Mueller, FBI Director

"There are only two types of companies; those who have been hacked and those who will be"

Early articulation of the inevitability of cyberattacks by a prominent figure 2

2016

Webinar Title

"Cybersecurity: It's not a matter of “if” but “when” there will be a breach"

Early use of the specific phrasing in an educational context 5

2020

Professor Kamal Bechkoum, University of Gloucestershire

"It's really not a question of 'if', but 'when'"

Expert opinion emphasizing the inevitability of cyberattacks 15

2021

Palo Alto Networks

"Not a matter of “if,” but rather “when.”"

Statement reflecting industry consensus on the inevitability of breaches 18

Table 2: Comparison of "Not If, But When" Messaging vs. Proactive Alternatives

Messaging Strategy

Core Message

Potential Impact

Examples (from research snippets)

"Not If, But When"

Cyberattacks are inevitable. Focus on preparing for the aftermath.

Can drive awareness but may also lead to fatalism and discourage preventative investment.

"Cyber incidents are a matter of when, not if" 14, "Everybody's going to get hit" 20

Resilience-Focused

Attacks may occur, but we can minimize their impact through detection, response, and recovery.

Empowers organizations to prepare actively and build capabilities to withstand attacks.

Shift from pure prevention to detection and response planning 23, Focus on being resilient 4

Proactive Cybersecurity

We can take concrete steps to prevent attacks and reduce our vulnerability.

Fosters a sense of control and encourages the implementation of preventative measures.

Using multi-factor authentication 29, Continuous threat detection 32, Employee training 30

Security Culture Building

Cybersecurity is a shared responsibility. Engagement and continuous improvement are key to success.

Creates a holistic approach to security involving people, processes, and technology.

Regular training sessions 34, Clear and concise policies 34, Incident reporting mechanisms 34

Works cited

1. The “Not If, But When” Fallacy: Active Shooter Preparedness, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.domesticpreparedness.com/articles/the-not-if-but-when-fallacy-active-shooter-preparedness

2. The importance of cyber security - LRQA, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.lrqa.com/en/insights/articles/the-importance-of-cyber-security/

3. There are two types of companies: Those who know they've been hacked & those who don't, accessed March 22, 2025, https://dynamicbusiness.com/locked/there-are-two-types-of-companies-those-who-know-theyve-been-hacked-those-who-dont.html

4. Fact or fiction: “It's not if you get breached, but when” | Cyber Work Podcast - YouTube, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7JnnGhb4ck

5. Cybersecurity: It's not a matter of “if” but “when” there will be a breach., accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.smeal.psu.edu/alumni/events/cybersecurity-201cit2019s-not-a-matter-of-201cif201d-but-201cwhen201d-there-will-be-a-breach

6. FBI Director: Debate Needed on Privacy vs. Security - Fordham Now, accessed March 22, 2025, https://now.fordham.edu/politics-and-society/fbi-director-debate-needed-on-privacy-vs-security/

7. FBI Director James Comey says 'absolute privacy' does not exist in the US, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-director-james-comey-no-absolute-privacy-a7619621.html

8. FBI Director Addresses Cyber Security Gathering, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi-director-addresses-cyber-security-gathering

9. FBI's Comey: Businesses need to tell us if they've been breached | FedScoop, accessed March 22, 2025, https://fedscoop.com/fbi-james-comey-symantec-data-breach-2016/

10. FBI Director James Comey Speaks out on the Threat of Cybercrime - Layer Seven Security, accessed March 22, 2025, https://layersevensecurity.com/fbi-director-james-comey-speaks-out-on-the-threat-of-cybercrime/

11. FBI Director Urges United Effort in Combating Cyber Crimes - Fordham Now, accessed March 22, 2025, https://now.fordham.edu/science/fbi-director-urges-united-effort-in-combating-cyber-crimes/

12. The Cyber Threat: Planning for the Way Ahead - FBI, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-cyber-threat-planning-for-the-way-ahead

13. Combating Threats in the Cyber World: Outsmarting Terrorists, Hackers, and Spies - FBI, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/combating-threats-in-the-cyber-world-outsmarting-terrorists-hackers-and-spies

14. How Long Does It Take to Detect a Cyber Attack? - - IT Governance USA, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/how-long-does-it-take-to-detect-a-cyber-attack

15. Cyber-attacks not a question of 'if', but 'when' - The Business Magazine, accessed March 22, 2025, https://thebusinessmagazine.co.uk/technology-innovation/cyber-attacks-not-a-question-of-if-but-when/

16. Cyber security - it is not a matter of “if” but “when” businesses will come under attack from hackers | Alliance MBS - The University of Manchester, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/news/cyber-security---it-is-not-a-matter-of-if-but-when-businesses-will-come-under-attack-from-hackers/

17. Cyberattacks: Not a Matter of If, but When | Applied Radiology, accessed March 22, 2025, https://appliedradiology.com/Articles/cyberattacks-not-a-matter-of-if-but-when

18. The True Cost of Cybersecurity Incidents: The Problem - Palo Alto Networks, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/2021/06/the-cost-of-cybersecurity-incidents-the-problem/

19. Cyberattack: Not If, But When - Oliver Wyman, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/sep/cyberattack-not-if-but-when.html

20. Cyberattacks: Not If, But When - Chief Executive, accessed March 22, 2025, https://chiefexecutive.net/cyberattacks-not-if-but-when/

21. When, Not If - a report into data breaches and cyber security for SMEs - RWK Goodman, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.rwkgoodman.com/sector/technology-and-media/data-breach-when-not-if/

22. Cyber-Attacks: Is It Really Not If You Will Be Attacked, But When ..., accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.okbar.org/lpt_articles/obj8814calloway/

23. It's not if but when a cyber security attack will happen - AICD, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.aicd.com.au/board-of-directors/performance/succession-plan/its-not-if-but-when-a-cyber-security-attack-will-happen.html

24. WHAT THE TECH? Safe ways to text after cyber security attack prompts FBI warning, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96irUk3CEKE

25. Mobile Communications Best Practice Guidance - CISA, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf

26. Are data breach services like aura or deleteme actually useful for personal cybersecurity, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1jgvjmu/are_data_breach_servies_like_aura_or_deleteme/

27. Practical cyber security tips for business leaders | Cyber.gov.au, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/governance-and-user-education/practical-cyber-security-tips-business-leaders

28. Which is the most secure way to communicate with someone - a messaging app or emails? : r/cybersecurity - Reddit, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/is7wr2/which_is_the_most_secure_way_to_communicate_with/

29. Proactive Cybersecurity In An Ever-Changing Digital Landscape - Syndeo HRO, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.syndeohro.com/post/proactive-cybersecurity-in-an-ever-changing-digital-landscape

30. Proactive Cybersecurity Your Shield Against Threats - Pegasus Technology Solutions, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.pegasustechsolutions.com/post/proactive-cybersecurity-why-prevention-is-the-best-defense

31. The Rise of Proactive Cybersecurity PR: How Brands Are Safeguarding Their Reputation in a Digital Age - Ronn Torossian, accessed March 22, 2025, https://ronntorossian.com/the-rise-of-proactive-cybersecurity-pr-how-brands-are-safeguarding-their-reputation-in-a-digital-age/

32. Proactive Cybersecurity: The Benefits of 24x7x365 Monitoring and Response | CyberMaxx, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.cybermaxx.com/resources/proactive-cybersecurity-the-benefits-of-24x7x365-monitoring-and-response/

33. Cybersecurity Communications: Strategies and Best Practices | ConnectWise, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.connectwise.com/resources/msp-cybersecurity-challenges/ch6-client-communication

34. Protection From Within: Cybersecurity Communication Strategies - Forbes, accessed March 22, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/10/01/protection-from-within-cybersecurity-communication-strategies/

35. Bridging the Cybersecurity Communication Gap Between IT Directors and Business Leaders, accessed March 22, 2025, https://blog.lumen.com/bridging-the-cybersecurity-communication-gap-between-it-directors-and-business-leaders/

36. Creating a Culture of Cybersecurity Awareness - Kraft Business Systems, accessed March 22, 2025, https://kraftbusiness.com/blog/culture-of-cybersecurity-awareness/

37. How Can Cybersecurity Communication Save Your Organization? - Cerkl Broadcast, accessed March 22, 2025, https://cerkl.com/blog/cybersecurity-communication/

38. dynamicbusiness.com, accessed March 22, 2025, https://dynamicbusiness.com/locked/there-are-two-types-of-companies-those-who-know-theyve-been-hacked-those-who-dont.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThere%20are%20only%20two%20types,election%2C%20made%20this%20famous%20quote.

Appendix C The Impact of Generative and Agentic AI on Security Automation and Orchestration in Cybersecurity

1. Executive Summary

Security Automation and Orchestration (SAO) has become a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity, providing organizations with the means to manage the increasing volume and sophistication of cyber threats. By integrating disparate security tools and automating repetitive tasks, SAO aims to enhance efficiency, accelerate incident response, and minimize human error. The emergence of generative and agentic artificial intelligence (AI) presents a transformative opportunity to further evolve SAO capabilities. Generative AI, with its ability to create new content and insights from data, can automate threat intelligence analysis, generate security content, and summarize incidents. Agentic AI, characterized by its autonomy and decision-making capabilities, can enable autonomous threat detection, intelligent response actions, and adaptive security controls. While the integration of these AI technologies into SAO promises significant benefits, it also introduces challenges related to complexity and the need for specialized expertise. This report explores the core principles and objectives of SAO, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption, the definitions and functionalities of generative and agentic AI in cybersecurity, their potential applications within SAO, and the perspectives of Torq.io on this evolving landscape. Ultimately, the synergy between AI and SAO is poised to reshape the future of cybersecurity, leading towards more proactive, efficient, and resilient security operations.

2. Defining Security Automation and Orchestration (SAO) in Cybersecurity

2.1. Core Principles of SAO:

The foundation of Security Automation and Orchestration lies in three core principles: integration, coordination (orchestration), and automation. Integration is the act of connecting various security tools and technologies, both those specifically designed for security and others that are not, to enable them to function as a unified system.1 This connectivity often involves utilizing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and custom connectors to facilitate the exchange of data and the coordination of actions between diverse systems, such as firewalls, network monitoring tools, antivirus software, and endpoint security solutions.3 The capacity to integrate a broad spectrum of security technologies is essential for SAO, allowing organizations to maximize the value of their existing security investments. However, this also presents a potential challenge when dealing with older systems or tools that lack robust integration capabilities. Without effective integration, the creation of automated workflows that span multiple systems becomes impossible, as these connections form the fundamental infrastructure for any orchestration efforts.

Coordination, or orchestration, involves the strategic arrangement and sequencing of different security tasks across a variety of tools and technologies to establish cohesive and goal-oriented security workflows.3 Security orchestration defines the logical progression of a security plan, encompassing the stages of incident identification, thorough analysis, effective response, and complete recovery, ensuring that all involved tools operate in a synchronized manner.2 This principle focuses on creating workflows that initiate automations to interact with each other, carefully determining the specific timing and manner of these interactions.5 Orchestration differs from simple automation by emphasizing the overall process flow within security operations. It necessitates a deep understanding of established incident response procedures and the specific capabilities of the various security tools being utilized. While automating individual tasks can provide localized benefits, orchestration provides the essential context and flow, ensuring that these automated tasks collectively contribute to achieving broader security objectives.

Automation, the third core principle, centers on the use of automated tools and predefined processes to execute specific security tasks, often those that are repetitive, without the need for direct human intervention.1 Examples of such tasks include the automated deployment of critical security patches, the initial investigation of routine security incidents, and the consistent implementation of defined security controls.1 Automation streamlines routine activities like the systematic collection of data, the confirmation of security incidents based on predefined criteria, and the execution of initial response measures, thereby freeing up valuable time and resources for security teams.4 This principle aims to increase operational efficiency and significantly reduce the workload on security analysts, enabling them to concentrate their expertise on more complex and strategically important tasks. However, it is crucial to ensure that only well-defined and thoroughly tested processes are automated to avoid any unintended negative consequences. Automating repetitive manual tasks offers significant time savings and reduces the likelihood of human error, allowing human analysts to apply their specialized knowledge to situations where it is most needed.

2.2. Key Objectives of SAO:

The implementation of SAO in cybersecurity operations is driven by several key objectives, primarily aimed at enhancing an organization's ability to effectively manage and respond to cyber threats. One of the primary objectives is enhancing efficiency within security operations.1 This is achieved by streamlining security operations teams' workflows through the automation of repetitive tasks, which significantly reduces manual effort and enables a much faster response to emerging security incidents.1 Furthermore, SAO aims to centralize security data and various security functions within a unified platform, which greatly expedites the processes of investigation and decision-making during security incidents.2 By automating routine procedures such as vulnerability scanning and the generation of security reports, organizations can also substantially reduce the time and resources spent on these manual processes.6 The pursuit of efficiency gains is a fundamental motivation for adopting SAO, as it allows organizations to effectively manage an increasing volume of sophisticated threats while operating with often limited resources. Therefore, the ability to quantify these efficiency improvements through metrics like time saved per incident becomes a critical aspect of evaluating the success of SAO implementations.

Another crucial objective of SAO is to enable faster incident response.1 This is achieved through the automation of predefined workflows, often referred to as playbooks, which guide the response to common security incidents like phishing attacks or malware infections.8 By automating these initial responses, organizations can significantly reduce the mean time to detect (MTTD) and the mean time to respond (MTTR) to security incidents.6 Faster incident response is paramount as it directly minimizes the potential impact of cyberattacks, thereby reducing the likelihood of significant damage and prolonged downtime. This objective underscores the critical importance of developing well-defined and thoroughly tested incident response playbooks as a core component of any SAO strategy. The quicker an organization can respond to and contain a security breach, the less opportunity attackers have to cause significant harm to systems and data.

Improving accuracy in security operations is also a key objective of SAO.1 Orchestration ensures the consistent execution of predefined response actions, which significantly minimizes the risk of human error during the critical process of incident handling.1 Furthermore, SAO contributes to improved accuracy by reducing the occurrence of false positives and the associated alert fatigue experienced by security analysts. This is achieved through the intelligent correlation of data from multiple diverse sources and the application of sophisticated automation techniques.7 Human error remains a significant contributing factor to security breaches, and SAO directly addresses this vulnerability by standardizing security processes and automating critical actions, leading to more reliable and accurate security operations. By automating tasks, organizations reduce their reliance on manual processes, which are inherently more susceptible to mistakes, particularly when security teams are operating under pressure during an incident.

Enhancing scalability is another vital objective of SAO in the face of evolving cyber threats and expanding IT environments.1 SAO enables organizations to effectively handle a growing volume of security alerts and incidents without requiring a proportional increase in security resources.1 As organizations experience growth and the complexity of the threat landscape continues to increase, SAO provides the necessary scalability to maintain an effective security posture without incurring unsustainable increases in staffing levels. Manual security operations often struggle to keep pace with the sheer volume and increasing sophistication of modern cyber threats, making the scalability offered by SAO a crucial advantage.

Finally, SAO aims to provide centralized management and visibility over security operations.1 Orchestration platforms typically offer a centralized dashboard that allows for the comprehensive management of security alerts, ongoing incidents, and various response activities, providing security teams with enhanced visibility and greater control over their security operations.1 This often involves integrating security tools, IT operations systems, and threat intelligence platforms into a single, unified console.10 By aggregating and correlating data originating from multiple security tools, SAO delivers a more holistic and comprehensive view of the organization's overall security environment.13 Centralized management simplifies the complexities of security operations, improves overall situational awareness, and facilitates more effective collaboration among different security teams. This unified view also aids in identifying underlying patterns and trends across seemingly disparate security events, leading to more informed and proactive security strategies.

3. Benefits of Implementing SAO in Cybersecurity Operations

3.1. Improved Efficiency and Reduced Workload for Security Teams:

Implementing SAO yields significant improvements in the efficiency of security operations and a substantial reduction in the workload faced by security teams.1 By automating routine and repetitive tasks, such as the systematic collection of logs, the initial triage of security alerts, the enrichment of data with contextual information, and the preliminary analysis of security incidents, SAO frees up security analysts to dedicate their time and expertise to more complex and strategically important activities. These higher-value tasks include proactive threat hunting to uncover hidden or emerging threats and conducting in-depth investigations into sophisticated cyberattacks.1 Furthermore, SAO plays a crucial role in reducing the pervasive issue of alert fatigue, which often overwhelms security analysts, by intelligently filtering out false positive alerts and effectively prioritizing those alerts that represent genuine threats requiring immediate attention.6 The implementation of SAO also streamlines existing workflows within security operations and enhances the level of collaboration among different security teams, leading to a more cohesive and effective security posture.1 By automating the more mundane and repetitive aspects of their work, SAO not only increases the overall efficiency of security operations but can also lead to increased job satisfaction and potentially better retention rates for security analysts, particularly in a field that is currently facing a significant shortage of skilled cybersecurity professionals.

3.2. Faster Incident Response and Remediation:

A critical benefit of SAO implementation is the significant acceleration of incident response and remediation processes.1 SAO enables the automation of incident response playbooks, which are predefined sets of actions designed to address specific types of security incidents. This automation allows for quick and consistent reactions to common threats such as phishing attempts, malware infections, and data breaches.1 Consequently, the time required to detect, contain, eradicate, and ultimately recover from security threats is substantially reduced, which in turn minimizes the potential for significant damage and prolonged periods of operational downtime.1 Furthermore, SAO facilitates the orchestration of actions across a multitude of diverse security tools, ensuring a coordinated and highly effective response to security incidents.1 The speed at which an organization can respond to a cyberattack is a critical factor in determining the overall impact of the incident. SAO significantly accelerates this crucial process, leading to lower costs associated with potential data breaches and disruptions to business operations. A rapid and automated response can effectively prevent a seemingly minor security incident from escalating into a major organizational crisis.

3.3. Reduced Human Error and Enhanced Accuracy:

The adoption of SAO in cybersecurity operations leads to a notable reduction in human error and a significant enhancement in the overall accuracy of security processes.1 By ensuring the consistent execution of established security processes and clearly defined policies, SAO effectively eliminates inconsistencies that can often arise due to human mistakes, inherent biases, or a lack of adequate training among security personnel.1 Moreover, SAO automates critical tasks such as data collection from various sources, the detailed analysis of security events, and the generation of comprehensive reports, thereby significantly reducing the likelihood of manual errors occurring during these important processes.2 Furthermore, SAO contributes to improving the accuracy of threat detection by consistently applying automated analysis techniques, ensuring that potential threats are identified more reliably and with greater precision.1 Human error remains a significant vulnerability that cybercriminals often exploit. SAO helps to mitigate this inherent risk by automating critical security functions and ensuring the consistent and accurate application of security policies across the organization. By automating tasks, organizations reduce their dependence on manual processes, which are inherently more prone to mistakes, especially when security teams are faced with high-pressure situations during a security incident.

3.4. Improved Scalability and Centralized Management of Security Operations:

SAO provides organizations with improved scalability and enables centralized management of their security operations.1 By automating many routine security tasks and orchestrating workflows across different security tools, SAO empowers security teams to effectively handle a significantly larger volume of security alerts and incidents without the need for a proportional increase in staffing levels.1 This is particularly important in addressing the ongoing cybersecurity skills shortage that many organizations face. Furthermore, SAO solutions typically offer a single, centralized platform for managing and monitoring the entire security infrastructure, which significantly improves overall visibility and control over security operations.1 This centralized approach also facilitates better collaboration and the seamless sharing of critical information among different security teams and relevant stakeholders within the organization.8 The ability to scale security operations efficiently is crucial for organizations that are grappling with an ever-increasing number and complexity of cyber threats. SAO provides the necessary tools and established frameworks to effectively manage this growth without requiring unsustainable increases in human resources. Centralized management simplifies the inherent complexities of security operations and provides a comprehensive and holistic view of the organization's overall security posture, enabling more informed and effective decision-making.

4. Challenges and Potential Drawbacks of Adopting SAO

4.1. Integration Complexities with Existing Security Infrastructure:

One of the primary challenges associated with adopting SAO is the complexity of integrating it with an organization's existing security infrastructure.1 Organizations often utilize a diverse array of security tools and technologies, each potentially employing different data formats, APIs, or communication protocols, making the process of ensuring seamless integration intricate and often time-consuming.1 A significant hurdle lies in ensuring seamless collaboration and the smooth flow of critical data between all the integrated components, which is essential for the effective functioning of automated workflows and orchestrated responses.4 The challenge becomes even more pronounced when attempting to integrate modern SAO solutions with legacy systems that rely on outdated technologies and proprietary software, which may lack compatibility with newer integration methods.34 The overall effectiveness of an SAO implementation is heavily dependent on successful integration. Organizations need to develop a well-defined and comprehensive integration strategy and may need to acquire specialized technical expertise to effectively navigate these inherent complexities. Furthermore, the selection of an SAO platform should carefully consider its level of compatibility with the organization's current security technology stack to minimize potential integration challenges. If the various security tools within an environment cannot effectively communicate and readily share critical data, the intended benefits of orchestration and automation will be significantly limited, hindering the overall effectiveness of the SAO deployment.

4.2. The Need for Skilled Personnel for Implementation and Management:

The efficient utilization of SAO platforms necessitates the involvement of skilled personnel who possess a thorough understanding of both cybersecurity practices and the specific technical intricacies of the chosen platform.4 Developing and effectively tailoring the necessary workflows and automated playbooks requires a significant level of expertise in both the operational aspects of security and the principles of automation technologies.4 Moreover, certain SAO solutions may require hands-on knowledge of scripting languages, such as Python, Ruby, or Perl, for the purpose of creating custom integrations with other security tools and for building sophisticated automation playbooks to address specific organizational needs.32 A significant challenge for many organizations is either training their existing security staff to acquire these specialized skills or recruiting qualified individuals who already possess the necessary expertise, especially given the well-documented and ongoing shortage of skilled professionals within the cybersecurity domain.4 The lack of sufficient in-house expertise can become a major impediment to successful SAO adoption. Organizations may need to make substantial investments in comprehensive training programs for their current staff or allocate resources to hire new personnel who possess the required technical skills to effectively implement, manage, and maintain their SAO environment to realize its full potential. While SAO platforms are powerful tools designed to enhance security operations, they require skilled and knowledgeable operators to properly configure, manage, and continuously maintain them to ensure optimal performance and effectiveness.

4.3. Potential for Misaligned Expectations and Over-Automation:

Organizations embarking on adopting SAO may sometimes harbor unrealistic expectations regarding the capabilities and potential outcomes of these platforms, such as the belief that SOAR can automatically handle and resolve every conceivable security challenge or automate every single tedious task within their security operations.22

A significant potential pitfall lies in attempting to automate processes that are inherently flawed or have not been clearly and effectively defined, which can lead to unintended negative consequences and may not actually result in any tangible improvements in overall efficiency or operational performance.22 Furthermore, the practice of over-automation, particularly without the establishment of appropriate levels of human oversight and intervention, can lead to critical security incidents being mishandled or even completely overlooked by the automated systems, potentially exacerbating the initial problem.6 A strategic and carefully considered phased approach to the implementation of automation is therefore crucial.

Organizations need to meticulously identify the specific processes that are truly suitable for automation and ensure that they maintain a well-defined balance between the capabilities of automated systems and the critical need for human judgment and intervention, especially when dealing with complex or ambiguous security scenarios. Automation should be viewed as a tool to augment and enhance human capabilities within security operations, rather than a complete replacement for the critical thinking and nuanced decision-making that experienced security professionals can provide.

4.4. The Importance of Continuous Monitoring and Adaptation:

Successful SAO implementations are not static deployments but rather require ongoing and consistent monitoring, rigorous testing, and continuous refinement to ensure that they remain effective in the face of constantly evolving cyber threats and adapt appropriately to any changes within the organization's IT environment.22 The automation playbooks that are initially developed and implemented within an SAO platform may become outdated and less effective as cyberattack tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) continue to evolve and become more sophisticated.22 Therefore, it is essential for organizations to regularly review operational metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) that are relevant to their security operations to accurately assess the ongoing effectiveness of their SAO deployments and to identify any areas where further improvements or adjustments may be necessary.6 SAO should not be viewed as a "set it and forget it" type of solution. To maximize its long-term value and ensure its continued effectiveness in protecting organizational assets, continuous monitoring and proactive adaptation are absolutely necessary. The threat landscape in cybersecurity is in a state of constant flux, with new threats and attack methods emerging regularly. Consequently, security automation and orchestration systems must also undergo a process of continuous evolution and improvement to maintain their effectiveness and provide ongoing value to the organization's security posture.

5. Generative and Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: Definitions and Core Concepts

5.1. Generative AI:

Generative AI represents a significant advancement in the field of artificial intelligence, focusing on the creation of models that can generate entirely new and original content.39 This content can take various forms, including text written in natural language, realistic images, synthesized audio, computer code, and more, all derived from the underlying patterns and structures learned from the extensive datasets on which these models are trained.43

Unlike traditional AI models that primarily analyze existing data or make predictions based on it, generative AI learns the intricate relationships within massive datasets to produce novel outputs that closely mimic the characteristics of the original training data without simply replicating it verbatim.43 This capability is achieved through the utilization of advanced machine learning techniques, particularly deep learning models such as generative adversarial networks (GANs), variational autoencoders (VAEs), large language models (LLMs), and transformer architectures, which enable these models to capture complex data distributions and generate coherent and contextually relevant content.43

Generative AI models are also highly adaptable, capable of producing different types of content based on specific prompts provided by users, and they can leverage machine learning algorithms to continuously recognize, predict, and generate content based on the diverse datasets they are granted access to.44 The unique ability of generative AI to create new and realistic content has profound implications for the field of cybersecurity, offering opportunities to both significantly enhance existing security measures and potentially be exploited by malicious actors to create more sophisticated and evasive cyber threats. The quality, diversity, and speed at which generative AI can produce content are therefore key characteristics that define its potential impact on the cybersecurity landscape.

The functionalities of generative AI are diverse and rapidly expanding, encompassing the ability to generate human-like text, create realistic images, synthesize audio, and even produce video content.42 Beyond content creation, generative AI can also be employed to summarize and synthesize vast amounts of information from diverse sources, making complex data more easily understandable and actionable.45 In the realm of software development and security, generative AI can assist in generating and debugging computer code, potentially accelerating the development process and aiding in the identification of vulnerabilities.44 Furthermore, its capability to learn complex patterns makes it invaluable for creating realistic simulations of various cyber threats, which can be used for training security personnel and rigorously testing the effectiveness of existing security defenses.41 Generative AI also excels at analyzing large datasets to identify subtle patterns and anomalies that may indicate the presence of security threats, enhancing an organization's ability to detect and respond to malicious activity.40 These diverse functionalities underscore the versatility of generative AI as a powerful tool with a wide range of potential applications across various aspects of cybersecurity, from proactive threat detection to enhancing the skills and preparedness of security teams.

The relevance of generative AI to the field of cybersecurity is becoming increasingly significant, as it offers the potential to enhance threat detection and improve incident response capabilities by efficiently analyzing vast quantities of data in near real-time.40 Generative AI can also automate many routine and time-consuming tasks that are typically performed by security analysts, allowing these professionals to focus their expertise on higher-level strategic initiatives and more complex security challenges.40 This automation can be particularly beneficial for understaffed Security Operations Center (SOC) teams, as it helps to augment the capabilities of existing analysts and streamline critical workflows.40 Moreover, generative AI can contribute to improving predictive analysis in cybersecurity, enabling organizations to anticipate potential future threats and more effectively manage vulnerabilities within their systems.40 Another important application lies in its ability to generate synthetic data that closely resembles real-world data, which can be invaluable for training security models and algorithms without compromising the privacy of sensitive information.41 Overall, generative AI has the potential to help cybersecurity teams overcome many of the persistent challenges they face, including the overwhelming volume of security data, the shortage of skilled cybersecurity professionals, and the ever-increasing sophistication of cyber threats. The capacity of generative AI to learn from data and subsequently generate new insights and content makes it a powerful and increasingly essential tool in the ongoing effort to defend against cybercrime and maintain a strong and resilient security posture.

5.2. Agentic AI:

Agentic AI represents an even more advanced paradigm within artificial intelligence, characterized by its ability to autonomously analyze information, make independent decisions, and take concrete actions based on predefined objectives, all with minimal direct human oversight.60 These systems exhibit a high degree of autonomy, demonstrating goal-driven behavior and a remarkable capacity for adaptation, which allows them to operate effectively within dynamic and often unpredictable environments.65 Agentic AI is capable of perceiving its surrounding environment, intelligently reasoning through complex tasks, and dynamically modifying its actions based on updated information and real-time feedback.63 A key characteristic of agentic AI is its ability to continuously learn and adapt to changes in its environment, particularly in the context of cybersecurity, where it can refine its threat detection and incident response strategies based on insights gained from past security incidents and evolving threat patterns.61 This level of autonomy and adaptability distinguishes agentic AI from traditional forms of automation, enabling it to function more like an intelligent and autonomous security analyst, capable of handling a wide range of security tasks without constant human intervention.

The functionalities of agentic AI in cybersecurity are designed to enable proactive and autonomous threat management. One of its defining functionalities is the ability to make autonomous decisions and initiate responses to detected security threats.60 Upon identifying a potential threat, an agentic AI system can immediately take actions such as isolating compromised systems to prevent further spread, blocking malicious network access to contain the attack, or alerting human security teams to escalate the incident for more in-depth analysis.60 To achieve this, agentic AI systems are equipped with the capability for continuous data collection and monitoring, gathering information from diverse sources across the IT environment, including network traffic patterns, endpoint activity logs, user behavior analytics, and external threat intelligence feeds.62 Instead of relying solely on predefined rules, agentic AI utilizes sophisticated behavioral analysis techniques to identify suspicious activities and subtle deviations from established baseline patterns of normal behavior.62 This advanced analytical capability allows agentic AI to effectively detect novel and previously unseen threats, such as zero-day exploits and advanced persistent threats (APTs), which might otherwise evade detection by traditional security systems that depend on known signatures or rule-based detection mechanisms.62 Furthermore, agentic AI can perform autonomous remediation of identified threats and potential risks in real-time, taking immediate steps to neutralize the danger and restore systems to a secure state.61 Agentic AI is also capable of intelligent alert investigation, automatically summarizing the key aspects of security alerts, and prioritizing them based on their potential severity and impact, thereby significantly reducing the problem of alert fatigue that often burdens security analysts.64 These functionalities collectively demonstrate the potential of agentic AI to revolutionize cybersecurity by providing a more proactive, autonomous, and ultimately more effective approach to defending against the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats.

In the context of cybersecurity, agentic AI exhibits several distinctive features that set it apart from traditional security tools and even other forms of AI. One of its most notable features is its ability to operate independently, without requiring constant human input or direction, effectively functioning as an autonomous security analyst capable of making real-time decisions.61 Agentic AI systems are specifically designed with clear security objectives in mind and are capable of autonomously planning and executing the necessary steps to achieve those objectives with minimal human intervention.61 A crucial aspect of agentic AI in cybersecurity is its capacity for continuous learning and adaptation to the ever-changing threat landscape.61 By constantly analyzing new data and observing the outcomes of its actions, agentic AI can improve its ability to accurately detect and effectively respond to novel and emerging cyberattacks, ensuring that security defenses remain current and relevant. This autonomous and adaptive nature of agentic AI has the potential to significantly reduce incident response times, a critical factor in minimizing the damage caused by successful cyber intrusions, and to enhance the overall security posture of an organization by providing a more proactive and less reactive approach to security management.60 Unlike traditional security tools that operate based on predefined rules and require human intervention for complex decision-making, agentic AI can think and act independently, making it a more powerful and versatile defense mechanism against the increasingly sophisticated tactics employed by modern cyber adversaries.

6. Applications of Generative AI in Security Automation and Orchestration

6.1. Automated Threat Intelligence Analysis and Enrichment:

Generative AI holds significant promise for automating the analysis and enrichment of threat intelligence within security operations.40 These AI models can efficiently process vast quantities of threat data originating from diverse sources, including specialized threat intelligence feeds, security-focused blogs, and academic research papers, to identify emerging threats, recurring patterns in attacks, and critical indicators of compromise (IOCs) that security teams can use to proactively defend their systems.40 Furthermore, generative AI can be utilized to generate concise and informative summaries of complex threat intelligence reports, making the often technical and detailed information more accessible and readily understandable for security analysts, regardless of their specific area of expertise.45 This capability extends to enriching existing security alerts with valuable contextual information derived from various threat intelligence sources. By automatically adding relevant details about the nature of the threat, its potential impact, and known mitigation strategies, generative AI can significantly improve the prioritization of security cases and enhance the effectiveness of incident response efforts.40 Moreover, by analyzing historical patterns in cyberattacks and identifying emerging trends, generative AI can contribute to predicting potential future threats and likely attack vectors, allowing organizations to proactively implement preventative measures and strengthen their defenses before an actual attack occurs.40 The automation of threat intelligence analysis and enrichment through generative AI can dramatically improve the efficiency and overall effectiveness of security operations, enabling security teams to be more proactive in anticipating and mitigating potential cyberattacks in an increasingly complex threat landscape.

6.2. Generation of Security Content (e.g., reports, policies, training materials):

Generative AI offers a powerful capability to automate the creation of various forms of security content, leading to significant time savings and ensuring a higher degree of consistency across different types of documentation.40 For instance, it can be used to automatically generate comprehensive security reports, such as detailed incident reports following a security breach, thorough compliance reports required for regulatory adherence, and in-depth vulnerability assessment reports that highlight potential weaknesses in systems.40 Furthermore, generative AI can assist in the creation of organizational security policies and procedures by leveraging best practices and incorporating specific requirements unique to the organization, ensuring that these foundational documents are both comprehensive and up-to-date.41 Another valuable application lies in the generation of realistic and engaging security awareness training materials, such as simulated phishing emails designed to test employee vigilance and educational content aimed at improving overall security awareness and reducing the likelihood of human error leading to security incidents.41 Generative AI can even be employed to generate snippets of computer code or entire programs that are designed to automate specific security tasks or implement necessary security controls within the IT infrastructure.44 By automating the creation of these diverse forms of security content, organizations can ensure that their employees and security teams have access to the necessary information and tools to maintain a strong and resilient security posture, while also freeing up valuable time for security professionals to focus on more strategic and complex tasks that require human expertise and critical thinking.

6.3. Incident Summarization and Reporting:

In the critical area of incident response, generative AI can play a vital role in significantly enhancing the efficiency of incident summarization and reporting.40 When a security incident occurs, it often generates a large volume of data from various security systems, including Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms, Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions, and network traffic analysis tools. Generative AI can quickly process and synthesize this diverse data to provide concise summaries of the key details of the incident.40 By extracting the most relevant information and presenting it in an easily digestible format, generative AI enables security analysts to rapidly understand the nature of the security event, its potential scope, and the initial steps that have been taken or need to be taken to contain and remediate the threat.40 This accelerated understanding of security incidents allows security teams to focus their efforts more effectively on the most critical aspects of the response, ultimately leading to faster resolution times and a reduction in the overall impact of the incident. Furthermore, generative AI can automate the generation of comprehensive incident reports, which are essential for both internal communication with stakeholders and for meeting various compliance and regulatory requirements.40 By automating this often time-consuming process, generative AI frees up security analysts to concentrate on the more technical and strategic aspects of incident management, such as in-depth analysis of the attack's origin, identification of affected systems, and development of effective long-term prevention strategies.

6.4. Potential for Enhanced Predictive Capabilities and Vulnerability Management:

Generative AI demonstrates significant potential for enhancing predictive capabilities and improving vulnerability management processes within cybersecurity operations.40 By analyzing vast amounts of historical vulnerability data in conjunction with real-time threat intelligence, generative AI models can identify patterns and correlations that may indicate potential future vulnerabilities within an organization's systems and predict likely attack vectors that malicious actors might exploit.40 This proactive insight allows organizations to anticipate potential security weaknesses and take preventative measures before they can be leveraged by attackers. Additionally, generative AI can be employed to recommend or even automatically deploy necessary security patches and software updates based on the analysis of identified vulnerabilities, ensuring that systems are promptly secured against known weaknesses.40 Furthermore, its ability to create realistic simulations of various types of cyberattacks can be invaluable for proactively identifying potential weaknesses and blind spots in an organization's existing security defenses.41 By leveraging these predictive capabilities, generative AI can help organizations transition from a reactive security posture to a more proactive one, allowing them to stay ahead of potential threats and significantly strengthen their overall security resilience. The ability to anticipate future vulnerabilities and proactively address them represents a significant advantage in the ongoing battle against cybercrime.

7. Applications of Agentic AI in Security Automation and Orchestration

7.1. Autonomous Threat Detection and Anomaly Recognition:

Agentic AI stands out for its capacity to autonomously detect threats and recognize anomalies within cybersecurity environments.61 These intelligent systems can continuously monitor network activity, analyze endpoint behavior, and scrutinize user actions in real-time to identify any deviations from established baselines or suspicious patterns that may indicate a potential security threat, all without requiring direct human intervention.61 By leveraging sophisticated behavioral analysis techniques, agentic AI can effectively identify subtle anomalies and suspicious activities that might not trigger traditional rule-based security systems, enabling the detection of novel and advanced threats such as zero-day exploits and advanced persistent threats (APTs).62 These systems are designed to analyze vast amounts of data at machine speed, allowing them to pinpoint subtle indicators of malicious activity that might be easily overlooked by human analysts or conventional security tools.64 The ability of agentic AI to autonomously detect threats and recognize anomalies in real-time significantly enhances an organization's overall security posture by enabling a more proactive and less reactive approach to identifying and responding to potential cyberattacks. Unlike traditional security systems that rely on predefined rules and known signatures, agentic AI's capacity for continuous learning and adaptation allows it to identify and flag previously unseen threats, providing a critical advantage in the ever-evolving landscape of cybersecurity.

7.2. Intelligent and Automated Incident Response Actions (Containment, Remediation):

A key application of agentic AI in security automation and orchestration lies in its ability to perform intelligent and automated incident response actions.60 Upon the autonomous detection of a security threat, agentic AI systems can automatically initiate containment measures to prevent the threat from spreading further within the organization's network.60 This can involve actions such as isolating compromised systems from the rest of the network, blocking malicious network traffic originating from or destined to known threat actors, or terminating malicious processes that are actively running on infected machines.60 Furthermore, agentic AI can orchestrate complex, multi-step response workflows that span across various security tools within the organization's ecosystem, all without requiring direct human intervention at each step.62 This includes the automation of predefined incident response playbooks, which are triggered based on the specific type and assessed severity of the security incident that has been detected.61 The ability of agentic AI to autonomously execute these critical response actions in real-time significantly reduces the time it takes to contain and remediate security incidents, thereby minimizing the potential for widespread damage and prolonged disruptions to business operations. This rapid and automated response capability is particularly crucial in dealing with sophisticated and fast-moving cyberattacks where every second counts in mitigating the overall impact.

7.3. Adaptive Security Controls and Policy Enforcement:

Agentic AI enables the implementation of adaptive security controls and the autonomous enforcement of security policies within an organization's cybersecurity framework.61 These intelligent systems can dynamically adjust security rules and policies in real-time, taking into account evolving attack patterns that are being observed across the threat landscape, as well as the specific risk posture that the organization has defined for its operations.61 Agentic AI can also autonomously enforce these security policies across a diverse range of systems and environments within the organization's IT infrastructure, ensuring consistent application and adherence to security standards.61 This capability includes the ability to implement and adapt fine-grained access controls, which govern who or what can access specific resources, based on continuous analysis of user behavior, observed network activity, and up-to-the-minute threat intelligence data.61 By enabling a more dynamic and responsive approach to security, agentic AI allows organizations to adapt their defenses more effectively to the ever-changing threat landscape compared to traditional, static security controls that may become outdated quickly. This adaptability ensures that security measures remain relevant and effective in mitigating emerging risks and protecting sensitive data and critical systems. The ability to dynamically adjust security controls and policies based on real-time conditions represents a significant advancement in strengthening an organization's overall security resilience.

7.4. Potential for Proactive Threat Hunting and Risk Mitigation:

Agentic AI holds substantial potential for enhancing proactive threat hunting activities and improving overall risk mitigation strategies within cybersecurity.61 These autonomous systems can continuously scan an organization's networks and connected systems to actively search for subtle indicators of compromise (IOCs) and identify potential vulnerabilities that might exist within the infrastructure, often before these weaknesses can be actively exploited by malicious actors.61 By performing this continuous and automated threat hunting, agentic AI can uncover hidden threats and potential security gaps that might otherwise go unnoticed by traditional security monitoring tools and human analysts. Furthermore, agentic AI can play a crucial role in identifying and prioritizing potential risks based on its continuous analysis of both internal security posture data and external threat intelligence feeds.61 Once these risks are identified and prioritized, agentic AI can even proactively take steps to mitigate them, such as automatically isolating systems that are deemed to be particularly vulnerable or implementing additional security controls to reduce the likelihood of a successful attack.61 This capability to proactively hunt for threats and mitigate potential risks represents a significant shift from a reactive security model to a more anticipatory and preventative approach. By autonomously identifying and addressing vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, agentic AI can significantly strengthen an organization's overall security resilience and reduce the likelihood of experiencing damaging cyberattacks.

8. Torq.io's Perspectives and Solutions

8.1. Analysis of Torq.io's viewpoint on security automation and the evolution beyond traditional SOAR:

Torq.io advocates for a paradigm shift in security operations, asserting that the future lies in Autonomous Security Operations achieved through what they term security hyperautomation.92 This approach, according to Torq.io, represents a necessary evolution beyond the limitations of traditional Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) solutions, which they believe have become increasingly obsolete in the face of modern cybersecurity challenges.92 Their core argument is that the ever-increasing volume and sophistication of cyber threats demand a more intelligent and autonomous approach to security, one that minimizes the reliance on manual intervention and maximizes the efficiency of security operations through the strategic application of artificial intelligence.92 Torq.io's perspective suggests a fundamental dissatisfaction with the capacity of traditional SOAR platforms to effectively address the complexities of today's threat landscape, particularly in areas such as alert fatigue, the prevalence of false positives, and the resource constraints faced by security teams. They champion the adoption of AI-driven hyper automation as the key to creating a truly autonomous Security Operations Center (SOC) capable of handling the entire threat lifecycle, from initial detection to comprehensive response and remediation, with minimal need for direct human involvement.92 This viewpoint underscores a belief that only by embracing the power of AI can organizations hope to effectively defend against the rapidly evolving and increasingly sophisticated tactics employed by cyber adversaries.

8.2. Examination of their AI-driven solutions and their approach to autonomous security operations:

Torq.io has developed a suite of AI-driven solutions designed to enable their vision of autonomous security operations. At the core of their approach is a Multi-Agent System comprising various AI agents that are specifically engineered to collaborate and enhance different critical aspects of security operations within a SOC.92 Torq.io emphasizes the significant benefits that AI brings to security, including the ability to achieve much faster threat detection by analyzing, correlating, and enriching vast quantities of unprocessed security events at machine speed, thereby more effectively identifying genuine threats amidst a sea of alerts.92 They also highlight the role of AI in enabling faster case prioritization through intelligent case investigation and automated summarization, which allows security analysts to focus their attention and resources on the security incidents that pose the most significant risk and potential impact to the organization.92 Furthermore, Torq.io introduces Socrates, which they describe as a natural language-driven Agentic AI, specifically designed for the autonomous remediation of critical security threats. This capability aims to dramatically accelerate the mean time to response (MTTR) by allowing the AI to take immediate and decisive actions to neutralize identified threats without requiring manual intervention.92 A key aspect of Torq.io's approach is their emphasis on the use of natural language prompts to simplify the creation and subsequent deployment of security automations. This user-friendly approach allows security teams to rapidly generate integrations with a wide array of security vendors and to automate complex workflows across these diverse tools without needing extensive coding knowledge or specialized programming skills.92 Torq.io's AI-driven solutions and their focus on natural language automation suggest a strategic aim to make advanced security automation more accessible and efficient for security teams, ultimately reducing the operational burden on security analysts and significantly accelerating the organization's ability to detect, prioritize, and respond to cyber threats in an increasingly automated and intelligent manner.

8.3. Integration of insights from Torq.io's website (https://torq.io/) throughout relevant sections:

Throughout this report, Torq.io's perspective has been integrated to provide a real-world example of a company advocating for and providing solutions in the realm of AI-enhanced security automation. In the introduction, Torq.io's view on the evolution of SAO towards autonomous security operations driven by AI was mentioned. In the section discussing the challenges of adopting SAO, their argument that traditional SOAR is becoming obsolete will be relevant. The applications of generative and agentic AI sections will benefit from incorporating Torq.io's emphasis on AI-driven threat detection, prioritization, and response as practical examples. When discussing the future impact of AI on SAO, Torq.io's concept of an Autonomous SOC and their innovative use of AI agents will be highlighted as a forward-looking vision for the field. Finally, the conclusion of the report will reference Torq.io's "AI or Die" manifesto to underscore the perceived urgency and critical importance of organizations embracing AI within their security operations to effectively counter the evolving threat landscape. By weaving in Torq.io's specific viewpoints and solutions, this report aims to provide a more concrete understanding of how AI is currently being conceptualized and implemented within the domain of security automation and orchestration.

9. The Future Impact of Generative and Agentic AI on Security Automation and Orchestration

9.1. Synergistic Potential of AI and SAO for Enhanced Cybersecurity Posture:

The integration of generative and agentic AI into Security Automation and Orchestration (SAO) frameworks holds immense synergistic potential for significantly enhancing an organization's overall cybersecurity posture. Generative AI can augment existing SAO capabilities by providing advanced and automated analysis of threat intelligence data, enabling security teams to stay ahead of emerging threats.40 It can also streamline the creation of essential security content, such as detailed incident reports, comprehensive security policies, and engaging training materials, thereby improving efficiency and ensuring consistency.40 Furthermore, generative AI's ability to quickly summarize complex security incidents from diverse data sources can significantly accelerate the initial stages of incident response.40 Agentic AI takes this synergy a step further by enabling truly autonomous threat detection capabilities, allowing organizations to identify and respond to malicious activity in real-time without constant human intervention.61 Its capacity for intelligent incident response actions, including automated containment and remediation, can drastically reduce the impact of security breaches.60 Moreover, agentic AI can facilitate the implementation of adaptive security controls and the dynamic enforcement of security policies, allowing organizations to respond more effectively to the evolving threat landscape.61 The combined power of generative and agentic AI within SAO frameworks promises a significant leap towards a more proactive, highly efficient, and ultimately more resilient cybersecurity posture, reducing the traditional reliance on purely manual processes and leading to demonstrably improved security outcomes for organizations of all sizes.

9.2. Addressing the Challenges and Risks Associated with AI Integration in Security Operations:

While the integration of AI into SAO offers substantial benefits, organizations must also be prepared to address the inherent challenges and potential risks associated with this technological convergence. One significant hurdle involves the integration complexities of AI-powered tools and platforms with existing SAO systems and the broader security infrastructure.1 Ensuring seamless data flow and interoperability between diverse systems will require careful planning and potentially specialized technical expertise. Furthermore, the development, implementation, and ongoing management of AI-powered SAO solutions will necessitate a skilled workforce with expertise in both cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.4 Organizations may need to invest in training existing security personnel or recruit individuals with the specific skill sets required to effectively leverage these advanced technologies. Ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in security operations, such as potential biases embedded within AI models and the risk of unintended consequences from autonomous actions, must also be carefully considered and mitigated through robust governance frameworks.46 Additionally, the potential for adversarial attacks specifically targeting AI systems in security, such as prompt injection or data poisoning, requires the implementation of appropriate security measures to protect the integrity and reliability of these critical systems.40 Finally, maintaining an appropriate level of human oversight and control over autonomous AI agents, particularly when making critical security decisions that could have significant operational or financial impacts, will be essential to ensure accountability and prevent unintended negative outcomes.46 By proactively addressing these challenges and potential risks, organizations can ensure a more secure and effective integration of AI into their security automation and orchestration strategies.

9.3. The Evolving Role of Security Professionals in an AI-Augmented SOC:

The increasing integration of generative and agentic AI into Security Operations Centers (SOCs) will inevitably lead to an evolution in the roles and responsibilities of security professionals. As AI systems become more adept at handling routine and repetitive tasks, such as initial alert triage, basic incident investigation, and the generation of standard reports, security analysts will likely see a shift in their focus towards more complex and strategic activities.40 This could involve dedicating more time to in-depth investigations of sophisticated cyberattacks, developing and refining incident response strategies, conducting advanced threat hunting exercises to proactively uncover hidden threats, and taking a more strategic approach to overall security planning and architecture.40

Furthermore, the rise of AI in security is likely to create new specialized roles within security operations teams. These roles might focus on the development, training, and governance of the AI models that underpin these advanced security solutions, ensuring their effectiveness, accuracy, and ethical use.21 To remain relevant and effective in this evolving landscape, continuous learning and upskilling will be paramount for security professionals. They will need to develop a deeper understanding of AI technologies, including how they work, their potential capabilities within cybersecurity, and the best practices for their secure and responsible implementation.21 While AI will undoubtedly automate many of the more mundane and repetitive aspects of security operations, it is unlikely to completely replace the need for human expertise, critical thinking, and nuanced judgment. Instead, the future of cybersecurity in an AI-augmented SOC will likely involve a collaborative partnership between human professionals and intelligent AI systems, where each leverages their respective strengths to create a more robust and resilient security posture.

10. Conclusion

Generative and agentic AI are poised to revolutionize the landscape of security automation and orchestration, offering transformative potential for enhancing cybersecurity defenses. The ability of generative AI to analyze vast datasets, generate insightful content, and streamline reporting, coupled with the autonomy and decision-making capabilities of agentic AI for real-time threat detection and response, represents a significant leap forward in our ability to manage and mitigate cyber risks. These technologies promise improved efficiency, faster incident response times, enhanced accuracy, and greater scalability for security operations. However, the integration of AI into SAO is not without its challenges. Organizations must carefully navigate integration complexities, address the need for skilled personnel, manage expectations to avoid over-automation, and ensure continuous monitoring and adaptation of their AI-powered security systems. The role of security professionals will also evolve, shifting towards more strategic and complex tasks, requiring continuous learning and adaptation to this rapidly changing technological landscape. Ultimately, the synergy between AI and SAO holds the key to building a more proactive, efficient, and resilient cybersecurity posture. As Torq.io aptly suggests with their "AI or Die" manifesto, embracing the power of artificial intelligence in security operations is becoming increasingly critical for organizations to effectively defend against the ever-growing sophistication and volume of cyber threats in the digital age.

Feature

Traditional SOAR

AI-Powered Autonomous Security Operations (as advocated by Torq.io)

Scope of Automation

Primarily focused on predefined workflows and tasks

Handles entire threat lifecycle from detection to response

Decision-Making Capability

Relies on pre-configured rules and human input

Autonomous decision-making based on AI analysis

Human Intervention

Significant human oversight and intervention required

Minimal human intervention, with AI handling most tasks

Adaptability

Limited adaptability to new or unknown threats

High adaptability through continuous AI learning

Threat Coverage

Effective against known threats and scenarios

Aims to detect and respond to both known and novel threats

Analyst Workload

Can reduce repetitive tasks but still high

Significantly reduced through AI-driven automation

MTTD/MTTR

Improvement over manual processes

Drastically reduced through machine-speed analysis and autonomous response

Application Area

Generative AI Role

Agentic AI Role

Threat Intelligence

Automated Analysis, Report Generation

Autonomous Detection of Anomalies

Security Content

Training Material Creation, Policy Generation, Code Generation, Report Generation

N/A

Incident Response

Incident Summarization, Report Generation, Suggesting Remediation Actions

Intelligent Response Actions (Containment, Remediation)

Threat Detection

Pattern Recognition, Anomaly Detection

Autonomous Threat Detection, Behavioral Analysis

Vulnerability Management

Predictive Analysis, Patch Recommendation

Proactive Threat Hunting, Risk Prioritization

Security Controls

Generating Configuration Scripts

Adaptive Security Controls, Autonomous Policy Enforcement

Works cited

1. What is Security Orchestration? - Swimlane, accessed April 4, 2025, https://swimlane.com/blog/what-security-orchestration/

2. What is Security Orchestration ? Benefits & Tools - Centraleyes, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.centraleyes.com/glossary/security-orchestration/

3. What is Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) - One Identity, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.oneidentity.com/learn/what-is-soar.aspx

4. What is SOAR(Security Orchestration, Automation and Response) ? | by Anuja Pawar, accessed April 4, 2025, https://anujapawar011.medium.com/what-is-soar-security-orchestration-automation-and-response-80555ff3d199

5. SOAR Core Principles: Understanding Cybersecurity Operations - Compuquip, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.compuquip.com/blog/soar-core-principles-understanding-cybersecurity-operations

6. Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR): A Comprehensive Guide for IT Leaders - Cato Networks, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.catonetworks.com/glossary/security-orchestration-automation-and-response-soar-a-comprehensive-guide-for-it-leaders/

7. Security Orchestration and Automation Services | Microminder CS, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.micromindercs.com/orchestrationautomation

8. Best Practices for Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response - TuxCare, accessed April 4, 2025, https://tuxcare.com/blog/security-orchestration-automation-and-response/

9. Security Automation & Orchestration - LevelBlue, accessed April 4, 2025, https://levelblue.com/solutions/security-automation-and-orchestration

10. What Is SOAR? - Palo Alto Networks, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-soar

11. Security Automation and Orchestration by Cynet, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cynet.com/platform/soar/

12. What is SOAR (security orchestration, automation and response)? - IBM, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/security-orchestration-automation-response

13. What is Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)? - Rapid7, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.rapid7.com/fundamentals/what-is-soar/

14. What Is SOAR System? Capabilities, Value, and Challenges ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.sapphire.net/blogs-press-releases/soar-system/

15. Improving incident response with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and security automation and orchestration (SAO) - Swimlane, accessed April 4, 2025, https://swimlane.com/blog/nist-incident-response/

16. What is Security Automation? Definition, Benefits, and Key Use ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.balbix.com/insights/what-is-security-automation/

17. What is Security Automation? Benefits, Importance, and Features ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.tanium.com/blog/what-is-security-automation/

18. Fortifying the Frontline: Cutting-Edge New Cyber Security Technology for the Biotech Industry - Bytagig, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.bytagig.com/articles/fortifying-the-frontline-cutting-edge-new-cyber-security-technology-for-the-biotech-industry/

19. What's the Difference Between SOAR and SAO? - D3 Security, accessed April 4, 2025, https://d3security.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-soar-and-sao/

20. The Role of Automation in Cybersecurity Operations | NTT DATA Group, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nttdata.com/global/en/insights/focus/2024/the-role-of-automation-in-cybersecurity-operations

21. What is Security Automation? - Splunk, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/security-automation.html

22. What is Cybersecurity Automation? Benefits and Challenges, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.esecurityplanet.com/networks/automation-in-cyber-security/

23. SOAR Tools: The Ultimate Guide to Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.getguru.com/reference/soar-tools

24. What Is Security Orchestration Automation & Response (SOAR)? | Proofpoint US, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/security-orchestration-automation-response-soar

25. The Importance of Cybersecurity Training for SAP Users in 2025 - SecurityBridge, accessed April 4, 2025, https://securitybridge.com/blog/the-importance-of-cybersecurity-training-for-sap-users-in-2025/

26. How Human Error Relates to Cybersecurity Risks | NinjaOne, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.ninjaone.com/blog/how-human-error-relates-to-cybersecurity-risks/

27. How to Prevent Human Error: Top 4 Employee Cybersecurity Mistakes - Syteca, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.syteca.com/en/blog/how-prevent-human-error-top-5-employee-cyber-security-mistakes

28. What is Security Automation? Types & Best Practices - SentinelOne, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/services/what-is-security-automation/

29. Everything You Need to Know When Assessing Security Automation Skills - Alooba, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.alooba.com/skills/tools/infrastructure-security-570/security-automation/

30. What is SecOps Automation? Best Practices, Challenges, and Where to Start - ReliaQuest, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.reliaquest.com/cyber-knowledge/what-is-secops-automation/

31. Automation, the Key to the Cybersecurity Skills Shortage - Securonix, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.securonix.com/blog/automation-the-key-to-the-cybersecurity-skills-shortage/

32. SOAR Implementation: Challenges And Countermeasures - SIRP, accessed April 4, 2025, https://sirp.io/blog/soar-implementation-challenges-and-countermeasures/

33. Manage complexity and security risk introduced by third-party integrations, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.obsidiansecurity.com/lp/guide-to-salesforce-integration-risk

34. What Are the Top Systems Integration Challenges? | EZ Soft - EZSoft Inc., accessed April 4, 2025, https://ezsoft-inc.com/systems-integration-challenges/

35. How Risky is an Overly Complicated Integration Model? - Odyssey Automation, accessed April 4, 2025, https://odysseyautomation.com/complicated-integration/

36. 3 Common Challenges To Avoid While Implementing SOAR - SIRP, accessed April 4, 2025, https://sirp.io/blog/3-common-challenges-to-avoid-while-implementing-soar/

37. 5 SecOps automation challenges , and how to overcome them - ReversingLabs, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.reversinglabs.com/blog/5-secops-automation-challenges-and-how-to-overcome-them

38. Security Automation: Tools, Process and Best Practices - Cynet, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cynet.com/incident-response/security-automation-tools-process-and-best-practices/

39. www.paloaltonetworks.com, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/generative-ai-in-cybersecurity#:~:text=Generative%20AI%20is%20a%20branch,models%20to%20detect%20cyber%20attacks.

40. How Can Generative AI be Used in Cybersecurity - Swimlane, accessed April 4, 2025, https://swimlane.com/blog/how-can-generative-ai-be-used-in-cybersecurity/

41. What Is Generative AI in Cybersecurity? - Palo Alto Networks, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/generative-ai-in-cybersecurity

42. What Is Generative AI in Cybersecurity? | Zpedia - Zscaler, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.zscaler.com/zpedia/what-generative-ai-cybersecurity

43. What Is Generative AI? Definition, Examples & Security | Proofpoint US, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/generative-ai

44. Generative AI vs. Traditional AI: What's the Difference? | SS&C Blue Prism, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.blueprism.com/resources/blog/generative-ai-vs-traditional-ai/

45. Generative AI: What Is It, Tools, Models, Applications and Use Cases, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.gartner.com/en/topics/generative-ai

46. Characteristics of Generative AI - Medium, accessed April 4, 2025, https://medium.com/@gopalakrishnabehara/characteristics-of-generative-ai-fde6e0586c7b

47. What is Generative AI? - Gen AI Explained - AWS, accessed April 4, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/generative-ai/

48. What is Generative AI? | NVIDIA, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/glossary/generative-ai/

49. www.gartner.com, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.gartner.com/en/topics/generative-ai#:~:text=Generative%20AI%20can%20learn%20from,software%20code%20and%20product%20designs.

50. Generative AI Examples | Google Cloud, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/use-cases/generative-ai

51. What is Generative AI? - University Center for Teaching and Learning, accessed April 4, 2025, https://teaching.pitt.edu/resources/what-is-generative-ai/

52. What is Generative AI (GenAI) in cybersecurity? - Sysdig, accessed April 4, 2025, https://sysdig.com/learn-cloud-native/what-is-generative-ai-in-cybersecurity/

53. How Can Generative AI Be Used in Cybersecurity? - Global Skill Development Council, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.gsdcouncil.org/blogs/how-can-generative-ai-be-used-in-cybersecurity

54. swimlane.com, accessed April 4, 2025, https://swimlane.com/blog/how-can-generative-ai-be-used-in-cybersecurity/#:~:text=Generative%20AI%20has%20transformed%20cybersecurity,more%20accurately%20than%20traditional%20methods.

55. Generative AI in cybersecurity: 10 key use cases - N-iX, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.n-ix.com/generative-ai-in-cybersecurity/

56. Revolutionising Threat Detection and Response with Generative AI, accessed April 4, 2025, https://securityreviewmag.com/?p=27974

57. How Can Generative AI Be Used in Cybersecurity? | by Creole Studios | Mar, 2025 | Medium, accessed April 4, 2025, https://medium.com/@creolestudios/how-can-generative-ai-be-used-in-cybersecurity-53e8929db0a9

58. Generative AI: Revolutionizing SOCs and Threat Detection | Mindflow Blog, accessed April 4, 2025, https://mindflow.io/blog/generative-ai-revolutionizing-security-operations-soc-threat-detection

59. Generative AI in cybersecurity - Sekoia.io, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.sekoia.io/en/glossary/generative-ai-in-cybersecurity/

60. www.opus.security, accessed April 4, 2025, http://www.opus.security/blog/agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity-a-new-era-in-vulnerability-management#:~:text=Autonomous%20Decision%2DMaking%20and%20Response,access%2C%20or%20alerting%20security%20teams.

61. Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: Future of AI-Driven Threat Defense - Keepnet Labs, accessed April 4, 2025, https://keepnetlabs.com/blog/agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity-the-next-frontier-for-human-centric-defense

62. Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: A New Era in Vulnerability Management - Opus Security, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.opus.security/blog/agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity-a-new-era-in-vulnerability-management

63. Agentic AI Explained: Definition, Benefits, and Use Cases - Domo, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.domo.com/blog/agentic-ai-explained-definition-benefits-and-use-cases/

64. What is Agentic AI? Exploring Its Role in Security Operations - Dropzone AI, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.dropzone.ai/blog/what-is-agentic-ai-exploring-its-role-in-security-operations

65. What Is Agentic AI? | IBM, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/agentic-ai

66. www.uipath.com, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.uipath.com/ai/agentic-ai#:~:text=Agentic%20AI%2C%20on%20the%20other,all%20with%20minimal%20human%20intervention.

67. What is Agentic AI? | Salesforce US, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.salesforce.com/agentforce/what-is-agentic-ai/

68. What is Agentic AI? Definition, Examples and Trends in 2025 - Aisera, accessed April 4, 2025, https://aisera.com/blog/agentic-ai/

69. What is Agentic AI? Key Benefits & Features - Automation Anywhere, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.automationanywhere.com/rpa/agentic-ai

70. 5 key factors you should know about agentic AI - Spotfire Blog, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.spotfire.com/blog/2025/01/22/5-key-factors-you-should-know-about-agentic-ai/

71. What is Agentic AI? The Next Big Leap in Artificial Intelligence | Kong Inc., accessed April 4, 2025, https://konghq.com/blog/learning-center/agentic-ai

72. What is Agentic AI? - Talkdesk, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.talkdesk.com/blog/agentic-ai/

73. What is Agentic AI? | UiPath, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.uipath.com/ai/agentic-ai

74. Agentic AI vs. Generative AI - IBM, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/agentic-ai-vs-generative-ai

75. Agentic AI vs Generative AI: SecOps Automation and the Era of Multi-AI-Agent Systems, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.reliaquest.com/blog/agentic-ai-vs-generative-ai-era-of-multi-ai-agent-systems/

76. Here's 6 Agentic AI Examples and Use Cases Transforming Businesses - Moveworks, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.moveworks.com/us/en/resources/blog/agentic-ai-examples-use-cases

77. Agentic AI vs. Traditional Security Software: From Rules to Intelligence | LVT, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.lvt.com/blog/agentic-ai-vs-traditional-security-software-from-rules-to-intelligence

78. Proof of Concept: Automating Security Safely With Agentic AI - BankInfoSecurity, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/proof-concept-automating-security-safely-agentic-ai-a-27642

79. AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: Understanding the Difference - F5, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.f5.com/company/blog/ai-agents-vs-agentic-ai-understanding-the-difference

80. Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: A New Era in Vulnerability Management - Opus Security, accessed April 4, 2025, http://www.opus.security/blog/agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity-a-new-era-in-vulnerability-management

81. Will agentic AI take away jobs in the cybersecurity domain? - ET CIO, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/artificial-intelligence/will-agentic-ai-take-away-jobs-in-the-cybersecurity-domain/119966197

82. Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: The Next Frontier of Threat Detection and Response, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.netrascale.com/articles/agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity-the-next-frontier-of-threat-detection-and-response

83. Securing Agentic AI: A Beginner's Guide - HiddenLayer, accessed April 4, 2025, https://hiddenlayer.com/innovation-hub/securing-agentic-ai-a-beginners-guide/

84. An Introduction Agentic AI in Cybersecurity, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cybersecuritytribe.com/articles/an-introduction-agentic-ai-in-cybersecurity

85. How Agentic AI Is Transforming Enterprise Software Development and Cybersecurity, accessed April 4, 2025, https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/how-agentic-ai-is-transforming-enterprise-software-development-and-cybersecurity

86. Agentic AI Enhances Enterprise Automation: Without Adaptive Security, its Autonomy Risks Expanding Attack Surfaces, accessed April 4, 2025, https://securityboulevard.com/2025/03/agentic-ai-enhances-enterprise-automation-without-adaptive-security-its-autonomy-risks-expanding-attack-surfaces/

87. Agentic AI (and AI Agents) | CyberArk, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cyberark.com/what-is/agentic-ai-and-ai-agents/

88. How Generative AI Improves Incident Management for Cybersecurity Teams. | Mindflow Blog, accessed April 4, 2025, https://mindflow.io/blog/how-generative-ai-improves-incident-management-for-cybersecurity-teams

89. Revolutionizing Cybersecurity Operations with Generative AI | Proofpoint US, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/email-and-cloud-threats/revolutionizing-cybersecurity-operations-with-generative-ai

90. Generative AI used in incident response | NTT DATA Group, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nttdata.com/global/en/insights/focus/2024/generative-ai-used-in-incident-response

91. Generative AI: Application Security and Optimization - F5, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.f5.com/glossary/generative-ai-security

92. Security Hyperautomation Solutions | Torq®, accessed April 4, 2025, https://torq.io/

Adversarial Misuse of Generative AI | Google Cloud Blog, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/adversarial-misuse-generative-ai

Appendix D Disrupting Attacker Operations in Cyberspace: Ethical and Legal Considerations

I. Introduction: The Concept of Disrupting Attacker Operations in Cyberspace

The notion of "taking the fight to the enemy" in the context of cybersecurity signifies a paradigm shift from purely reactive defense to more proactive strategies aimed at countering and neutralizing threats at their source or during their operational stages. This concept encompasses a range of activities, from deploying sophisticated detection mechanisms that actively engage with adversaries within a defended network to undertaking measures intended to impair or halt ongoing malicious campaigns originating from external sources. The increasing frequency and sophistication of cyberattacks targeting individuals, organizations, and critical infrastructure have underscored the limitations of traditional, passive security postures.1 Consequently, the exploration of methods to disrupt attacker operations has gained significant traction within the cybersecurity community and among policymakers.

However, this proactive stance introduces a complex web of ethical and legal considerations that must be carefully navigated. The global and interconnected nature of cyberspace transcends traditional territorial boundaries, complicating the application of established legal frameworks and raising novel ethical dilemmas. Determining the permissibility and scope of actions intended to disrupt attackers requires a thorough understanding of international law, domestic legislation, and evolving ethical norms in the digital realm.

This report will delve into these multifaceted considerations, examining the ethical implications of offensive cyber operations and disruption activities, analyzing the relevant international legal framework, exploring the concept of active defense, presenting expert analyses on the risks and benefits involved, investigating pertinent case studies, examining the United States' legal framework in this domain, discussing the potential for escalation and unintended consequences, and analyzing the principle of proportionality in the context of disrupting attacker operations.

II. Ethical Implications of Offensive Cyber Operations and Disruption

The ethical landscape of offensive cyber operations and the disruption of attacker activities is intricate, shaped by various philosophical paradigms that offer differing perspectives on the permissibility and scope of such actions.3 For instance, Kantian ethics, emphasizing the inherent dignity of persons, would likely scrutinize any cyber operation that could potentially harm innocent individuals or use them as mere means to an end.3 Conversely, utilitarian perspectives might weigh the potential benefits of disrupting an attack, such as preventing widespread harm, against the potential negative consequences of the disruptive action itself.4 Virtue ethics, focusing on the character and integrity of the decision-maker, would emphasize the importance of honesty, integrity, and prudence in the deployment of such capabilities.4 Furthermore, cultural and societal values also play a crucial role in shaping ethical justifications for actions in cyberspace.3 The absence of a universally accepted ethical framework necessitates a comprehensive understanding of how diverse moral traditions inform the justification for cyber actions, highlighting the challenge in establishing globally coherent norms.3

Traditional Just War Theory, with its focus on physical harm and tangible damage, encounters difficulties when applied to the domain of cyberwarfare, where significant harm can be inflicted without causing direct injury or death.5 This raises fundamental questions about when and how offensive cyber actions can be ethically justified under existing moral frameworks that were primarily developed in the context of kinetic conflict.5 The ethical responsibilities of computing professionals, as outlined by organizations like the ACM, provide a foundational set of principles that emphasize benefiting society, avoiding harm, respecting privacy, and honoring confidentiality.6 Disrupting attacker operations can be viewed as aligning with the ethical duty to protect data and systems from threats.7 However, the proactive nature of such measures introduces a tension with the principle of avoiding negative consequences and respecting legal boundaries.6 The ethical obligation to defend against cyber threats might indeed justify proactive measures against attackers, but the methods employed must still adhere to broader ethical principles such as proportionality and minimizing harm to non-targets.7

The concept of "hacking back," or retaliating against attackers by infiltrating their systems, presents a complex ethical dilemma.1 Proponents argue that it can serve as a deterrent to cybercriminals and provide organizations with an advantage in gathering intelligence and disrupting ongoing attacks.1 However, opponents raise significant ethical concerns about vigilantism, the undermining of the rule of law, the risk of escalating conflicts in cyberspace, and the potential for collateral damage to innocent parties.1 The inherent difficulty in accurately attributing cyberattacks further exacerbates these ethical concerns, as retaliating against the wrong entity can have severe and unjust consequences.1

Active defense, which involves proactively detecting, disrupting, and countering adversaries within one's own network, also lies at the intersection of defense and aggression, raising ethical questions about the limits of protection versus provocation.4 While the intent behind active defense is typically protective, tactics such as deception and the use of honeypots require careful ethical evaluation regarding their potential consequences and the risk of escalation.4 The ethical nature of these tactics often hinges on intent, whether the primary goal is to protect or to cause harm.4

To mitigate the ethical risks associated with offensive cybersecurity expertise, establishing ethical principles within training programs is crucial.8 Principles such as proportionality and necessity, respect for privacy and confidentiality, avoiding harm, transparency and disclosure (within the training context), and accountability and responsibility aim to guide future practitioners in the ethical application of their skills.8

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence into cybersecurity introduces new ethical challenges.9 These include concerns about bias and fairness in AI algorithms, the lack of transparency in some AI decision-making processes, and questions of accountability when AI systems make mistakes.9 As AI is increasingly used in both offensive and defensive cyber operations, these ethical dilemmas require careful consideration to ensure responsible and justifiable actions in cyberspace.9

III. International Legal Framework for Cyber Warfare and Intervention

The international legal landscape governing cyber warfare and intervention is complex and still evolving. While there is a general consensus that existing international law applies to state activities in cyberspace, the precise manner of its application remains a subject of ongoing debate and clarification.10 Key legal instruments such as the UN Charter, the Budapest Convention, and the ongoing efforts to establish a new UN cybercrime treaty form the basis of this framework.12

The UN Charter, drafted in the pre-cyber era, establishes fundamental principles relevant to state conduct in cyberspace, including the sovereignty of states, the prohibition of the use of force, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, the encouragement of peaceful settlement of disputes, and the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.14 However, the application of these principles to cyber operations presents significant challenges, particularly in defining what constitutes a "use of force" or an "armed attack" in the digital realm.14

Several international treaties address cybercrime from a law enforcement perspective. The Palermo Convention aims to combat transnational organized crime, and while not specific to cyber activities, its provisions on cooperation and extradition are relevant.12 The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is the first international treaty specifically aimed at reducing computer-related crime by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques, and increasing international cooperation.12 The ongoing negotiations for a new UN cybercrime treaty reflect a global effort to enhance international cooperation in preventing and investigating cybercrime, although disagreements persist regarding its scope and human rights safeguards.13 These treaties primarily focus on criminal offenses and do not directly address state-sponsored offensive cyber operations or the legality of disrupting attacker operations in a national security context.12

The principle of state sovereignty is a cornerstone of international law, granting each state supreme authority over its territory, including the cyber infrastructure and activities within its borders.14 While there is agreement that sovereignty applies in cyberspace, the threshold for what constitutes a violation, particularly in the absence of physical damage or loss of functionality, remains contested.18 Some legal experts view any unauthorized intrusion into another state's cyber infrastructure as a violation of sovereignty, while others argue that a certain level of effect or interference with governmental functions is necessary to cross this threshold.19 The principle of non-intervention prohibits coercive interference by one state in the internal or external affairs of another state.19 In the cyber context, this principle would prohibit coercive cyber operations aimed at influencing a state's sovereign decisions, such as interfering with elections or essential governmental services.21

The legality of intervening in another nation's cyber infrastructure for defensive purposes is closely tied to the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.14 This right is triggered if an "armed attack" occurs. The critical question is whether a cyberattack can reach this threshold. While a destructive cyberattack causing significant physical damage or loss of life would likely be considered an armed attack, many cyber operations, such as espionage or disruption of non-essential services, do not meet this high bar.14 Even for cyber activities below the threshold of an armed attack, the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention still apply, requiring careful consideration of the legality of any interventionist measures.22 The difficulty of attributing cyberattacks to specific state actors further complicates the legal justification for defensive interventions.15

IV. Active Defense in Cybersecurity: Ethical and Legal Boundaries

Active defense in cybersecurity represents a proactive approach to protecting networks and systems by actively detecting, disrupting, and countering cyber threats.23 It encompasses a range of techniques aimed at increasing the cost and complexity for attackers, primarily focusing on actions taken within the defender's own network.24 Common active defense methods include the deployment of honeypots, which are decoy systems designed to attract and trap attackers; deception technologies, which involve creating fake assets and information to mislead adversaries; threat intelligence gathering and analysis to anticipate and identify attacks; active monitoring of network traffic and system behavior for anomalies; and threat hunting, which involves proactively searching for signs of malicious activity.23 Automated incident response systems also play a crucial role in active defense by rapidly taking action to contain and mitigate detected threats.26

While active defense primarily focuses on defensive measures within an organization's own infrastructure, the term can sometimes encompass offensive cyber operations, particularly in military and state contexts.28 For instance, NATO's definition of active defense includes preemptive or counter-operations against the source of an attack.29 China's military strategy also employs the concept of "active defense".28 This broader interpretation in state-level contexts can blur the lines between purely defensive actions and offensive operations aimed at neutralizing threats before or during an attack.29

The legal boundaries of proactive cyber defense for private entities are a subject of ongoing debate.30 While traditional proactive measures focused on securing one's own network perimeter are generally accepted as legal and ethical,32 actions that extend beyond these boundaries, such as "hacking back" into attacker systems, are generally prohibited by laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in the United States.30

Proposals like the Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act (ACDCA) have aimed to amend the CFAA to allow certain forms of hack-back under specific conditions, primarily for attribution, disruption, or monitoring malicious activity.31 However, concerns about international security, inter-state relations, and the potential for abuse have hindered the widespread legalization of such measures for private actors.30

Active defense tactics raise specific ethical considerations.4 The use of deception, while intended for protective purposes, can be ethically ambiguous. Questions arise regarding the transparency of such tactics and the potential for unintended consequences or harm to non-targets.4 Establishing clear rules of engagement and ensuring accountability for the deployment of active defense measures are crucial for addressing these ethical concerns.4

V. Risks and Benefits of Disrupting Attacker Operations: Expert Analysis

Cybersecurity experts and organizations widely acknowledge the increasing sophistication and frequency of cyber threats, including malware, ransomware, phishing attacks, and supply chain compromises, which can inflict significant financial, operational, and reputational damage on organizations.2 In this context, the ability to disrupt attacker operations offers potential benefits such as deterring future attacks by imposing costs on adversaries and gathering valuable intelligence about their tactics, techniques, and infrastructure.1 Proactive measures can also provide defenders with a crucial advantage in understanding and mitigating threats before they can achieve their objectives.26

However, disrupting attacker operations is not without significant risks. A primary concern is the potential for escalation of cyber conflicts.1 Offensive actions, whether by states or private entities, can provoke retaliation from adversaries, leading to a cycle of attacks and counterattacks that can rapidly spiral out of control.15 The challenge of accurate attribution in cyberspace further exacerbates this risk, as misidentifying the attacker can lead to escalatory actions against the wrong target.1 Moreover, the interconnected nature of cyberspace increases the risk of unintended consequences, where disruptive actions aimed at attackers could inadvertently affect innocent third parties, critical infrastructure, or even the broader internet ecosystem.40

Experts in state-level cyber operations advocate for a cautious and strategic approach to offensive capabilities, emphasizing the need for increased transparency, a nuanced understanding of their utility, and robust risk mitigation measures.18 There is a general agreement that offensive cyber operations should not be viewed as a panacea and should be employed judiciously, with clear authorization and oversight at the highest levels of government.42 Some experts even argue that prioritizing offensive operations can be counterproductive, increasing national vulnerabilities and international tensions, and suggest that a stronger focus on defensive capabilities might be a more effective and less destabilizing approach.44

VI. Case Studies of Disrupted Attacker Operations

Publicly available examples of successfully disrupted attacker operations are often limited due to the sensitive nature of such activities and concerns about revealing capabilities and tactics. However, numerous instances of significant cyber operations and attacks have been publicly attributed, providing insights into the types of threats that defenders might seek to disrupt.45 These include state-sponsored campaigns like Moonlight Maze, Titan Rain, and Operation Buckshot Yankee, which involved espionage and network penetration.46 The Stuxnet attack against Iran's nuclear program is a notable example of a sophisticated cyber operation aimed at disrupting critical infrastructure.47 More recent examples include cyberattacks attributed to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, targeting various sectors for espionage, disruption, and financial gain.48

The increasing targeting of specific sectors, such as law firms holding sensitive client data49 and the healthcare industry,50 underscores the high stakes of cyberattacks and the critical need for effective defense mechanisms. While these examples primarily illustrate successful attacks, they highlight the types of operations that defenders aim to prevent or disrupt.

The fictional case study of "The Great Cyberwar of 2002" provides a framework for exploring the complex legal and ethical questions that arise in the context of large-scale cyber conflict, including the definition of "armed attack" and the status of cyberwarriors.51 While not a real-world example of disruption, it helps to frame the debates surrounding potential responses to significant cyber incidents.

The four phases of cyber warfare escalation observed in modern conflicts, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict and the Russia-Ukraine War, illustrate the dynamic nature of cyberattacks and potential opportunities for disruption at various stages of escalation.52

Analyzing these instances reveals that the ethical and legal debates surrounding disrupted attacker operations often center on the challenges of attribution, the proportionality of responses, and the potential for escalation or unintended consequences.1 The lack of clear international norms and the differing legal frameworks across nations further complicate these debates.1

VII. Legal Framework within the United States

The United States has established a legal framework concerning actions to disrupt cyberattacks originating from outside the country, primarily through Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which grants authority to the Secretary of Defense to conduct military cyber activities or operations, including clandestine ones, to defend the nation.54 This authority extends to operations short of hostilities for purposes such as preparation of the environment, information operations, force protection, deterrence, and counterterrorism, and explicitly affirms the right to respond to malicious cyber activity by foreign powers.54

The U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) serves as the key military entity responsible for directing and coordinating cyberspace operations to defend the Department of Defense information networks and the nation from significant cyberattacks.55 Operating globally, USCYBERCOM has evolved to incorporate offensive capabilities as part of its "defend forward" strategy, which involves proactively engaging adversaries to disrupt or halt malicious cyber activity at its source.55

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) is the primary federal law for prosecuting cybercrime in the United States, including unauthorized access to and damage of computers used in interstate or foreign commerce.34 The CFAA has extraterritorial application, allowing for the prosecution of individuals located outside the U.S. who target American computer systems.59 While the CFAA provides a legal tool for addressing cyberattacks originating from abroad, its interpretation, particularly concerning actions that might be considered "hacking back" by private entities, remains complex and subject to legal debate.60

Beyond these specific legal instruments, the U.S. has a broader legal and regulatory landscape focused on improving overall cybersecurity posture, managing risks, and responding to incidents, including data breach notification laws and the role of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in cybersecurity disclosures.61

Section 167b of Title 10 further outlines the authority and mission of US Cyber Command, emphasizing its role in defending national interests through collaboration with domestic and international partners.64 This reinforces the legal mandate and collaborative nature of the U.S.'s approach to cyberspace defense.

VIII. Escalation and Unintended Consequences

A significant concern associated with disrupting attacker operations, especially through offensive measures, is the potential for escalation of cyber conflicts.39 Retaliatory actions can easily trigger a cycle of attacks and counterattacks, leading to an unpredictable and potentially damaging spiral.1 The inherent difficulties in accurately attributing cyberattacks increase the risk of escalation against the wrong adversary.15 Furthermore, the complex and interconnected nature of cyberspace means that disruptive actions can have unintended consequences, such as affecting innocent third parties, damaging critical infrastructure, or destabilizing the broader internet environment.40

Understanding common attacker tactics, such as privilege escalation, is crucial for developing effective defensive strategies, including disruption, while minimizing the risk of unintended effects.66 The phases of cyber warfare escalation observed in recent conflicts provide a framework for comprehending how cyber incidents can intensify and potentially coordinate with kinetic operations, underscoring the high stakes involved.52

Even actions intended to deter cyberattacks carry inherent risks of unintended consequences and escalation.69 The strategic risks of offensive cyber operations include undermining the security of the internet and acting as an escalatory trigger, necessitating precise execution, robust control, and continuous monitoring of their effects.41

Cyber retaliation, in particular, carries substantial risks, including misattribution, disproportionate responses, escalation, and the potential to undermine international law and norms.15 Its effectiveness as a deterrent is also questionable, as it might provoke further attacks.15 The significant potential damage from cyberattacks underscores the importance of careful and measured responses, as ill-conceived retaliation could exacerbate the harm.72

IX. Proportionality in Disrupting Attacker Operations

The principle of proportionality in international law, especially within the context of armed conflict (IHL), prohibits attacks where the expected incidental civilian harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.74 This principle applies to cyber operations, requiring a careful balancing of the anticipated military advantage of disruptive actions against the potential harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, considering both immediate and cascading effects.75 The assessment of proportionality is made ex ante based on the information reasonably available at the time of the operation.74

Applying the principle of proportionality to cyberattacks presents several challenges and ambiguities.78 The potential for significant civilian loss without direct physical harm and the difficulties in accurately assessing the long-term and indirect consequences of cyber operations complicate the application of this principle.78 There is a recognized need for clearer proportionality standards specifically tailored to the cyber domain.78

Any disruptive actions taken as countermeasures to cyberattacks must also adhere to the principle of proportionality, ensuring that the response is not excessive in relation to the initial injury and is aimed at legitimate defensive and deterrent purposes.79 Countermeasures should be directed only at the responsible state and must satisfy the principles of necessity and proportionality, ceasing once the original violation ends.79

The concept of collateral damage, traditionally defined as unintended harm to civilians or civilian objects, also applies to cyber operations.83 While traditional definitions focus on physical harm, cyber operations can cause significant harm to data, systems, and critical infrastructure, potentially leading to real-world consequences for civilians.83 The interconnected nature of cyberspace makes it challenging to precisely target cyber operations and contain their effects, increasing the risk of collateral damage to civilian systems and populations.87 Therefore, any disruptive actions must carefully consider the potential for harm to innocent parties and ensure that the military advantage anticipated outweighs the likely collateral damage.82

X. Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of Disrupting Attacker Operations

Disrupting attacker operations in cyberspace presents a compelling strategy for enhancing cybersecurity, moving beyond traditional reactive measures to actively counter and neutralize threats. However, this proactive approach is fraught with ethical and legal complexities that demand careful consideration. Ethically, the deployment of offensive cyber capabilities and disruptive tactics must be weighed against principles of proportionality, the potential for harm to innocent parties, and the risk of escalating conflicts. The lack of a universally accepted ethical framework for cyber operations necessitates a nuanced understanding of diverse moral perspectives and professional responsibilities.

Legally, the international framework, while applicable to cyberspace, requires further clarification and adaptation to the unique characteristics of the digital domain. Principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, and the right to self-defense provide a foundation, but their interpretation and application to cyber activities remain contested. The ongoing development of international agreements and the evolution of state practice will continue to shape the legal landscape. Within the United States, a legal framework exists for military cyber operations aimed at defending national interests, but the legal boundaries for private sector actions to disrupt attackers are still under debate.

The risks of escalation and unintended consequences associated with offensive cyber actions and retaliation underscore the need for caution, precision, and robust oversight. The principle of proportionality serves as a critical constraint, requiring a careful balance between the anticipated military advantage and the potential harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Navigating these complexities requires a multifaceted approach that integrates ethical considerations, adherence to legal frameworks, a thorough understanding of the risks and benefits involved, and ongoing dialogue among experts, policymakers, and the international community. As cyberspace continues to evolve as a domain of conflict and competition, the responsible and lawful disruption of attacker operations will remain a critical challenge requiring careful deliberation and a commitment to minimizing harm while safeguarding national security and global stability.

Key Valuable Tables:

1. Ethical Paradigms and Their Application to Offensive Cyber Operations:

Ethical Paradigm

Core Principles

Potential Justifications for Offensive Cyber Operations

Potential Limitations on Offensive Cyber Operations

Kantianism

Human dignity, persons as ends

Protecting critical infrastructure from attacks that could harm individuals.

Avoiding any action that could use innocent individuals as a means to an end or cause indiscriminate harm.

Utilitarianism

Greatest good for the greatest number

Disrupting attacks that could cause widespread harm or significant disruption to society.

Ensuring that the benefits of disruption outweigh the potential harm caused by the action itself, including to the attacker and third parties.

Virtue Ethics

Honesty, integrity, prudence

Acting with integrity and prudence to defend against malicious actors.

Avoiding deceptive or reckless actions that could have unintended negative consequences.

Confucianism

Benevolent rule, peaceful order

Maintaining a peaceful and secure cyberspace for the benefit of the populace.

Ensuring that disruptive actions are carried out by legitimate authorities and contribute to overall stability.

2. Key International Treaties Relevant to Cyber Activities:

Treaty Name

Key Provisions Relevant to Cyberspace

Focus

Limitations or Challenges in Application

UN Charter

Sovereignty, prohibition of use of force, non-intervention, right to self-defense.

International Law, Use of Force

Difficulty in defining "use of force" and "armed attack" in cyberspace; attribution challenges.

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

Criminalizes various cyber offenses, promotes international cooperation in investigations.

Cybercrime, International Cooperation

Primarily focused on criminal activity, less direct application to state-sponsored offensive operations.

Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime

Enhances cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence.

Cybercrime, Evidence Sharing

Not yet in force as of December 2022.

(Proposed) UN Cybercrime Treaty

Aims to criminalize cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crimes, enhance international cooperation.

Cybercrime, International Cooperation

Ongoing negotiations, disagreements on scope and human rights safeguards.

3. Comparison of Active Defense Techniques:

Technique

Description

Potential Benefits in Disrupting Attackers

Ethical and Legal Considerations

Honeypots

Decoy systems designed to attract and trap attackers.

Gathers intelligence on attacker tactics, can divert attackers from real systems.

Deception may raise ethical concerns; need to ensure no unintended harm to third parties.

Deception Technologies

Creating fake assets, data, or credentials to mislead attackers.

Detects attacker presence, tracks movements, wastes attacker resources.

Deception may raise ethical concerns; need to ensure no unintended harm to third parties.

Threat Intelligence

Gathering and analyzing information about potential threats.

Proactive detection and response, better understanding of attacker TTPs.

Ethical collection and use of intelligence data.

Active Monitoring

Continuous surveillance of networks and systems for suspicious activity.

Early detection of breaches and malicious behavior.

Privacy concerns related to monitoring user activity.

Threat Hunting

Proactive searching for hidden malicious activity within a network.

Identifies threats that may evade traditional security measures.

Requires skilled personnel and deep understanding of network and threat landscape.

Automated Incident Response

Systems that automatically take action to isolate, block, or mitigate threats.

Rapid response to known threats, reduces dwell time for attackers.

Risk of false positives and unintended disruptions to legitimate activity.

4. Summary of US Legal Framework for Disrupting Cyberattacks:

Law/Authority

Key Provisions/Mandates

Relevance to Disrupting Attacker Operations

Limitations or Areas of Debate

10 U.S. Code § 394

Secretary of Defense authorized to conduct military cyber operations, including clandestine ones, to defend the U.S.

Provides legal basis for proactive defense against foreign cyber threats.

Scope of "defense" and "preparation of the environment" can be broad; oversight mechanisms.

US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM)

Directs and coordinates military cyberspace operations, defends DoD and the nation from cyberattacks.

Operational arm for executing defensive and offensive cyber operations under Title 10 authority; "defend forward" strategy.

Balance between defensive and offensive roles; coordination with other agencies.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030)

Prohibits unauthorized access to and damage of computers used in interstate or foreign commerce; has extraterritorial application.

Provides legal tool for prosecuting cyberattacks originating from outside the U.S.

Interpretation of "unauthorized access" debated; restrictions on private sector "hacking back."

§167b of Title 10

Outlines authority and mission of US Cyber Command, emphasizing collaboration.

Reinforces legal mandate for national defense in cyberspace and importance of partnerships.

Subject to ongoing legislative updates and interpretations.

Works cited

1. Ethical and Legal Aspects of Hacking Back - Blue Goat Cyber, accessed April 4, 2025, https://bluegoatcyber.com/blog/ethical-and-legal-aspects-of-hacking-back/

2. Cyber Security Vulnerabilities: Prevention & Mitigation - SentinelOne, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/cyber-security-vulnerabilities/

3. View of Ethical Challenges in Cyber Warfare: A Modular Evaluation ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://papers.academic-conferences.org/index.php/iccws/article/view/3261/3000

4. Ethical Considerations in Offensive Cybersecurity Tactics - Akitra, accessed April 4, 2025, https://akitra.com/ethical-considerations-in-offensive-cybersecurity-tactics/

5. (PDF) The Ethics of Cyberwarfare - ResearchGate, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263305272_The_Ethics_of_Cyberwarfare

6. Cybersecurity and Social Responsibility: Ethical Considerations - UpGuard, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.upguard.com/blog/cybersecurity-ethics

7. Cybersecurity Ethics: What Cyber Professionals Need to Know - Augusta University, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.augusta.edu/online/blog/cybersecurity-ethics/

8. Ethical Principles for Designing Responsible Offensive Cyber ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350534520_Ethical_Principles_for_Designing_Responsible_Offensive_Cyber_Security_Training

9. The Ethical Dilemmas of AI in Cybersecurity - ISC2, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.isc2.org/Insights/2024/01/The-Ethical-Dilemmas-of-AI-in-Cybersecurity

10. ccdcoe.org, accessed April 4, 2025, https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2023/08/UnnecessaryRepetitionFinalVersionExportV2-1.pdf

11. International Law in Cyberspace - American Bar Association, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_national_security/publications/aba-standing-committee-on-law-and-national-security-60-th-anniversary-an-anthology/international-law-in-cyberspace/

12. Treaties & International Agreements - International and Foreign ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/cyberspace/cyber-crime-treaties

13. Understanding the UN's new international treaty to fight cybercrime ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://unu.edu/cpr/blog-post/understanding-uns-new-international-treaty-fight-cybercrime

14. Cyber espionage and the international law, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cyber-espionage.ch/Law.html

15. The unintended consequences of deterring cyber attacks through nuclear weapons and international law | European Leadership Network, accessed April 4, 2025, https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-unintended-consequences-of-deterring-cyber-attacks-through-nuclear-weapons-and-international-law/

16. What is the UN cybercrime treaty and why does it matter? - Chatham House, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/what-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-why-does-it-matter

17. Sovereignty - International cyber law: interactive toolkit, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Sovereignty

18. An Ethical Decision-Making Tool for Offensive ... - Air University, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-32_Issue-3/V-Ramsey.pdf

19. The Application of International Law to Cyberspace: Sovereignty and Non-intervention, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/67723/the-application-of-international-law-to-cyberspace-sovereignty-and-non-intervention/

20. The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks | 2. The Application of Sovereignty in Cyberspace - Chatham House, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/12/application-international-law-state-cyberattacks/2-application-sovereignty-cyberspace

21. Prohibition of intervention - International cyber law: interactive toolkit, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_intervention

22. The Application of International Law to State Cyberattacks - Chatham House, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2019-11-29-Intl-Law-Cyberattacks.pdf

23. Active Defense and Offensive Security: The Two Sides of a Proactive ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.trustwave.com/en-us/resources/blogs/trustwave-blog/active-defense-and-offensive-security-the-two-sides-of-a-proactive-cyber-defense-program/

24. What is Active Defense in Cyber Security? - Acalvio Technologies, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.acalvio.com/what-is-active-defense/

25. An Introduction to Active Defense - risk3sixty, accessed April 4, 2025, https://risk3sixty.com/blog/an-introduction-to-active-defense

26. Active Defense in Cybersecurity , Cloud Range, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cloudrangecyber.com/news/active-defense-in-cybersecurity

27. Active Cyber Defense To Mitigating Security Threats & Intrusions, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.eccouncil.org/cybersecurity-exchange/threat-intelligence/active-defense-for-mitigating-security-threats-and-intrusions/

28. Active defense - Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_defense

29. Active Defense and "Hacking Back": A Primer | Adlumin Cybersecurity, accessed April 4, 2025, https://adlumin.com/post/active-defense-and-hacking-back-a-primer/

30. Private active cyber defense and (international) cyber security, pushing the line? | Journal of Cybersecurity | Oxford Academic, accessed April 4, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/7/1/tyab010/6199903

31. Self-Help in Cyberspace: A Path Forward | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed April 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2019/09/self-help-in-cyberspace-a-path-forward?lang=en

32. Boundary Protection - Cybersecurity Glossary - Lark, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.larksuite.com/en_us/topics/cybersecurity-glossary/boundary-protection

33. Defensive Cyber Security: Protecting Your Digital Assets - SentinelOne, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/defensive-cyber-security/

34. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Masterson Hall, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.mastersonhall.com/the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/

35. What is Cybersecurity and Its Importance to Business - National University, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nu.edu/blog/what-is-cybersecurity/

36. Importance of Cyber Security: Benefits and Disadvantages - Sprinto, accessed April 4, 2025, https://sprinto.com/blog/importance-of-cyber-security/

37. 10 common cybersecurity threats and attacks: 2025 update - ConnectWise, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.connectwise.com/blog/cybersecurity/common-threats-and-attacks

38. What is Cyber Warfare | Types, Examples & Mitigation - Imperva, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/cyber-warfare/

39. Coordinated Consequences for Cyberattacks Are Critical to Avoid Escalation, accessed April 4, 2025, https://digitalfrontlines.io/2024/06/10/consequences-cyberattacks-avoid-escalation/

40. When Cyber-Attacks Become Ransomware-as-a-Service - Darktrace, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.darktrace.com/fr/blog/unintended-consequences-when-cyber-attacks-go-wild

41. Offensive cyber and the responsible use of cyber power - The International Institute for Strategic Studies, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2023/03/offensive-cyber-and-the-responsible-use-of-cyber-power/

42. Offensive cyber operations | 04 Conclusion and recommendations, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/09/offensive-cyber-operations/04-conclusion-and-recommendations

43. Offensive cyber operations | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/09/offensive-cyber-operations

44. Why Cyber Operations Do Not Always Favor the Offense | The Belfer ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-cyber-operations-do-not-always-favor-offense

45. When Intelligence Agencies Publicly Attribute Offensive Cyber Operations: Illustrative Examples from the United States - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08850607.2024.2441094

46. Cyberwarfare and the United States - Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_the_United_States

47. Cyber Effects in Warfare: Categorizing the Where, What, and Why, accessed April 4, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2024/08/cyber-effects-in-warfare-categorizing-the-where-what-and-why/

48. Cyber Operations Tracker | CFR Interactives - Council on Foreign Relations, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/cyber-operations/

49. Biggest Legal Industry Cyber Attacks | Arctic Wolf, accessed April 4, 2025, https://arcticwolf.com/resources/blog/top-legal-industry-cyber-attacks/

50. Healthcare Cybersecurity Ethical Concerns during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: A Rapid Review - PubMed Central, accessed April 4, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10671505/

51. The Law of Cyberwar: A Case Study from the Future - Duke Law ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6161&context=faculty_scholarship

52. Cyber Escalation in Modern Conflict: Exploring Four Possible ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://flashpoint.io/blog/four-phases-cyber-warfare/

53. Hacking Back Is Ethical in the Cyber Frontier | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/blog/hacking-back-ethical-cyber-frontier

54. 10 U.S. Code § 394 - Authorities concerning military cyber operations, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/394

55. Command History - U.S. Cyber Command, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.cybercom.mil/About/History/

56. United States Cyber Command - Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command

57. Defend Forward & Sovereignty: How America's Cyberwar Strategy Upholds International Law, accessed April 4, 2025, https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2614&context=umialr

58. Cybersecurity Laws and Regulations Report 2025 USA - ICLG.com, accessed April 4, 2025, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and-regulations/usa

59. Extraterritorial Application of the CFAA - The National Law Review, accessed April 4, 2025, https://natlawreview.com/article/extraterritorial-application-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act

60. NACDL - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nacdl.org/Landing/ComputerFraudandAbuseAct

61. Cybersecurity Developments and Legal Issues | White & Case LLP, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/cybersecurity-developments-and-legal-issues

62. Objective 2.4: Enhance Cybersecurity and Fight Cybercrime - Department of Justice, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/doj/doj-strategic-plan/objective-24-enhance-cybersecurity-and-fight-cybercrime

63. State and Local Courts Struggle to Fight Increasing Cyberattacks, accessed April 4, 2025, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-and-local-courts-struggle-fight-increasing-cyberattacks

64. 10 USC 167b: Unified combatant command for cyber operations - OLRC Home, accessed April 4, 2025, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section167b&num=0&edition=prelim

65. Unintended consequences: When a cyberattack goes wild - Control Engineering, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.controleng.com/unintended-consequences-when-a-cyberattack-goes-wild/

66. What is Privilege Escalation? - CrowdStrike, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/cyberattacks/privilege-escalation/

67. Privilege Escalation Attack and Defense Explained - BeyondTrust, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.beyondtrust.com/blog/entry/privilege-escalation-attack-defense-explained

68. Escalating Cyber Threats Demand Stronger Global Defense and Cooperation, accessed April 4, 2025, https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/10/15/escalating-cyber-threats-demand-stronger-global-defense-and-cooperation/

69. Transparent Cyber Deterrence - National Defense University Press, accessed April 4, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3197215/transparent-cyber-deterrence/

70. The 5×5,How retaliation shapes cyber conflict - Atlantic Council, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/the-5x5-how-retaliation-shapes-cyber-conflict/

71. Cyber-Attacks, Retaliation and Risk: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330121500_Cyber-Attacks_Retaliation_and_Risk_Breakthroughs_in_Research_and_Practice

72. Types of Cyberthreats - IBM, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/cyberthreats-types

73. Cyber Security Risks That Threaten Businesses, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.business.com/insurance/cyber-risk/

74. Proportionality - International cyber law: interactive toolkit, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Proportionality

75. www.icrc.org, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/war-and-law/04_proportionality-0.pdf

76. Towards common understandings: the application of established ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/03/07/towards-common-understandings-the-application-of-established-ihl-principles-to-cyber-operations/

77. The Principle of Proportionality in Military Cyber Operations - Leiden University Student Repository, accessed April 4, 2025, https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A3191091/view

78. "Proportionality and its Applicability in the Realm of Cyber Attacks ..., accessed April 4, 2025, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/vol29/iss2/6/

79. Countermeasures - International cyber law: interactive toolkit, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Countermeasures

80. THE USE OF FORCE AND CYBER COUNTERMEASURES Gary Corn* & Eric Jensen** - Temple University, accessed April 4, 2025, https://sites.temple.edu/ticlj/files/2020/02/32.2_Corn_Article02-header-deleted.pdf

81. Three Conditions for Cyber Countermeasures, accessed April 4, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2022_summer_cdr/06_Katagiri_CDR_V7N3_Summer_2022.pdf?ver=KlLP5pxczEgYyqI4jqe03A%3D%3D

82. Defend Forward and Cyber Countermeasures - Hoover Institution, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/deeks_webreadypdf_0.pdf

83. (PDF) Cyber Collateral Damage - ResearchGate, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309586700_Cyber_Collateral_Damage

84. Cyberwarfare and Collateral Damages - Globalex, accessed April 4, 2025, https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/cyberwarfare_collateral_damages.html

85. Understanding Cyber Collateral Damage - - Journal of National Security Law & Policy, accessed April 4, 2025, https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Understanding_Cyber_Collateral_Damage_2.pdf

Cyberspace Operations Collateral Damage - Reality or Misconception? - The Cyber Defense Review, accessed April 4, 2025,

Appendix E - General Resources

Here is a list of references the reader could use to do further research into the subjects discussed:

General Cybersecurity Resources:

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): NIST provides a wealth of cybersecurity resources, frameworks, and best practices. Their Cybersecurity Framework is a widely adopted guide.

csrc.nist.gov

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): CISA is the U.S. government agency responsible for strengthening national cybersecurity and infrastructure protection. Their website offers alerts, advisories, and guidance.

www.cisa.gov

SANS Institute: SANS offers a wide range of cybersecurity training courses, certifications, research, and resources.

www.sans.org

OWASP Foundation: The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the security of software.1 They provide valuable resources on web application security.

owasp.org

Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA): ISACA focuses on IT governance, audit, security, and risk management. They offer frameworks and certifications like CISA and CISM.

www.isaca.org

Specific to Phishing and Email Security:

Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG): APWG is an industry coalition focused on combating phishing and email fraud. Their website offers reports and resources.

apwg.org

CISA's Stop Think Connect Campaign: Provides resources and tips for individuals and organizations on staying safe online, including information on phishing.

www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/stopthinkconnect

Specific to Web Application Attacks and Security:

· OWASP Top Ten: OWASP publishes a regularly updated list of the ten most critical web application security risks.

o owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/

· PortSwigger Web Security Academy: Offers free online training and resources on web application security vulnerabilities and how to exploit and prevent them.

o portswigger.net/web-security

Specific to Data Breaches and Data Loss Prevention:

· Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR): An annual report providing insights into data breach trends and patterns.

o Search online for the latest "Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report."

· Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: Offers a comprehensive database of data breaches and resources on data privacy.

o privacyrights.org

· Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) (UK): Provides guidance on data protection and data breach reporting, which can be relevant globally.

o ico.org.uk

Specific to Emerging Threats (AI-Powered Attacks, Quantum Computing):

· MIT Technology Review: Often publishes articles on the latest advancements and implications of AI and quantum computing.

o www.technologyreview.com

· IEEE Spectrum: Provides news and analysis on technology trends, including AI and quantum computing.

o spectrum.ieee.org

· NIST's Post-Quantum Cryptography Program: NIST is actively working on standardizing post-quantum cryptography algorithms. Their website provides updates and information.

o csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography

· Various Cybersecurity Vendor Blogs and Research Papers: Many cybersecurity companies publish blogs and research papers on emerging threats. Searching for terms like "AI in cybersecurity," "quantum cryptography," and "emerging cyber threats" will yield relevant results from vendors like Microsoft, Google, IBM, and specialized security firms.

For Ongoing Learning:

· Reputable Cybersecurity News Outlets: Stay updated on the latest threats and trends by following cybersecurity news websites like Krebs on Security, The Hacker News, SecurityWeek, and Dark Reading.

This list provides a starting point for further exploration. The cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving, so it's important to stay informed through a variety of sources. Remember to critically evaluate the information you find and consider the source's credibility.

Appendix F - The Original Blogs (2010)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The original links are included as is, and I have done no checking to see if they are still live or not. This is the blog the way it was posted in 2010.

Welcome to The Way of Cyber Strategy

Welcome to my small corner of the Internet where I hope to share my experiences and lessons learned in the art of cyber security strategy. I have chosen to blog anonymously so I may be free to express opinions that may be contrary to employers and peers in my industry. In my world of information assurance, I have often pondered why there are so many companies and consultants promoting the latest and greatest in compliance, controls and tools, without any thought of using strategic thinking in the cyber battlefield where my kind live. My musings always seem to go back to a simple book written a long time ago, The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi where the strategy of warfare is laid out in very simple terms.

Samurai history and thought has always been an interest of mine, as well as strategic thinking. Things like USAF Colonel John Boyd's OODA Loop (for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) concept have always fascinated me. I have always applied these strategies and concepts in my day to day work, but very rarely see any text or program that teaches one how to integrate them into current day cyber security efforts.

I previously attended an executive-level conference on cyber security, and the lack of speakers and educational tracks with clear strategic value prompted me to actually start my blog!

In subsequent posts I plan on relating how The Book of Five Rings can be used as Five Keys to Successful Cyber Security Strategy. As events allow I will also post real world examples of the strategy in action (with anonymous sources of course).

Comments, musings and links to other strategic sources are always welcome!

Five Keys to Successful Cyber Security Strategy - Introduction

Google search for the term “cyber security” returns 1.6 million hits. Adding “strategy” to that term reduces the results to around 16,200, with the top result being Obama Administration Outlines Cyber Security Strategy - Security Fix, a Washington Post article. The article is about “Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency, A Report of the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency’. Interesting reading, but as Brian Krebs reported in the Washington Post on December 8, 2008, “The Obama team said it plans to work with industry and academia to "develop and deploy a new generation of secure hardware and software for our critical cyber infrastructure," and "work with the private sector to establish tough new standards for cyber security and physical resilience." They also pledge to help combat cyber espionage and "initiate a grant and training program to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to detect and prosecute cyber crime."

OK. Lots of good information, ideas, tools and how to, but is a compilation of tactical plans such as hardware, software and standards really a “strategy?” At least that is a question that has crossed my mind on more than one occasion.

A strategic thinker looks at a broader picture, a future state and the goals of your organization. A strategic thinker understands the tools or weapons at his disposal. A strategic thinker knows how to employ tactics in accomplishing his strategy. A successful cyber strategist knows how to engage his enemy in battle. A winning strategist understands the Way of his opponent. A true cyber strategist knows that they do not know everything and are willing to learn.

These traits are more fully explained for the Samurai in his Five Books, or Rings; The Ground Book, the Water Book, the Fire Book, the Wind Book and the Book of the Void. His books correlate with my Book of Five Keys. Those keys are Self Knowledge, Agility, Action, Threats, and Process.

The first Key, Self Knowledge relates to Musashi’s Ring, The Ground Book. We will explore that relationship in my next entry.

The Key Of Knowledge (Earth Book)

Musashi identified four Ways in which man passes through life, “as gentlemen, farmers, artisans and merchants.” I liken the tools of my trade to weapons to combat those who seek to combat my system, so the Way of the warrior is the view I take of my profession. According to Musashi, “The Way of the warrior is to master the virtue of his weapons. If a gentleman dislikes strategy he will not appreciate the benefit of weaponry, so must he not have a little taste for this?”

Cyber Strategy is similar in that there are multiple "Ways" or disciplines to learn. In that discipline there may be many tools and processes that are useful, and it is the Strategist's quest to learn these tools to the best of his ability.

Musashi's stated meaning in the Earth book is " I give an overall picture of the art of fighting and my own approach. It is difficult to know the true Way through swordsmanship alone. From large places one knows small places, from the shallows one goes to the depths. Because a straight road is made by leveling the earth and hardening it with gravel, I call the first volume Earth, as if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground."

I equate this book to Knowledge, or being aware of your cyberworld. Primarily there are four areas of knowledge

Situational Awareness
Knowing your environment
Your tools or controls
Security Awareness

Let’s take the first, situational awareness. I like the definition in Wikipedia, " Situational Awareness is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future." In the information assurance world our environmental elements can be viewed as elements of the risk equation. What are the threats against our environment? What our vulnerabilities? What assets are we trying to protect?

There are many schools and thoughts about risk management, so I will not delve into those in this blog. If you, as a budding Cyber Strategist, are new to the world of risk management, or still believe that security drives business, concentrate your situational awareness efforts on learning the way of risk management.

In my next entry, we will discuss how a Cyber Strategist looks at knowing the environment.

The Key Of Knowledge (Earth Book) Part 2

The second area of knowledge in this key is "Knowing your environment." There are many aspects to this knowledge, such as, but not limited to asset classification and network topology. In order to look at the security of your environment in a strategic manner, understanding where and what your most critical assets are is paramount to success. Many times when speaking with peers, I find that asset classification has been placed on a back burner, or the importance is lost in the pressures of fighting fires and politics. And perhaps the fact that a decent classification policy and process can be difficult to develop, implement and maintain. It is imperative you take this task on sooner, rather than later as a decent classification system will allow you to strategically focus on your most valuable systems.

If you find this a daunting task, getting started, I recommend you pick up a book, The Pragmatic CSO by Mike Rothman. An additional resource is ISO IEC 17799 (2000) TRANSLATED INTO PLAIN ENGLISH which gives you a basic plan for classification based on the ISO17799.

Assuming you now know where your critical assets live, your next step is to develop a sound vulnerability management program. What exactly is vulnerability management though? If you do a Google Search it will return hundreds of links with vendor solutions for you. A good starter document is NIST Publication 800-40-Ver2. But in this writer's opinion, patch management is a process that allows us be compliant with policy or regulations, but does not really achieve our goal of securing our systems. In today's world of multiple Zero Day Attacks, patching will not keep us safe.

The strategist needs to know where he is most vulnerable to threats. A vulnerability scanning program is a good place to start, but in environments where staff is already overworked, vulnerability scan reports can go unheeded, or remediation plans un-executed. A seasoned cyber strategist will put in place a pro-active plan for finding vulnerabilities before the bad guys do. This involves scanning web applications and performing penetration testing. The value of discovering vulnerable systems before they are breached can be calculated and used as evidence to management that your program works.

Let's say that through your pro-active penetration testing discover an application that is vulnerable to a SQL Injection which exposes 50,000 records of customer data. Through your investigation, you also show that the first time the data was breached was when your team performed their penetration tests. Using a Ponemon Institute study that places the cost per record to recover from a data breach at $202 per exposed record. You can now demonstrate a cost avoidance of $10.1 million. Metrics like this are valuable tools for the cyber strategist and can be used to justify existing programs or add new ones.

The one challenge to this is that penetration testing is expensive if you hire an outside firm. It is also difficult to find qualified staff in house who have the depth of experience and knowledge to perform successful tests, as well as the bandwidth to perform the tests. There are automated tools available that can mitigate this challenge. One such tool that the cyber strategist uses is Core Impact Pro.

The Key Of Knowledge (Earth Book) Part 3

Given that the state of cyber security is constantly in flux, our ability to understand our environment and the threats against it hinges on the choice of tools we use. Those tools can be as varied as the number of hackers attempting to compromise our assets, so the strategic use of tools will be my focus, with a few examples of the tools I have found to be the most valuable in multiple dimensions.

Just like in a good cyber defense, a layered approach to situational awareness tools as well. Consider all the sources of information about our environment that are available to us, things such as firewall logs, system security logs, application logs, NetFlow, anti-virus logs, patch statistics, and on and on. Use of an automated tool such as a SIEM is critical for the strategist. The automatic collection of disparate data, collation of events and display of trends, alerts and other information is invaluable to seeing the larger security picture of your environment. Understanding what is going on around you, seeing trends, knowing what is happening in your own environment. In my current environment, our SIEM collects over a billion events a month. It provides real time displays of target information, such as SQL Inject attack sources, bot-net activity, anti-virus alter trends and firewall connections. Charting deviation to normal behavior can alert us real-time to a developing attack or incident. Regrettably, due to funding and staff, the volume of information we collect is not being utilized to its fullest extent, but strategically, the real time views are invaluable.

Another tool that is invaluable strategically is automated penetration testing. I have seen and heard various discussions on the value of penetration testing in the enterprise, but my experience has proven it to be extremely valuable on a number of fronts. The first is as a security awareness tool. Performing vulnerability scans on systems, then using the results to effect change can be problematic at best. The number of false positives, the volume of irrelevant vulnerabilities detected, and the nature of the increasing rapidity in which vulnerabilities are announced can cause your system administrators to put any remediation plans (if they even have the time to make one) on their operational back burner. After all, how many times have you given them similar reports and even though remediation was never complete, their systems continued on without a compromise? Although we know it is just a matter of time until it happens, operational issues trump their view of the risk.

Replay the scene with the use of an automated penetration testing tool. Instead of giving them reports that are meaningless to them, use the results of your vulnerability scans to perform the penetration tests. Identify the real vulnerabilities that matter, and demonstrate how easily their systems are compromised will demonstrate how serious the risk can be. Your strategic knowledge of real risk will educate the admins and bring them on board as partners in securing your enterprise.

The cyber strategist can also use the same tool test the enterprises critical assets. Application attacks have been reported to be on the rise since as long ago as 2004 and earlier. Is the application development life-cycle in your enterprise done with security in mind from the very earliest stages? If, like most enterprises, it comes later in the process, your application infrastructure can pose real risk your enterprise. Imagine the strategic value of discovering a vulnerability in your application that exposes customer or confidential data, and being able to show that you were the first to discover it. The value of the cost-avoidance can be used as a marketing tool to justify or expand your security operation.

The Key Of Knowledge (Earth Book) Part 4

Tools to help you understand, to know your environment are a foundation of this Key, but not the only component. The strategic use of knowledge as a tool to combat cyber attacks is critical to your successful defense. Over the years the attack landscape and corresponding security controls have grown in intensity and complexity. It wasn't so long ago that viruses and web defacement were primary concerns, and firewalls and anti-virus software were the leading controls of self-defense. Those days are gone though, with the ever changing nature and craftiness of attacks.

Zero Day Attacks used to be discussed as something coming in the future, but now it seems they come as fast and furious as rain drops in a tropical storm. When the SQL Slammer hit in January 2003, a patch had already been released 6 months earlier. Now, According to IBM's 2008 X-Force midyear report, more than 90 percent of browser-related exploits detected during the first six months of the year have occurred within 24 hours after these vulnerabilities were disclosed.

The nature of threats continues to develop at an amazing pace. The 1Q 2009 IBM Internet Security Systems X-Force Threat Insight Quarterly reports that the increase of Insider Threats, Web Exploits and exploits such as the PDF exploit that can be triggered simply by displaying the icon in a browser or other application.

Industry certifications are also a component of this key. While there may be some disagreement as the value of certifications, or which certifications to hold, from a strategic viewpoint I believe they are invaluable. And there are a number of reasons why I believe this to be true.

The first reason is the intrinsic value that achieving certification brings to the strategist's psyche, the accomplishment of being acknowledged as a knowledgeable person in your field. The investment that you must make in time studying, the dollars for study materials and the cost of the test itself demonstrate your commitment to self-improvement. Plus the fact that many companies simply add certain certifications as requirements to job descriptions, make the value of certification tangible in a financial way to the strategist.

But how can certifications be used strategically in your day-to-day security responsibilities? Should you choose vendor neutral or technology specific certifications? There have been many articles written on those questions, and you may use this as your first exercise in strategic thinking. The first thing you should identify is what skill set is required to perform the function of your current position. If you are currently a security manager, responsible for an organizational program, perhaps the Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) from ISACA or the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) from (ISC)²® would be appropriate, given you have the required experience to qualify for application.

Certifications can also be used as part of your marketing strategy. I have seen on many occasions where part of management culture values educational accomplishments over real world success and expertise, and if you are in such an environment, certifications can go a long way in establishing credibility. Remember, certifications can mean many things to many people, but to the cyber-strategist, they are simply another took in their arsenal of the Key of Knowledge.

The Key Of Knowledge (Earth Book) Part 5

Sharing of knowledge is part of this Key as well. In the industry this is commonly called Security Awareness, but it has been this strategists experience that many of our users are anything but aware. Conventional wisdom dictates that we prepare security awareness training and require our users to complete the course, we hang posters, write and send newsletters, promote security awareness campaigns and hope that the message gets through. And yes, I believe that these are all components to a successful strategy, but are not sufficient in and of themselves. In my environment we do all of those things, with regular updates to keep it fresh and as interesting as possible, but how effective is it really?

In 2009, we saw a significant increase in targeted spear-phishing emails in our enterprise. The goal of the attack was a social engineering attempt to get the user to voluntarily give up their login and password for their email. The number of users who actually fell prey to the attack was extremely small when compared to the enterprise, but the success of the attackers caused the domain to be blacklisted by a number of organizations. The users who gladly sent their passwords and account name off in order to get more in-box storage had all taken and completed the mandatory training, which had a specific module about this very type of attack. Perhaps without the existing training, the number of successfully compromised accounts would have been greater, but that is difficult to quantify. The resulting remediation required a significant amount of effort, but could it have been avoided?

Michael Santarcangelo talks about the difficulty in measuring success of security awareness in his book Into the Breach. He discusses the concept that if there is no adverse effect from and end user violating security practices, then there is no motivation to comply. Perhaps in your organization you have the ability to supply motivation through disciplinary methods, but in the environment where I work, unless there has been some sort of public breach or law violated, corporate discipline is not an available tactic that is available.

So, this begs the question, how does a Security Strategist effectively impart security awareness to the user community? First, don't stop your conventional programs. Although the success metrics may be difficult to measure, I think the programs succeed with a large majority of users. I also believe there are better ways to engage the users in the educational process, methods that clearly demonstrate an adverse effect to the user, that can elicit an emotional response.

There are several methods I have used to engage various communities. The first is the use of a cyber security tabletop exercise, or TTX. Typically these involve security and IT staff, but can include other areas such as management and public relations people. During an exercise participants can experience the results of significant cyber events without affecting the day to day operations of the enterprise. As a veteran player and planner of TTX's, I can tell you that during an exercise, stress and emotions can run high and leave an impression on players, an imprint that will last into their daily operations.

Another method I have found useful is to simulate an event for end users, one that if they fall victim to, will educate them to the potential damage that could have been done. Imagine an end user finding a USB thumb drive, and instead of turning it in, decides to find out what interesting things may be on the drive. When they plug it into their computer, violating policy, they are greeted with a message educating them on the dangers of the action they just performed. The emotion of being caught doing something wrong will insure that user thinks twice before they do something like that again.

There are other methods that may or may not work in your environment, but, the strategist will use the knowledge of their landscape, of their users, their policies, their threats and vulnerabilities and develop security awareness strategies that will impact the users in a positive way, adding another layer of defense in our never ending struggle with those who would compromise our enterprises.

The final part of the Key of Knowledge is Security Awareness. The threat landscape is continually evolving as is the industries response to those threats. According to McAfee Labs 2010 Threat Report "McAfee Labs foresees an increase in threats related to social networking sites, banking security, and botnets, as well as attacks targeting users, businesses, and applications". What I find of particular note is the report is their predictions for 2010 are historical fact in my environment for 2009. Attacks targeting users were the number one source of successful attacks.

The Key of Agility (Water Book)

In the Book of Water Musashi says that water adopts the shape of its receptacle, it is sometimes a trickle and sometimes a wild sea. The book continues with instruction on the use of the sword, spirituality, temperament, attitudes of swordsmanship and balance. When absorbing this book, not merely memorizing it as Musashi says, you lean that balance in all things, and calmness of spirit, and the ability to be agile are critical to the Way. His descriptions of the various methods for the strategic use of the sword in battle. In the world of the cyber strategist, this relates to how we do defend against those attacking our systems, or during our incident response. In his next book, Fire, Musashi takes these principles and applies to the proactive fight, or battle, but like Musashi, the Key Of Agility will focus on defending ourselves.

Musashi talks of the Spiritual Bearing in Strategy, the Stance in Strategy and The Gaze in Strategy. These relate to the cyber strategist in how you have prepared yourself and your enterprise to respond in the time of an attack. When I first assumed the mantle of cyber security leadership in my organization, I analyzed the state of incident response. What I discovered was incident response was better described as incident reaction. When something happened, the reactions were to ask two questions first. Does anyone else know about it? And, do we have to tell anyone else? Then typically, systems were restored and it was business as usual, with no lessons learned, and on occasion not knowing or understanding that the restoration of business did nothing to remove the attacker or threat. This is an example of the lack of a Spiritual Bearing in Strategy. The strategist must develop a process that is based on sound principles.

Holding the Long Sword

End of The Book of 5 Keys

Work halted end of 2010

Appendix G - Actionable Intelligence in Cybersecurity Continuous Monitoring: Bridging the Gap Between Vendor Claims and Operational Reality

1. Introduction: The Ambiguity of "Actionable Intelligence" in Cybersecurity

The term "actionable intelligence" permeates contemporary cybersecurity discourse, serving as a cornerstone concept, particularly for vendors offering threat intelligence platforms and continuous monitoring solutions.1 Its appeal lies in the promise to elevate an organization's security posture from a reactive state, merely responding to incidents after they occur, to a proactive one, capable of anticipating and mitigating threats before they cause harm.1 This proactive stance is deemed essential in the face of an increasingly complex and dynamic threat landscape.20

However, beneath the surface of this ubiquitous term lies a significant tension, often stemming from differing perspectives on what constitutes "actionable." A rigorous definition, frequently influenced by military and intelligence community doctrine, emphasizes the necessity of human analysis, deep contextualization, and the formulation of tailored recommendations before intelligence can truly be considered actionable and support effective decision-making.22 Conversely, cybersecurity vendors, particularly those marketing automated solutions, often imply that their platforms deliver intelligence that is immediately "actionable" upon generation, suggesting that the necessary analytical work has already been completed by the system with minimal need for human intervention.5 This discrepancy centers on the interpretation of "actionable" and the perceived completeness and reliability of the intelligence product delivered by automated systems.

This report aims to dissect this ambiguity and provide clarity on the nuances of "actionable intelligence" within the specific context of cybersecurity continuous monitoring. Its objectives are:

● To define "actionable intelligence" by examining perspectives from the cybersecurity industry (including standards bodies like NIST and analysts like Gartner) and the military/intelligence community.

● To analyze how cybersecurity vendors, especially those offering continuous monitoring solutions, operationalize and market the concept of "actionable intelligence."

● To detail the process involved in transforming raw security data into intelligence suitable for action, with a particular focus on the indispensable role of human analysis and contextualization.

● To compare and contrast the vendor usage of the term with the more stringent military/intelligence definition, highlighting critical differences, especially concerning the human element.

● To explore critiques and discussions within the cybersecurity community regarding the potential overuse or misrepresentation of "actionable intelligence" by vendors.

● To evaluate concrete examples of outputs from vendor tools that are presented as "actionable intelligence."

● To synthesize these findings, clarifying the term's multifaceted nature and addressing the core concern regarding the potential gap between vendor marketing claims and the practical requirements for truly informed action.

The discussion is framed within the context of continuous monitoring, a practice vital for managing security in dynamic IT environments.5 Continuous monitoring systems generate vast quantities of data from logs, network traffic, endpoints, and other sources.1 The promise of automatically transforming this data deluge into timely, actionable insights is therefore particularly compelling for organizations seeking real-time risk management.8 However, this reliance on automation also makes a clear understanding of what constitutes genuinely "actionable" intelligence crucial, as information overload remains a significant challenge.15 Misinterpreting the nature of automated outputs can lead to ineffective security decisions and a false sense of security.

2. Foundational Definitions: What is "Actionable Intelligence"?

Understanding the term "actionable intelligence" requires examining its definition from the perspectives of both the cybersecurity industry, where it is often linked to threat data and vendor solutions, and the military/intelligence community, where it has a longer history tied to operational decision-making.

2.1 The Cybersecurity Perspective: Enabling Informed Decisions

Within cybersecurity, the concept of actionable intelligence is intrinsically linked to Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI). CTI is broadly understood as the collection, processing, and analysis of data concerning threat actors, their motives, targets, and attack methodologies.1 The fundamental purpose of CTI is to transform raw data, often voluminous and noisy, into actionable insights that enable security teams and organizational leaders to make informed, data-driven decisions regarding security posture, risk mitigation, and incident response.1 This transformation aims to shift organizations from merely reacting to attacks to proactively anticipating and defending against them.1

Industry analysts like Gartner define threat intelligence as "evidence-based knowledge... [that] provides context, mechanisms, indicators, and action-oriented advice on both existing and emerging threats".1 This definition underscores that actionable intelligence is more than just data points (indicators); it incorporates context and, crucially, "action-oriented advice," implying a level of interpretation and guidance necessary to direct a response.

Standards bodies like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), particularly in the context of Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems, define a SIEM tool as an application that gathers security data and presents it as "actionable information via a single interface".28 While highlighting the importance of usability and centralized presentation, this definition is less explicit about the depth of analysis or contextualization required for information to be truly considered "actionable intelligence" capable of driving effective decisions. It focuses more on the output format than the analytical rigor behind it.

Cybersecurity vendors and practitioners frequently define actionable threat intelligence as distilled, contextual, and timely data that empowers security teams to identify, prioritize, and mitigate risks effectively.2 Key attributes often cited include being specific to the organization's unique environment (attack surface, vulnerabilities, assets), detailed (covering threat actors, TTPs, IoCs), contextual, and directly enabling action.2 Relevance, timeliness, and accuracy are paramount.3 A primary function is to cut through the "noise" of excessive alerts and raw data, allowing teams to focus on genuine threats.9 This intelligence is intended to support a wide range of security functions, including proactive threat detection, incident response, vulnerability management, risk analysis, and strategic security investments.1

Despite variations in emphasis, a common thread emerges across these cybersecurity definitions: actionable intelligence is fundamentally about supporting better decision-making.1 Whether for a SOC analyst responding to an alert, a vulnerability management team prioritizing patches, or a CISO allocating resources, the intelligence provided should lead to more effective choices. The core ambiguity, however, lies not in this purpose but in the process required to achieve it. Specifically, how much analysis, interpretation, and human judgment are necessary before data or information can confidently support a security decision? Vendor marketing often emphasizes the role of automation in delivering these insights, while other definitions and practitioner discussions highlight the critical role of human analysis, particularly for more complex intelligence types.1 This raises the question of whether the output of many automated systems is truly "actionable intelligence" in the sense of a fully formed recommendation, or rather "actionable information" – a valuable input that still requires significant human cognitive processing to inform a final decision.

2.2 The Military/Intelligence Community Perspective: Enabling Successful Operations

The military and intelligence communities have a long-established concept of actionable intelligence, shaped by the demands of operational planning and execution in complex and often hostile environments. Here, actionable intelligence is defined as providing commanders and soldiers with a "high level of shared situational understanding," delivered with the necessary "speed, accuracy, and timeliness" to enable the planning and conduct of "successful operations."22 The core purpose is to enable commanders to effectively employ their available resources (combat power) to achieve mission objectives, including identifying and targeting adversary vulnerabilities.23

Several criteria are consistently emphasized as essential for intelligence to be considered actionable in this context:

● Timeliness: Information must be current to be relevant in fast-moving operational situations.22 Old intelligence is rarely useful.37

● Accuracy: Decisions must be based on reliable, validated information.22

● Relevance: Intelligence must directly address the commander's critical information needs (often formalized as Priority Intelligence Requirements or PIRs) and be pertinent to the specific operational context.24

● Usability & Completeness: Intelligence must be presented in a format that the recipient can understand and use, providing sufficient detail to support decision-making.38

● Objectivity: Intelligence analysis should strive for unbiased assessment.38

● Discoverability: Relevant intelligence should be accessible to those who need it.38

A key distinction in the military perspective is the tight coupling between intelligence and the decision-maker's needs and the ultimate operational outcome.22 Intelligence is not generated for its own sake but is specifically tailored to answer critical questions (PIRs) that inform the commander's plan and actions.37 It must provide situational understanding, which extends beyond simply identifying a threat to encompass a comprehensive grasp of the operational environment, including adversary capabilities, intentions, disposition, and potentially broader factors like terrain, weather, and socio-cultural dynamics.22

While technology plays a crucial role in collection, processing, and dissemination (e.g., through systems like DCGS-A or integrated sensor networks),22 the human element remains central. Human intelligence (HUMINT) collection is often vital, particularly in asymmetric or counter-insurgency warfare where understanding human networks and intentions is paramount.22 The concept of "Every Soldier is a Sensor" (ES2) further highlights the importance of distributed human observation and reporting.22 Furthermore, human analysts are critical for interpreting collected information, assessing adversary intent, integrating data from multiple sources (all-source intelligence), and providing the nuanced understanding required by commanders.23

From this perspective, intelligence becomes "actionable" when it directly contributes to the commander's ability to make a sound operational decision that increases the likelihood of mission success. It requires a level of analysis and contextualization that provides not just data, but understanding relevant to a specific operational problem. The threshold for actionability is therefore determined by its operational utility – its ability to inform the best course of action within a specific context – rather than merely its technical usability or potential to trigger an automated response. This focus on deep situational understanding and direct support to operational outcomes sets a potentially higher bar for "actionability" than often implied in cybersecurity marketing.

3. From Data to Decision: The Intelligence Transformation Process

The transformation of raw data into actionable intelligence is not an instantaneous event but a structured, cyclical process. Understanding this process, particularly the critical analysis stage and the role of human expertise, is essential for appreciating the nuances of "actionable intelligence."

3.1 The Threat Intelligence Lifecycle in Cybersecurity

The cybersecurity industry generally adopts a model known as the threat intelligence lifecycle, a continuous and iterative process designed to systematically collect, process, analyze, and disseminate intelligence.1 While variations exist, the core stages typically include:1

1. Requirements (or Planning & Direction): This foundational stage involves defining the goals and objectives of the intelligence program. It requires understanding stakeholder needs (from SOC analysts to executives), identifying critical assets and potential attack surfaces, researching potential adversaries and their motivations, and formulating specific questions that intelligence gathering should answer.1 These requirements guide the entire process and ensure that intelligence efforts are aligned with organizational priorities and risk management objectives.27 This stage mirrors the military concept of defining Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs) to focus collection efforts.37

2. Collection: Based on the defined requirements, raw data is gathered from a wide array of sources. These can include internal sources like network traffic logs, SIEM alerts, EDR telemetry, vulnerability scan results, and incident reports, as well as external sources such as public threat feeds, open-source intelligence (OSINT) from news articles, social media, forums, and blogs, dark web monitoring, commercial intelligence services, and information shared through communities like ISACs.1 Human sources may also contribute.1

3. Processing: Raw collected data is often unstructured, redundant, or in disparate formats. This stage involves transforming it into a usable format suitable for analysis. Activities include organizing information, decrypting files, translating languages, standardizing data formats (e.g., into spreadsheets or databases), filtering out irrelevant or duplicate data, and evaluating the reliability and credibility of the sources and information.1 Automation, including AI and machine learning techniques, is frequently employed in this stage to handle large volumes of data efficiently.6

4. Analysis: This is the core stage where processed information is converted into intelligence. Analysts examine the data to identify patterns, trends, and anomalies; correlate information from different sources; assess the capabilities, intentions, and TTPs of threat actors; determine the potential impact of threats on the organization; and ultimately generate actionable insights and recommendations to answer the questions posed in the requirements phase.1 Contextualization is a key activity within analysis.

5. Dissemination: The analyzed intelligence is delivered to the relevant stakeholders in a clear, concise, and understandable format tailored to their specific needs and technical expertise.1 Outputs can range from detailed reports for executives, technical briefings for security teams, real-time alerts pushed to SOC consoles, or intelligence feeds integrated directly into security tools like SIEMs, SOAR platforms, firewalls, or EDR systems.6

6. Feedback: The lifecycle is closed by gathering feedback from the consumers of the intelligence. This input helps evaluate the effectiveness, relevance, and timeliness of the intelligence provided and is used to refine future requirements, collection strategies, analysis techniques, and dissemination methods, ensuring continuous improvement of the process.1

3.2 The Crucial Analysis Stage: Adding Context and Meaning

The analysis stage is where mere data points are imbued with meaning and transformed into intelligence. It moves beyond simple indicators of compromise (IoCs) – such as IP addresses, domain names, file hashes, or registry keys – to provide a deeper understanding of the threat landscape.2 Effective analysis seeks to answer the fundamental questions of who is attacking, what are their capabilities and targets, why are they attacking (motivation), when and where might they strike, and how do they operate (TTPs).1 This involves correlating disparate pieces of information – for example, linking a suspicious IP address (IoC) to a known threat actor group, their documented TTPs, and a currently active campaign targeting the organization's industry.2

Context is the critical ingredient added during analysis.1 Raw data, such as an alert about a vulnerability, lacks context on its own. Analysis provides this context by considering factors such as:

● Threat Actor Context: Understanding the adversary's TTPs, motivations (e.g., financial gain, espionage, disruption), capabilities, infrastructure, and historical targets.1

● Organizational Context: Relating the threat information to the specific organization's environment – its industry sector, geographic location, critical assets, known vulnerabilities, existing security controls, and overall risk posture.2 Analysis of internal data alongside external threat feeds is crucial for creating this "contextual CTI".4

● Impact Context: Assessing the potential business impact if the threat materializes, considering factors like financial loss, operational disruption, reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and data breach consequences.4

● Temporal and Landscape Context: Understanding how a specific threat fits into broader trends, current events, geopolitical situations, and the overall evolving threat landscape.1

A key outcome of applying context during analysis is effective prioritization.3 Security teams face a constant stream of alerts and potential threats but have limited resources.19 Analysis helps prioritize which threats pose the greatest risk based on factors like likelihood of exploitation, potential impact, asset criticality, and relevance to the organization, allowing teams to focus their efforts where they matter most.12

Ultimately, analysis involves interpretation, deduction, and judgment.1 It transforms processed information into actionable insights – conclusions drawn from the evidence – and often includes specific recommendations for mitigation, remediation, or strategic adjustments.1

3.3 The Irreplaceable Role of Human Expertise

While automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning (ML) are increasingly employed in the intelligence lifecycle, particularly for processing vast datasets, correlating known patterns, and automating routine tasks, human expertise remains indispensable, especially in the critical analysis stage.6

Automation excels at speed and scale, efficiently handling known threats and patterns identified through signatures, rules, or algorithms. However, it often falls short when dealing with ambiguity, novelty, and the need for deep contextual understanding. Human analysts are crucial for several reasons:

● Deeper Analysis and Interpretation: For operational intelligence (understanding the 'who, why, how' of specific attacks) and strategic intelligence (high-level threat landscape and risk analysis), human analysis is often explicitly required to convert data into meaningful insights.1 These levels of intelligence typically require interpreting complex situations, understanding adversary motivations, and assessing strategic implications – tasks that demand human cognitive abilities.1

● Handling Novelty and Ambiguity: Humans possess the critical thinking skills needed to analyze novel threats, such as zero-day exploits or new TTPs for which no automated signatures exist. They can work with incomplete or ambiguous information, make inferences, and apply intuition and experience to assess situations that fall outside predefined patterns.1 Understanding adversary intent, which often requires interpreting subtle clues or understanding cultural or geopolitical context, is another area where human judgment is vital.1 Strategic intelligence, in particular, often necessitates human expertise in both cybersecurity and relevant domains like geopolitics.1

● Validation, Curation, and Quality Control: Human analysts play a vital role in validating the outputs of automated systems, filtering out false positives that can overwhelm security teams, and assessing the credibility and reliability of information sources.34 They curate intelligence, ensuring its relevance and tailoring it to the specific needs and understanding of different audiences within the organization.36

● Tailoring Recommendations: Developing nuanced, actionable recommendations that consider the organization's unique technical environment, business context, risk tolerance, resource constraints, and strategic goals typically requires human judgment and expertise.1 Generic recommendations may not be optimal or even feasible for a specific organization.

The military's continued reliance on HUMINT analysts and all-source intelligence professionals underscores the enduring value of human cognition in understanding complex, dynamic, and adversary-driven environments.22 While technology provides powerful tools for data collection and processing, it is the human analyst who often provides the critical layer of interpretation, contextualization, and judgment needed to transform that data into reliable, actionable intelligence suitable for high-stakes decision-making. Automation is adept at processing knowns and matching patterns, but human expertise acts as the essential "context engine," interpreting the significance of information, navigating uncertainty, and tailoring insights for specific decisions and strategic actions, especially those extending beyond simple, immediate technical responses.

4. Vendor Landscape: "Actionable Intelligence" in Continuous Monitoring Tools

The concept of "actionable intelligence" is central to the marketing and value proposition of many cybersecurity vendors, particularly those offering continuous monitoring solutions, threat intelligence platforms (TIPs), SIEMs, and related services. Understanding how these vendors position and deliver on this promise is crucial for practitioners seeking to leverage these tools effectively.

4.1 Marketing vs. Reality: How Vendors Position "Actionable Intelligence"

Cybersecurity vendors consistently emphasize their ability to provide "real-time, actionable intelligence" as a key differentiator.5 Marketing materials frequently highlight attributes such as:

● Speed and Real-Time Delivery: Promising immediate insights into emerging threats, vulnerabilities, or compromises.5

● Automation: Touting the use of AI, machine learning, and automated processes to collect, process, analyze, and deliver intelligence, often implying reduced manual effort for security teams.6

● Noise Reduction: Claiming to filter out irrelevant data and false positives, delivering only high-fidelity, relevant alerts that require attention.5

● Proactive Defense: Positioning their solutions as enabling organizations to move beyond reaction and proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate risks before incidents occur.1

● Integration: Highlighting seamless integration with existing security infrastructure, such as SIEM, SOAR, EDR, and firewalls, to enable automated responses or enrich investigations.6

Within the domain of continuous monitoring, "actionable intelligence" is presented as the crucial output that makes sense of the constant stream of data generated by monitoring tools. Continuous Controls Monitoring (CCM) platforms, for example, aim to provide 24/7 visibility into control effectiveness, risk posture, and compliance status, often promising a "single source of truth" derived from analyzing data across disparate tools.25 These platforms leverage technologies like AI and machine learning to detect anomalies, deviations, coverage gaps, or misconfigurations, presenting these findings as actionable insights for remediation.8

A common theme in vendor marketing is the implication that the platform itself performs the necessary analysis and delivers a finished intelligence product that is ready for action. Language such as "providing real-time, actionable intelligence by continuously monitoring credentials... while instantly mapping affected assets,"5 "delivers real-time, concise, and actionable alerts,"6 or providing "context-specific actionable intelligence (CSAI) to perform... automated attack surface analysis,"26 suggests a high degree of automation in the analysis and interpretation phases. While some descriptions acknowledge that flagged items may require "further investigation,"25 the emphasis is often on the automated delivery of insights deemed "actionable" by the system.

The focus of this marketed "actionable intelligence" is frequently on specific, often technical, outputs. Vendors highlight their ability to detect compromised credentials being sold on the dark web,5 identify exploitable vulnerabilities on the attack surface,8 surface specific IoCs associated with active campaigns,18 detect malware or phishing attempts,9 or identify misconfigurations.26 These are presented as concrete findings that enable immediate defensive actions.

4.2 Evaluating Vendor Outputs: What Do Alerts Typically Provide?

When examining the actual outputs generated by continuous monitoring tools, TIPs, SIEMs, and related platforms that are labeled as "actionable intelligence," a spectrum of information types and analytical depth becomes apparent. Common examples include:

● Indicators of Compromise (IoCs): These are perhaps the most frequent form of output presented as actionable. They consist of technical artifacts associated with malicious activity, such as IP addresses of command-and-control servers, domains hosting phishing sites, file hashes of known malware, or malicious URLs.2 These are often delivered via threat feeds designed for automated ingestion by security tools (firewalls, SIEMs, EDR) to block known threats or trigger alerts.4

● Vulnerability Information: Alerts identifying vulnerabilities (often referenced by CVE numbers) present in an organization's systems or software.3 More advanced platforms may link these vulnerabilities to specific assets identified through scanning or asset management, indicate if the vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild, and provide a risk score or prioritization level based on factors like exploitability, potential impact, or asset criticality.12

● Threat Actor Information: Some platforms provide intelligence on specific threat actors or groups, including their known TTPs, motivations, targeted industries, and associated campaigns or IoCs.1 This is often delivered through reports or profiles within the platform.

● Correlated Alerts: SIEM, XDR (Extended Detection and Response), and TIPs often correlate events from multiple security tools and data sources to identify potential incidents that might be missed when looking at individual alerts in isolation.9 For example, correlating a firewall alert for outbound traffic to a suspicious IP, a SIEM alert for a login from an unusual location, and an EDR alert for data movement from the same endpoint could generate a high-priority incident alert.50

● Specific Threat Alerts: Tools specializing in areas like dark web monitoring, data leak detection, or attack surface management generate alerts for specific events like leaked employee credentials found online,5 sensitive data exposure on misconfigured cloud storage,35 active phishing campaigns targeting the organization,9 or detection of botnet activity.35

● Risk Scores and Prioritization: Many tools assign numerical risk scores to vulnerabilities, assets, or alerts based on various factors, aiming to help security teams prioritize their remediation or investigation efforts.12

The level of analysis and context provided with these outputs varies significantly:

● Low Context: Raw IoC feeds or basic vulnerability alerts often provide minimal context. A list of malicious IPs, for instance, requires significant human effort to determine its relevance to the organization, assess the potential impact, and decide on the appropriate action beyond simple blocking.49

● Medium Context: Outputs become more valuable when enriched with additional context. This includes correlated alerts that link events across different systems,50 alerts enriched with data from threat intelligence feeds (e.g., identifying an IP as belonging to a known ransomware group),9 or vulnerability alerts prioritized based on exploitability data and internal asset criticality.26 An alert showing communication between a critical internal server and an IP address known to be malicious represents a higher level of contextualized information.18

● High Context: The highest level involves detailed analysis and tailored recommendations. This often takes the form of comprehensive reports on threat actors, campaigns, or specific incidents, providing deep insights into TTPs, motivations, potential impact, and specific mitigation strategies relevant to the organization's environment.1 Generating this level of intelligence typically involves significant human analyst effort, either from the vendor's intelligence team or the organization's internal team interpreting lower-level outputs.

Considering this spectrum, much of what vendors label "actionable intelligence," particularly the automated outputs from continuous monitoring systems, aligns more closely with what could be termed technically actionable information or prioritized alerts. These outputs provide a necessary starting point for action – they indicate that something requires attention (e.g., block this IP, patch this CVE, investigate this user activity). They are "actionable" in a technical or tactical sense. However, they often lack the comprehensive analysis, deep organizational context, impact assessment, and tailored strategic recommendations characteristic of the more rigorous military/intelligence definition of actionable intelligence. The "action" enabled is frequently immediate and tactical, rather than strategic and fully considered based on a complete understanding of the situation. This observation aligns with the user's initial query regarding the discrepancy between vendor claims and a definition requiring deeper human analysis to achieve true decision support.

5. Bridging the Gap: Comparing Vendor Usage and Military/Intelligence Doctrine

The differing interpretations of "actionable intelligence" between cybersecurity vendor marketing, particularly in the continuous monitoring space, and the established doctrine of military/intelligence communities lead to significant contrasts in emphasis and expectation. Understanding these differences is key to navigating the term's practical application.

5.1 Key Differences Highlighted

A direct comparison reveals several fundamental points of divergence:

● Emphasis on Human Analysis: This is perhaps the most critical distinction. Military and intelligence doctrine views human analysis, judgment, and interpretation as essential components for developing situational understanding and generating intelligence that can reliably inform command decisions, especially in complex or novel situations.22 While acknowledging the role of technology, the human analyst is central. Vendor marketing, conversely, often emphasizes the power of automation (AI/ML) to process data and deliver insights, sometimes implying that human analysis is minimized, supplementary, or only required for exceptional cases.5 While some vendor literature and more nuanced discussions do acknowledge the necessity of human analysts for certain intelligence types (like operational or strategic CTI),1 the prevailing marketing message often leans heavily on automation delivering the "actionable" output.

● Definition of "Action": The military perspective implies that "action" is taken to achieve a specific operational objective or mission success, based on a comprehensive understanding of the situation.22 The intelligence must inform the best course of action. The vendor perspective, particularly regarding automated alerts from continuous monitoring, often implies more immediate, technical actions: blocking an IP address, patching a vulnerability, isolating a compromised machine, or triggering a SOAR playbook.9 The focus is on enabling a rapid, often tactical, response.

● Depth of Context: Military intelligence strives for deep, holistic situational understanding, incorporating adversary capabilities and intent, the broader operational environment, and potentially political or cultural factors.22 Vendor-provided outputs, especially automated alerts, vary greatly in contextual depth. While some platforms offer enrichment by correlating internal data or external feeds,4 achieving the level of deep organizational or strategic context often requires significant additional human analysis or investment in high-end platforms or services.34

● Output Focus and Audience: Military intelligence products are ultimately geared towards informing a commander's decision-making process.22 Vendor outputs from continuous monitoring tools are frequently designed for consumption by technical security teams (SOC analysts, incident responders, vulnerability managers) or direct integration into automated security systems (SIEM, SOAR, firewalls).28 The format and content reflect this difference – military intelligence might be a detailed assessment or briefing, while vendor output is often an alert, an IoC list, or a vulnerability score.

● Role of Requirements: The military intelligence cycle is strongly driven by the commander's specific, prioritized information needs (PIRs).37 While cybersecurity also emphasizes defining requirements,1 vendor tools might generate alerts based on generic threat signatures, anomaly detection algorithms, or broad threat feeds unless carefully configured, tuned, and potentially augmented with custom rules based on the organization's specific context and priorities.

5.2 Comparative Analysis Table

The following table summarizes the key differences in how "actionable intelligence" is typically framed within the vendor/continuous monitoring context versus the military/intelligence community doctrine:

Attribute

Vendor Perspective (Continuous Monitoring Focus)

Military/Intelligence Perspective

Definition Focus

Enabling rapid detection, prioritization, and technical response to threats, vulnerabilities, or anomalies 5

Enabling successful operations through comprehensive situational understanding and informed command decisions 22

Role of Human Analysis

Often minimized in marketing emphasis on automation; seen as necessary for validation, deeper investigation, or higher-level intelligence1

Central and essential for interpretation, contextualization, assessing intent, handling ambiguity, and tailoring recommendations 22

Primary Output

Alerts, IoCs, vulnerability data, risk scores, correlated events, automated reports 28

Assessments, briefings, tailored reports, answers to PIRs, situational awareness products 22

Implied Action

Immediate technical/tactical response (block, patch, isolate, investigate alert) 9

Strategic or operational decisions and actions aimed at achieving mission success 22

Key Criteria

Timeliness, relevance (often technical), accuracy, automation, integration 3

Timeliness, accuracy, relevance (to PIRs/mission), completeness, usability, objectivity 22

Context Level

Varies; often technically focused (IoC context, vulnerability exploitability); deeper organizational/strategic context may require more effort 34

Deep situational understanding, including adversary intent, capabilities, and broader operational environment 22

5.3 Implications of the Discrepancy for Security Teams

This difference in perspective and definition is not merely academic; it has practical implications for cybersecurity teams utilizing vendor tools:

● Risk of Misunderstanding and Misaligned Expectations: Security teams might procure and implement tools expecting fully analyzed, context-rich intelligence ready for strategic use, based on marketing claims. They may then find the outputs are primarily technical alerts or prioritized data points requiring significant internal effort to interpret and act upon strategically.54 This can lead to frustration and perceived underperformance of the tool.

● Potential for Suboptimal Actions: Acting solely on technically focused alerts without sufficient contextual analysis can lead to inefficient or even counterproductive responses. For example, repeatedly blocking IP addresses associated with a content delivery network (CDN) flagged in a generic feed might disrupt legitimate traffic. Chasing individual alerts might obscure the view of a larger, coordinated attack campaign where a more strategic response is needed.

● Resource Drain and Alert Fatigue: If vendor tools generate a high volume of alerts labeled "actionable" but lacking deep context or prioritization relevant to the specific organization, security analysts can become overwhelmed.19 Investigating numerous low-fidelity alerts consumes valuable analyst time and contributes to alert fatigue, potentially causing critical alerts to be missed.

● Necessity of Internal Processes and Expertise: The gap between vendor-provided "actionable information" and truly "actionable intelligence" highlights the critical need for organizations to invest in their own internal analysis capabilities. This includes establishing clear processes for alert triage, enrichment, investigation, and decision-making, as well as ensuring they have personnel with the necessary skills and time to perform these tasks.34 Relying solely on the tool's output without this internal capacity is insufficient for robust security.

6. Community Perspectives: Critiques of the "Actionable Intelligence" Label

Within the cybersecurity community, the widespread use of the term "actionable intelligence" by vendors has not gone unnoticed or uncriticized. Discussions often revolve around the term's potential for overuse, misrepresentation, and the practical challenges it creates for security practitioners.

6.1 The "Buzzword" Problem: Overuse and Dilution

Similar to terms like "APT" (Advanced Persistent Threat) or "AI-powered," "actionable intelligence" risks becoming a diluted marketing buzzword.36 When nearly every vendor claims to provide it, the term loses its specific meaning and impact. Vendors may leverage the term primarily to make their products or services appear more sophisticated and valuable, potentially exaggerating the level of analysis or immediate usability of their outputs.54

This overuse creates confusion in the marketplace, making it challenging for security professionals to accurately assess and compare different offerings.36 A simple label of "actionable intelligence" provides little insight into the actual nature of the output. Critical questions remain: Actionable for whom? Actionable for what specific purpose? Actionable based on what level of analysis and context?.36 Without clear answers to these questions, the term offers limited practical value in evaluating a solution's true capabilities.

6.2 Risks of Misrepresentation and Over-Reliance

The potentially misleading nature of the term carries tangible risks for organizations:

● Resource Misallocation: If security teams treat all vendor outputs labeled "actionable" as equally important or fully vetted, they risk misallocating critical resources.54 Time might be spent chasing down low-impact alerts or patching vulnerabilities that are theoretically exploitable but not actively targeted against the organization, while more pressing, context-specific threats are overlooked. Prioritization based solely on vendor-supplied scores or labels, without internal validation and contextualization, can be flawed.54

● Alert Fatigue and Noise: The promise of actionable intelligence can sometimes translate into a high volume of alerts that, while perhaps technically accurate, lack sufficient context or relevance to be truly actionable without significant further investigation.19 Vendors may deliver vast feeds of IoCs or vulnerability data, but without effective filtering, prioritization, and contextualization tailored to the client's specific environment, this can simply add to the noise that security teams struggle with.53 Constant notifications about risks that do not directly impact the recipient or require immediate action can lead to desensitization, causing genuine critical alerts to be ignored.52

● False Sense of Security: An over-reliance on automated tools marketed as providing "actionable intelligence" can foster a dangerous sense of complacency.54 Organizations might believe they are adequately protected simply because they have deployed such tools, underestimating the need for ongoing human oversight, critical thinking, and validation.52 Believing a tool has successfully defended against a threat mislabeled as highly sophisticated (e.g., an APT) might lead to an inaccurate assessment of preparedness.54

● Distraction from Foundational Security: An excessive focus on acquiring the latest "actionable intelligence" feeds or platforms might distract organizations from implementing and maintaining fundamental security hygiene practices. Research indicates that attackers frequently exploit older, known vulnerabilities that remain unpatched, sometimes for years.53 Ensuring robust basics like patch management, secure configuration, and access control remains critical, regardless of the sophistication of intelligence inputs.

6.3 The Need for Critical Evaluation

Given these critiques and risks, the cybersecurity community emphasizes the need for practitioners to adopt a critical stance when evaluating vendor claims about "actionable intelligence."36 Instead of accepting the label at face value, security teams should probe deeper:

● What specific analysis does the tool or service perform?

● What level of context (technical, organizational, strategic) is provided with the outputs?

● What specific action(s) does the output directly enable?

● Is human validation, interpretation, or further analysis required before a confident decision can be made?36

● How is the intelligence tailored or prioritized for our specific organization, industry, and risk profile?2

It is essential to understand the limitations of different types of intelligence feeds and tools.53 A generic IoC feed might be useful for automated blocking but provides little strategic insight. A platform excelling at vulnerability prioritization might not offer deep threat actor analysis. Organizations must assess their specific needs and determine what kind of intelligence will provide the most value, recognizing that not every organization requires the same level or type of external intelligence feed.53

Ultimately, while vendors market "actionable intelligence" as a solution that simplifies the security team's burden, the reality is often more complex. The ambiguity surrounding the term, combined with the frequent lack of deep, tailored context in automated outputs, can inadvertently shift the burden of performing the actual intelligence analysis – the contextualization, interpretation, and validation required for strategic decision-making – back onto the consuming organization's security team. The promise of simplification may mask the reality of a continued, significant need for internal analytical effort to transform vendor-provided information into intelligence that is truly actionable in a comprehensive, strategic sense.

7. Synthesis and Conclusion: Navigating "Actionable Intelligence" in Practice

The term "actionable intelligence" in cybersecurity continuous monitoring represents a complex concept with interpretations that vary significantly between vendor marketing and the more rigorous definitions rooted in military and intelligence community practices. Navigating this landscape requires a nuanced understanding of what is being offered versus what is truly needed for effective security decision-making.

7.1 Understanding the Spectrum: From Raw Alerts to True Intelligence

It is clear that "actionable intelligence" exists on a spectrum rather than representing a single, monolithic concept.

● At one end of this spectrum lies technically actionable information. This includes raw or lightly processed data points such as IoCs (IPs, hashes, domains), basic vulnerability alerts, or correlated event logs generated by continuous monitoring systems, SIEMs, or basic threat feeds.34 This information is often "actionable" in the sense that it can trigger an automated response (e.g., blocking an IP via firewall integration, isolating a host via SOAR playbook) or prompt an immediate tactical action by a security analyst (e.g., initiating a patch, starting an investigation). Its primary value lies in speed and enabling rapid, often automated, tactical responses.

● At the other end lies strategically actionable intelligence. This aligns more closely with the military/intelligence community concept.22 It represents deeply analyzed, contextualized information that provides situational understanding, assesses potential impact specific to the organization, considers adversary intent and capabilities, and directly supports informed strategic or complex operational decision-making.1 Generating this level of intelligence typically requires significant human analysis, interpretation, and judgment.

Most outputs from automated continuous monitoring tools and standard threat intelligence feeds fall closer to the "technically actionable information" end of the spectrum. They provide valuable signals and starting points but usually require further human-driven processing, analysis, and contextualization to evolve into true strategic intelligence.

7.2 Addressing the User's Concern: Affirming the Necessity of Human Analysis

The core concern regarding the discrepancy between vendor claims and a more rigorous definition involving human analysis is valid. Achieving high-confidence, strategically actionable intelligence – the kind needed for complex decisions beyond immediate technical blocking or patching – almost invariably necessitates the involvement of skilled human analysts.1

Automation, AI, and ML are undeniably powerful enablers within the intelligence lifecycle.6 They excel at processing vast amounts of data at speed, identifying known patterns, correlating events across diverse sources, and automating repetitive tasks. This significantly enhances the efficiency and scope of intelligence operations. However, current technology generally does not replace the need for human cognition in areas requiring:

● Deep Contextualization: Relating threat data to the unique business operations, risk appetite, and strategic goals of the organization.

● Interpretation of Ambiguity and Novelty: Analyzing incomplete information, understanding adversary intent, assessing new or evolving TTPs, and incorporating geopolitical or cultural nuances.

● Critical Judgment and Validation: Evaluating source credibility, filtering false positives, assessing the true significance of correlated events, and validating automated findings.

● Tailored Recommendation Development: Formulating specific, practical, and prioritized courses of action suited to the organization's specific circumstances.

Therefore, the perspective rooted in military/intelligence doctrine, which emphasizes the centrality of human analysis for achieving actionable situational understanding, remains highly relevant in the cybersecurity domain, particularly for intelligence intended to drive more than just automated technical responses.

7.3 Recommendations for Practitioners

Organizations seeking to effectively leverage continuous monitoring and threat intelligence should adopt a pragmatic approach:

1. Critically Evaluate Tools and Services: Look beyond the "actionable intelligence" label. Assess solutions based on the specific outputs they provide, the level of analysis performed by the tool versus required by the user, the depth of context offered, and the type of action directly enabled.36 Understand the integration capabilities and the requirements for tuning and configuration to maximize relevance.

2. Integrate Human Expertise into Workflows: Design security operations and incident response processes that explicitly incorporate human review, analysis, and validation stages for alerts and intelligence received from automated tools.34 Allocate sufficient time and resources for analysts to perform this critical thinking, rather than solely focusing on clearing alert queues. Foster analytical skills within the team.

3. Define Internal Intelligence Requirements: Establish clear, prioritized intelligence requirements (analogous to military PIRs) based on the organization's specific risk landscape, critical assets, regulatory obligations, and strategic objectives.1 Use these requirements to guide tool selection, configuration, tuning, and the focus of internal analysis efforts.

4. Prioritize Contextualization: Invest in tools and processes that enrich threat data and alerts with relevant organizational context. This includes integrating threat intelligence with asset management, vulnerability data, identity information, and business process understanding to better assess relevance and potential impact.1

5. Actively Manage Alert Volume and Quality: Implement robust alert tuning, correlation rules, and prioritization mechanisms to combat alert fatigue.19 Focus analysts' attention on high-fidelity, context-rich alerts that genuinely warrant investigation, rather than drowning them in low-value noise. Continuously refine rules and thresholds based on feedback and operational experience.

7.4 Final Thoughts: The Human-Machine Partnership

Ultimately, achieving genuinely actionable intelligence in the complex and dynamic field of cybersecurity is not a matter of choosing between automation and human expertise, but of forging an effective human-machine partnership.34 Technology provides the indispensable speed and scale required to collect and process the overwhelming volume of security data and detect known patterns or anomalies. Humans provide the critical thinking, contextual understanding, interpretation of novelty, and strategic judgment necessary to transform that processed data into meaningful insights that drive effective security decisions.

The goal for organizations should be to leverage continuous monitoring tools and threat intelligence platforms not as replacements for human analysts, but as powerful force multipliers that augment their capabilities. By critically evaluating vendor claims, building robust internal processes, and ensuring that technology serves to empower human judgment, organizations can move closer to transforming data overload into the focused, reliable, and truly actionable intelligence needed to navigate the modern threat landscape effectively, aligning practice more closely with the rigorous standard implied by the military and intelligence community definition.

Works cited

1. What is Cyber Threat Intelligence? [Beginner's Guide] | CrowdStrike, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/

2. What is Threat Intelligence? | IBM, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/threat-intelligence

3. Actionable Threat Intelligence - Boosting Attack Surface Management - IONIX, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.ionix.io/blog/actionable-threat-intelligence-for-attack-surface-management/

4. What Is Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI)? - Palo Alto Networks, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-cyberthreat-intelligence-cti

5. BitSight Unveils Identity Intelligence Solution to Detect and Stop Credential-Based Security Threats Before They Strike, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bitsight.com/press-releases/bitsight-unveils-identity-intelligence-solution-detect-and-stop-credential-based

6. Transforming Third-Party Risk Management with AI-Driven Actionable Intelligence, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dataminr.com/resources/insight/transforming-third-party-risk-management-with-ai-driven-actionable-intelligence/

7. Best Security Threat Intelligence Products and Services Reviews 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/security-threat-intelligence-products-and-services

8. What is Continuous Monitoring? - Calyx IT, accessed April 22, 2025, https://calyxit.com/what-is-continuous-monitoring/

9. Actionable Threat Intelligence for Cybersecurity Success - VMRay, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.vmray.com/actionable-threat-intelligence/

10. Honeypots: A Comprehensive Guide to Cybersecurity Decoys - Startup Defense, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.startupdefense.io/blog/honeypots-a-comprehensive-guide-to-cybersecurity-decoys

11. Actionable Threat Intelligence for Cybersecurity - Bitdefender, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/businessinsights/actionable-threat-intelligence-for-cybersecurity

12. Leverage Threat Intelligence For Vendor Risk Insights - Cyble, accessed April 22, 2025, https://cyble.com/knowledge-hub/how-threat-intelligence-improves-third-party-vendor-assessments/

13. FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES STUDY: INFORMATION SECURITY CONTINUOUS MONITORING - The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.thecre.com/fisma/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-Cybersecurity-Best-Practice.ISCM_2.pdf

14. CONTINUOUS DIAGNOSTICS - RedSeal, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.redseal.net/files/Whitepapers/Continuous-Diagnostics-with-RedSeal.pdf

15. How AI Is Transforming Cyber Threat Detection - Dataminr, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dataminr.com/resources/blog/how-ai-is-transforming-cyber-threat-detection/

16. 3 REAL-WORLD CHALLENGES FACING CYBERSECURITY ORGANIZATIONS - Softcat, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.softcat.com/4016/9029/4097/Whitepaper-Tenable-one_3_Real_World_Challenges_Facing_Cybersecurity_Organizations.pdf

17. Threat Intelligence: Complete Guide to Process and Technology - BlueVoyant, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.bluevoyant.com/knowledge-center/threat-intelligence-complete-guide-to-process-and-technology

18. 5 Crucial Use Cases for Threat Intelligence Platforms | Anomali, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.anomali.com/blog/5-crucial-use-cases-for-threat-intelligence-platforms

19. How To Turn Data Into Defense With Actionable Intelligence Feeds - Brandefense, accessed April 22, 2025, https://brandefense.io/blog/drps/how-to-turn-data-into-defense-with-actionable-intelligence-feeds/

20. Report on Cybersecurity Practices - FINRA, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/2015-report-on-cybersecurity-practices.pdf

21. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Actions Needed to Address Significant Cybersecurity Risks Facing the Electric Grid - GAO, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-332.pdf

22. www.ausa.org, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/TBNSR-2005-Actionable-Intelligence.pdf

23. apps.dtic.mil, accessed April 22, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1111492.pdf

24. Actionable Intelligence 1, accessed April 22, 2025, https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p15040coll2/id/5226/download

25. Continuous Controls Monitoring Platform & Solutions | Quod Orbis, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.quodorbis.com/continuous-controls-monitoring/

26. Cyber Security Risk Management Value at Risk (VaR) Assessment | White Paper - letsbloom, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.letsbloom.io/themes/letsbloom/assets/Images/whitepaper-letsbloom-cyber-security-risk-management-VaR-assessment.pdf

27. Key IT Security Metrics: Swiftly Slash Risk Now - Number Analytics, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/key-it-security-metrics-swiftly-slash-risk-now

28. Security information and event management - Wikipedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_information_and_event_management

29. Continuous Monitoring Security Consulting Company - Rogue Logics, accessed April 22, 2025, https://roguelogics.com/services/continuous-monitoring/

30. Threat Landscape: Cybersecurity Leadership Strategies - Cyble, accessed April 22, 2025, https://cyble.com/knowledge-hub/cybersecurity-leadership-threat-landscape/

31. What Is Threat Intelligence Sharing? - Egnyte, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.egnyte.com/guides/file-sharing/threat-intelligence

32. Actionable Intelligence-Oriented Cyber Threat Modeling Framework, accessed April 22, 2025, https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1838&context=hicss-55

33. 5 Key Ways In Which Actionable Threat Intelligence Can Be Used - StickmanCyber, accessed April 22, 2025, https://blogs.stickmancyber.com/cybersecurity-blog/5-ways-leverage-actionable-threat-intelligence

34. What is Actionable Threat Intelligence?, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.threatintelligence.com/blog/actionable-threat-intelligence

35. Real-Life Examples of Successful Threat Intelligence Operations - SOCRadar, accessed April 22, 2025, https://socradar.io/real-life-examples-of-successful-threat-intelligence-operations/

36. What is actionable threat intelligence? : r/cybersecurity - Reddit, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/11am7ny/what_is_actionable_threat_intelligence/

37. Introduction to the Intelligence Cycle, accessed April 22, 2025, https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/miobc/intcyclp.htm

38. AFDP 2-0, Intelligence - Air Force Doctrine, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_2-0/2-0-AFDP-INTELLIGENCE.pdf

39. Raw information vs actionable intelligence - How intelligence ..., accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.intelligencefusion.co.uk/insights/resources/article/raw-information-vs-actionable-intelligence-the-importance-of-human-led-intelligence-collection/

40. Priority Intelligence Requirements: PIR explained - Silobreaker, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.silobreaker.com/glossary/priority-intelligence-requirements-pirs/

41. Intelligence Operations Explained - ECU Online - East Carolina University, accessed April 22, 2025, https://onlineprograms.ecu.edu/blog/intelligence-operations/

42. COIN Operations and Intelligence Collection and Analysis - Army University Press, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/PDF-UA-docs/Zeytoonian-UA-3-UA.pdf

43. Actionable Intelligence 1, accessed April 22, 2025, https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p15040coll2/id/4341/download

44. Humint-Centric Operations Developing Actionable Intelligence in the Urban Counterinsurgency Environment - Army University Press, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/PDF-UA-docs/BakerII-2007-UA.pdf

45. Intelligence Operations - Army G-2 - Department of Defense, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.dami.army.pentagon.mil/offices/dami-cp/guidance/aogs/132_st/part_II.asp

46. What Is The OSINT Framework? - OSINT Tools & Techniques 2024 - Neotas, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.neotas.com/what-is-the-osint-framework/

47. What Are Cyber Threat Intelligence Tools? - Breachsense, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.breachsense.com/blog/cyber-threat-intelligence-tools/

48. Top 7 Threat Intelligence Tools for Improved Cybersecurity - Recorded Future, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.recordedfuture.com/threat-intelligence-101/tools-and-technologies

49. What is a Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP)? - Palo Alto Networks, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-a-threat-intelligence-platform

50. Efficient alert management: Transforming data overload into actionable intelligence, accessed April 22, 2025, https://strangebee.com/blog/efficient-alert-management-transforming-data-overload-into-actionable-intelligence/

51. MBA Insights on Cyber Risk and Vulnerability Testing - Number Analytics, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mba-cyber-risk-vulnerability-testing

52. How to Evaluate Threat Intelligence Providers & Business Solutions - AlertMedia, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/threat-intelligence-business-case/

53. Cybersecurity Blog - GreyNoise Intelligence, accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.greynoise.io/blog?categories=Insights

54. A for APT: Criteria for Classifying Cyber Threats - SOCRadar® Cyber Intelligence Inc., accessed April 22, 2025, https://socradar.io/a-for-apt-criteria-for-classifying-cyber-threats/

55. Risky Business? Cybersecurity Experts Urge Responsible AI Adoption - ComplexDiscovery, accessed April 22, 2025, https://complexdiscovery.com/risky-business-cybersecurity-experts-urge-responsible-ai-adoption/