| Summary: | In this work, we focus on the prevalence of False Positive (FP) alarms produced by security tools, and Security Operation Centers (SOCs) practitioners' perception of their quality. In an online survey we conducted with security practitioners (n = 20) working in SOCs, practitioners confirmed the high FP rates of the tools used, requiring manual validation. With these findings in mind, we conducted a broader, discovery-orientated, qualitative investigation with security practitioners (n = 21) of the limitations of security tools, particularly their alarms' quality and validity. Our results highlight that, despite the perceived volume of FPs, most are attributed to benign triggers---true alarms, explained by legitimate behavior in the organization's environment, which analysts may choose to ignore. To properly evaluate security tools' adequacy and performance, it is critical that vendors and researchers are able make such distinctions between types of FP. Alarm validation is a tedious task that can cause alarm burnout and eventually desensitization. Therefore, we investigated the process of alarm validation in SOCs, identifying factors that may influence the outcome of this process. To improve security alarm quality, we elicit five properties (Reliable, Explainable, Analytical, Contextual, Transferable) required to foster effective and quick validation of alarms. Incorporating these requirements in future tools will not only reduce alarm burnout but improve SOC analysts' decision-making process by generating interpretable and meaningful alarms that enable prompt reaction.
|
|---|