Managed Detection & Response (MDR)

Events

Views Navigation

Event Views Navigation

Today

    • Your SOC Has a Retention Problem. Your Tooling Might Be the Cause.

    Seventy percent of SOC analysts with five years or less of experience leave within three years. The typical explanation is burnout from an overwhelming threat landscape. The less comfortable explanation is that the tools meant to help analysts are making their jobs worse. Fragmented workflows, constant context-switching across disconnected platforms, and thousands of daily alerts with no actionable context are turning what should be a high-impact career into a repetitive grind. When analysts spend more time wrangling dashboards than investigating threats, the best ones leave.

    The retention problem is not just a staffing issue. It is an operational risk. Every departure takes institutional knowledge with it, increases the load on remaining team members, and widens the window for missed detections. Organizations that want to keep experienced analysts need to redesign how SOC work gets done, starting with how detection, investigation, automation, and analyst experience are delivered across the stack.

    Addressing this challenge requires coordination across SIEM, XDR, SOAR, MDR, and security analytics platforms to reduce friction, improve context, and make investigations more actionable.

    Topics include:

    • How fragmented tooling and manual workflows contribute to analyst turnover
    • Reducing cognitive load through unified investigation and automated triage
    • Building a SOC environment that retains talent by making the work sustainable

    Join us to explore how rethinking SOC tooling and workflows can address the retention crisis at its source.

    Topics:
    , , , , , , ,

    AI in the SOC: Separating the Tools That Actually Work From the Ones That Add More Noise

    Every security vendor now claims AI capabilities. For SOC teams already processing thousands of alerts per day, the promise is appealing: automated triage, intelligent prioritization, faster investigations. The reality is more complicated. Poorly implemented AI can generate its own layer of noise, create false confidence in automated decisions, and introduce opaque reasoning that analysts cannot validate or trust.

    The SOC teams seeing real results from AI are the ones asking the right questions before deploying it. They are auditing data quality first, defining what “automated” should and should not mean for their environment, and measuring whether AI is reducing time-to-resolution or just shifting where analysts spend their time.

    Getting this right requires alignment across detection, triage, investigation, and automation layers of the SOC – from SIEM and XDR to SOAR, MDR, and AI-driven analytics platforms.

    Topics include:

    • Evaluating AI-driven SOC tools based on measurable outcomes, not vendor claims
    • Addressing data quality and pipeline readiness before deploying AI-powered detection
    • Defining the right division of labor between automated triage and human investigation

    Join us for an honest look at where AI is delivering real value in security operations and where it is falling short.

    Topics:
    , , , , , , ,

    • Your Security Team Is Five People. The Threat Landscape Doesn't Care. What Managed Services Actually Solve.

    Most SOCs consist of two to ten full-time analysts. That number has not changed since the SANS Institute started tracking it in 2017. What has changed is the scope of coverage: cloud environments, SaaS platforms, remote endpoints, OT networks, and now AI workloads. The attack surface grew by orders of magnitude while headcount stayed flat. For mid-market and resource-constrained organizations, the math stopped working years ago.

    Managed security services are no longer a concession. They are an architectural decision. The question has shifted from "can we afford outside help?" to "can we afford not to extend coverage into the environments we currently cannot see?" Addressing this requires evaluating options across MDR, MSSP, XDR, and platform-driven co-managed models to find the right fit for each organization's risk profile and operational maturity. The organizations making managed services work are the ones that define clear boundaries: what stays internal, what gets co-managed, and what gets fully outsourced, while retaining control over incident response decisions and strategic direction.

    Topics include:

    • Defining which security functions to keep in-house, co-manage, or fully outsource
    • Extending detection and response coverage into cloud, SaaS, and hybrid environments with lean teams
    • Evaluating managed service providers based on transparency, integration, and measurable outcomes

    Learn how resource-constrained security teams are extending their coverage and capabilities through managed services without giving up control.

    Topics:
    , , , , , ,

    Context Lives in Five Different Tools. That's Why Your Incident Response Takes Hours Instead of Minutes.

    The average enterprise deploys 28 security monitoring tools. Each one generates its own alert stream, uses its own console, and stores context in its own format. When an incident occurs, analysts do not start by investigating. They start by assembling. They pull logs from the SIEM, check the EDR console, cross-reference the firewall, open the ticketing system, and manually piece together a timeline. This context-switching burns time, introduces errors, and extends incident response from minutes to hours. The tools designed to improve security are, in practice, fragmenting the information analysts need most.

    The organizations with the fastest response times are not necessarily using better tools. They are using fewer consoles, shared context, and automated enrichment that presents a unified investigation surface. Addressing this requires coordination across SIEM, XDR, SOAR, MDR, security analytics, and data enrichment platforms to collapse the distance between alert and decision. When an alert arrives pre-correlated with asset data, user context, threat intelligence, and historical activity, analysts skip the assembly phase and go straight to decision-making. That is the difference between a 15-minute investigation and a three-hour one.

    Topics include:

    • Reducing context-switching by consolidating investigation workflows across security tools
    • Automating alert enrichment with asset, identity, and threat intelligence context at the point of triage
    • Building incident response workflows that prioritize speed-to-decision over tool-by-tool investigation

    Learn how SOC teams are cutting investigation time by unifying the context that is currently scattered across their security stack.

    Topics:
    , , , , , ,