The ever-growing complexity and frequency of cyberattacks have forced organizations to rethink their strategies for managing security incidents. A well-developed and efficiently executed incident response plan (IRP) is crucial to mitigating damage, reducing recovery time, and safeguarding sensitive information. Traditionally, IRPs have relied on human intervention, which can lead to delays, errors, and inconsistencies, especially when faced with a high volume of incidents. However, with advancements in technology, automation is becoming an integral part of the development and execution of IRPs, transforming how organizations respond to cyberthreats.1
There is much to be gained from exploring how automation enhances the development and execution of IRPs, comparing it to traditional approaches, and providing insights into the future of automated incident response systems.
Developing an IRP: Key Components
A well-structured IRP is the foundation of any cybersecurity strategy. Its development involves outlining clear procedures and guidelines for detecting, responding to, and recovering from security incidents. The primary components of an IRP include:
- Preparation and development—Ensuring that the organization is ready to respond to incidents by establishing communication channels, assigning roles, and providing training
- Detection and identification—Detecting and identifying incidents as early as possible
- Containment—Limiting the spread of the incident to minimize damage
- Eradication and remediation—Removing the root cause of the incident
- Recovery and validation—Restoring normal operations and validating the integrity of systems
- Post-incident review and continuous improvement—Conducting a thorough review of the incident and the response process to identify areas for improvement
Each of these components plays a vital role in the overall effectiveness of an IRP. In a traditional, manual system, these phases rely heavily on human input, but with automation, organizations can streamline and enhance each step of the process.
Automation plays a transformative role in developing and executing IRPs.2 While traditional methods require extensive human intervention, automated systems can handle many of the repetitive and time-sensitive tasks involved in incident response, allowing security teams to focus on more complex issues.3
Preparation and Development
Automation can enhance the development of IRPs by providing security teams with tools to simulate various attack scenarios and test the organization’s response capabilities. Automated tools such as security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) platforms allow organizations to build and test incident response playbooks, ensuring that predefined workflows are in place for different types of incidents. These platforms can also monitor system configurations, patch management, and user activity, ensuring that the organization is always in a state of readiness.4
In traditional systems, preparation involves manual processes such as configuring firewalls, setting up security information and event management (SIEM) systems, and manually updating response procedures as new threats emerge. However, automated tools can continuously monitor the organization’s security environment, ensuring that it is always aligned with the latest best practices.
Organizations also often rely on third-party platforms and applications to augment business operations. These external services can introduce additional risk that is not directly managed by the organization’s security team. Therefore, it is important to include third-party risk assessment and management as part of the preparation phase of the IRP. Establishing communication protocols such as pre-agreed response plans enables an organization to respond swiftly to incidents that originate from or affect these platforms.
Detection and Identification
Detecting potential incidents is often one of the most challenging aspects of incident response. In a manual process, security teams rely on a combination of user reports, logs, and alerts from SIEM systems. These alerts often need to be manually reviewed, which can lead to delays in identifying genuine threats.
Automated systems, on the other hand, use machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to continuously monitor network traffic, user behavior, and system activity in real time.5 These systems can detect anomalies that may indicate a security incident, such as unusual login attempts, unexpected data transfers, or malicious file uploads. Once a potential threat is detected, automated systems can immediately trigger predefined response actions, reducing the time it takes to identify and respond to incidents.
For example, in the case of a brute-force attack, an automated system could detect multiple failed login attempts within seconds, lock the targeted account, and notify the security team. In a manual system, this same process might take hours, during which the attacker could potentially gain access to the network.
To effectively implement automation, organizations should ensure that critical applications and services are integrated into an SIEM tool. As an SIEM tool aggregates security logs and events, it provides the data necessary for automated systems to monitor and analyze with greater context. Without this integration, automated systems may lack the visibility required to detect and respond to threats accurately.
Containment
Containment is a critical phase in the execution of an IRP, as it aims to limit the damage caused by a security incident. Traditional approaches to containment involve human analysts manually disconnecting affected devices from the network, blocking malicious IP addresses, or disabling compromised user accounts. This process can be slow, especially in large organizations with complex networks.
Automated systems, however, can initiate containment actions immediately upon detecting a threat. For example, if an automated system detects malware on a device, it can automatically quarantine the infected machine, block the malware’s command-and-control (C2) servers, and prevent lateral movement within the network. By automating the containment process, organizations can significantly reduce the time it takes to isolate threats and minimize damage.
While automated containment actions can rapidly mitigate threats, they may also disrupt business operations. It is therefore crucial to balance automated security response actions with the organization’s need for continuity. Implementing a risk-based approach allows an automated system to evaluate the potential impact on production systems and execute appropriate actions accordingly. For business-critical systems, organizations can also consider involving a human in the loop by ending the automation process with a prompt for an analyst to decide on the best course of action, minimizing the risk of impacting business operations.
Eradication and Remediation
Once an incident has been contained, the next step is to remove the root cause of the incident and restore affected systems. In manual incident response, this often involves security teams manually identifying the source of the threat, removing malware, and applying patches to vulnerable systems. This process can be time-consuming and error-prone, especially if security teams are dealing with multiple incidents simultaneously.
Automated incident response systems can streamline the eradication and remediation process by deploying patches, removing malicious software, and restoring systems from clean backups. For example, if a system vulnerability were exploited in an attack, an automated system could immediately deploy patches across all affected systems, ensuring that the vulnerability is closed, and the risk of future exploitation is minimized.
While automated incident response systems can streamline the eradication and remediation process, it is important to recognize that full automation of these tasks can introduce new challenges. For example, an automated response may include rebuilding an affected machine and reintegrating it into production without human intervention. This level of automation requires seamless coordination and integration between various tools and systems, and careful planning is required to prevent operational disruptions or data loss.
Implementing such advanced automated response also necessitates a high level of maturity within an organization’s security operations center (SOC). The SOC Maturity Model6 assesses an organization’s readiness based on factors such as established processes, skilled personnel, and integrated technologies. Organizations with a less mature SOC may lack the necessary controls and oversight mechanisms, increasing the risk of automated processes causing unintended consequences.
Therefore, it is important to incorporate human oversight and governance into automated eradication and remediation processes, especially for actions that may significantly impact business operations. By starting with automating routine tasks and gradually progressing to more complex operations as the SOC matures, organizations can minimize risk while reaping the benefits of automation.
Recovery and Validation
The recovery phase involves restoring normal operations and ensuring that systems are secure. In traditional incident response, this phase often requires manual intervention to validate that the systems are clean and free from any remaining threats. Automated systems, however, can expedite the recovery process by running automated validation checks, scanning systems for signs of compromise, and ensuring that all patches have been successfully applied.
For example, after a ransomware attack, an automated system could verify that all encrypted files have been restored from backups and that the ransomware has been completely removed from the network. By automating these tasks, organizations can reduce downtime and ensure that their systems are fully restored to normal operation.
Post-Incident Review and Continuous Improvement
One of the most important, yet often overlooked, aspects of incident response is the post-incident review. This phase involves analyzing how the incident occurred, how effectively it was managed, and what can be done to improve future response efforts. In traditional systems, this process can be time-consuming and relies heavily on manual reports generated by security teams.
Automated systems, however, can generate detailed reports on each incident, including information about how the threat was detected, the actions taken during containment and remediation, and the overall effectiveness of the response. These reports can be used to update incident response playbooks, ensuring that the organization is better prepared for future incidents.
Comparing Automated and Manual Incident Response
While both automated and manual incident response approaches aim to detect, respond to, and mitigate security incidents, they differ significantly in their execution and effectiveness. Key comparisons include the speed and effectiveness of a response, the accuracy and consistency of the process, the scalability of enterprise growth and incident response, and the cost efficiency of the endeavor.
Speed and Efficiency
Speed is one of the most significant advantages offered by automated incident response. Automated systems can detect, analyze, and respond to threats in real time,7
whereas manual processes often involve delays as security teams review logs, investigate anomalies, and make decisions. In a manual system, it can take hours or even days to fully respond to a security incident, during which the attacker may have already caused considerable damage.
In contrast, automated systems can initiate containment actions within seconds, allowing organizations to limit the damage and reduce recovery time. For example, an automated system can detect a malware infection, isolate the affected device, and block communication with the malware’s control server, all within minutes.
Accuracy and Consistency
Automated systems also offer greater accuracy and consistency than manual processes. Human analysts are prone to fatigue, error, and biases, which can result in missed alerts or delayed responses. Automated systems, on the other hand, follow predefined rules and algorithms, ensuring that responses are consistent and free from human error.
In the detection and triage phase, for instance, automated systems can filter out false positives and prioritize genuine threats, allowing security teams to focus on the most critical incidents. This reduces the likelihood of alert fatigue.
Scalability
As organizations grow and their networks become more complex, the volume of security alerts increases.8
Manual incident response processes struggle to scale with this growth, as they rely on human analysts who can only manage a limited number of incidents at a time. In contrast, automated systems are highly scalable and can process large volumes of data simultaneously, detecting and responding to multiple incidents in real time.
For large enterprises, automation is essential to managing the sheer volume of incidents that occur daily. Automated systems can manage repetitive tasks, such as detecting anomalies and isolating compromised devices, allowing security teams to focus on more complex incidents.
Cost Efficiency
Although automated incident response systems require an upfront investment in technology and infrastructure, they offer significant long-term cost savings. By reducing the time it takes to detect and respond to incidents, automation helps minimize the financial impact of data breaches, downtime, and regulatory penalties. Additionally, automation reduces the need for a large security team to manage day-to-day monitoring and incident response tasks.
In contrast, manual processes often require larger teams of analysts and ongoing investment in tools and training. Over time, the costs associated with manual processes can outweigh the initial investment in automation, making automated systems a more cost-effective solution for many organizations.
Challenges of Implementing Automated Incident Response
While automated incident response offers many benefits, there are challenges that organizations must consider when implementing these systems. These challenges include integration with legacy systems, initial setup and configuration, balancing automation and the human element, and cost and resource allocation.
Integration With Legacy Systems
Many organizations, particularly those with older infrastructures, rely on legacy systems that may not response tools. Retrofitting these systems can be complex and costly. Often, legacy systems lack the compatibility necessary for automated workflows, and in such cases, organizations may need to invest in updating or replacing these systems. This process can require significant time and resources. easily integrate with modern automated incident response tools. Retrofitting these systems can be
complex and costly. Often, legacy systems lack the
compatibility necessary for automated workflows,
and in such cases, organizations may need to invest
in updating or replacing these systems. This process
can require significant time and resources.
Initial Setup and Configuration
Setting up an automated incident response system requires substantial effort. Organizations must define and document their incident response workflows and ensure that their security tools—such as SIEM systems, firewalls, and endpoint detection tools—are properly integrated with the automation platform. Additionally, security teams must configure predefined rules for detecting threats and executing containment actions. This initial setup phase can be complex, especially for organizations without mature SOCs.
Balancing Automation With Human Oversight
While automation is highly effective at handling routine tasks, complex incidents still require human oversight. Automated systems can efficiently detect, analyze, and contain most threats, but they lack the contextual understanding necessary for making strategic decisions. For instance, a large-scale data breach may require decisions related to legal, regulatory, or reputational concerns—tasks that only human analysts can handle.
Cost and Resource Allocation
Automated incident response systems can involve significant upfront costs, particularly for small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These costs include purchasing the necessary automation tools, integrating them with existing systems, and training staff to manage the automated processes. However, the long-term benefits of reduced response times, minimized financial losses from breaches, and lower staffing requirements often outweigh these initial expenses.
The Future of Automated Incident Response
The future of incident response is increasingly centered around automation. Several key trends are emerging that will shape the development and execution of IRPs in the coming years.
AI-Driven Predictive Analytics
As AI and ML technologies continue to evolve, they are expected to play a larger role in predictive analytics for cybersecurity. By analyzing historical data and identifying patterns, AI-driven systems can predict potential security threats before they occur. This proactive approach will allow organizations to prevent incidents before they escalate into full-scale breaches.
Autonomous Security Operations
Autonomous security operations, with AI-powered systems that manage entire SOCs, are becoming more feasible. These systems will not only detect and respond to incidents but also manage tasks such as threat hunting, vulnerability management, and policy enforcement. While human oversight will still be necessary, autonomous systems9
will reduce the burden on security teams and allow them to focus on higher-level strategic initiatives.
Integration With Cloud and IoT Environments
As organizations migrate their data and applications to the cloud and adopt Internet of Things (IoT) devices, automated incident response systems must evolve to protect these environments. Cloud-based automation platforms are already emerging, offering real-time monitoring and protection for cloud workloads and IoT devices. These platforms can automatically detect misconfigurations, unauthorized access, and other threats, helping organizations secure their expanding digital ecosystems.
Meanwhile, however, the complexity of managing security incidents is increasing. Automated incident response systems must evolve to not only detect and mitigate threats but also integrate with operational tools such as ticketing and workflow management systems. Modern automation platforms can automatically generate incident tickets in response to alerts. Incorporating automated ticketing functionalities ensures that all actions taken are documented in real time. Change logs are automatically updated, providing a clear audit trail of the changes being made.
Conclusion
The development and execution of IRPs are critical components of an organization’s cybersecurity strategy. With the increasing complexity and frequency of cyberthreats, manual incident response processes are no longer sufficient. Automated incident response systems offer a faster, more efficient, and scalable approach to detecting, containing, and mitigating security incidents. By integrating automation into their IRPs, organizations can reduce response times, minimize the impact of breaches, and improve their overall security posture.
However, the implementation of automated systems comes with challenges, including integration with legacy systems, initial setup complexity, and the need to balance automation with human oversight. Despite these challenges, the long-term benefits of automation make it an essential tool for modern incident response. The future of incident response will become more reliant on automation as AI and ML technologies continue to mature. Organizations that embrace these technologies will be better equipped to defend against the ever-growing array of cyberthreats, ensuring the security of their networks and the integrity of their data.
The future of incident response will become more reliant on automation as AI and ML technologies continue to mature. Organizations that embrace these technologies will be better equipped to defend against the ever-growing array of cyberthreats, ensuring the security of their networks and the integrity of their data.
Endnotes
1 Bruce, J.; “The Role of Automation in Incident Response” IT Security Guru, 10 December 2015
2 Heimdal, “Automated Incident Response: What You Need to Know,” Heimdal Security Blog, 17 July 2024
3 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-37 Rev. 2, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy, USA December 2018
4 NIST, NIST SP 800-128, Guide for Security-Focused Configuration Management of Information Systems, USA, August 2011
5 Uzoma, J.; Falana, O.; et al.; “Using Artificial Intelligence For Automated Incidence Response In Cybersecurity,” ResearchGate, 2023
6 SOC-CMM, “SOC-CMM Introduction”
7 Tonhauser, M.; Ristvej, J.; “Cybersecurity Automation in Countering Cyberattacks,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 74, 2023, p. 1360-1365
8 Tilbury, J.; Flowerday, S.; “Humans and Automation: Augmenting Security Operation Centers,” Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, vol. 4, iss. 3, 2024, p. 388-409
9 NIST, NIST SP 800-39, Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View, USA, March 2011
EUGENE LEOW | CISA, CISM, CRISC, CGEIT, CDPSE, CCSP, CFE, CISSP, CSX-P, GCFR, GCIH, ISSMP, ITIL V3
Is a director at a cybersecurity service provider in Singapore. He has more than 15 years of experience in security operations, incident response, and incident management. He regularly contributes to the cybersecurity profession by developing exam questions and reviewing training materials for ISACA® and ISC2.