Why cybersecurity automation is critical for threat response | Very Important Questions

Introduction

The cybersecurity landscape continues to evolve at breakneck speed, with cyber attacks becoming more sophisticated and frequent. For security teams already stretched thin, the traditional manual approach to threat response simply isn’t sustainable. This reality has made cybersecurity automation not just a nice-to-have feature, but an essential component of modern security operations.

In this episode of “Very Important Questions,” Ben Baker sits down with Claire Hogan, Senior Product Manager at Expel, to explore why cybersecurity automation has become critical for threat response, how to build trust in automated systems, and what successful implementation looks like in real-world environments.

From understanding the fundamentals of MDR (Managed Detection and Response) to examining specific auto remediation actions that save countless hours for security teams, this conversation provides practical insights for security leaders evaluating automation strategies.

Understanding the role of automation in MDR services

Ben Baker: Let’s start at the top. What does the R stand for in MDR, and what does good response look like for MDR providers?

Claire Hogan: The R in MDR stands for response – managed detection and response. Actually, a few years ago, there was a difference between little R providers who suggested response actions the customer should take versus big R providers who push the button on behalf of customers. But at this point in the industry, it’s now just table stakes for MDR providers. The level of depth is probably different for each provider for what they’ll do, where they can respond in your environment, or how they’ll do it.

To me, good response from MDR providers comes down to a couple of things: speed, clarity, precision and partnership. You’re gonna want an MDR provider that should be both proactive and reactive in their response, providing both root cause analysis and recommendations to prevent repeat attacks that enable your organization to mature and grow alongside that provider.

The three pillars of cybersecurity automation

Ben Baker: Why is cybersecurity automation becoming such a critical piece of modern threat response?

Claire Hogan: It comes down to three reasons for me. First being speed, second being volume, and the third being consistency and accuracy.

Speed: Outpacing cyber attacks

Cyber attacks move faster than human analysts can. Reducing risk exposure and attacker dwell time is a big piece of the speed that cybersecurity automation can provide to an organization. Automation allows for real-time detection and response before threats can escalate – that’s a huge benefit.

Volume: Managing alert fatigue

You’re able to save time and money and reduce the manual burden of alerts and manual tasks on your team. Security teams are flooded with alerts daily, and so cybersecurity automation can help to triage and prioritize threats and reduce alert fatigue, allowing your humans to focus on what matters most.

Consistency and accuracy: Eliminating human error

Automated systems follow set rules and logic, whereas if you have a human, there is a chance of human error, especially with that alert fatigue piece added in. You’re reducing the chance of human error, ensuring consistent responses across incidents.

Building trust in automated security systems

Ben Baker: How do you build trust in automated actions, especially in high stakes environments where security is serious business?

Claire Hogan: This is a great question because we’ve seen this firsthand with a lot of our customers. There’s a chance that something goes wrong with cybersecurity automation and you have to accept that risk, but how can we take measures to reduce that risk?

On one hand, there’s all these benefits – saving your team tons of time, money, effort, manual burden, and even increased security posture. On the other hand, you want to make sure there’s a limited chance for things to go wrong. I think there are four great ways to do that:

1. Transparency

You want to make sure that your team has visibility into what the automation is doing and why. Clear rule-based logic helps with this, explainable permissions, and decision paths to help build confidence.

2. Keeping a human in the loop

Keeping the decision to automate controlled by humans helps calibrate trust over time. There’s a human that’s triggering that automated action, so it’s not just going to get triggered automatically.

3. Testing

You want to make sure you’re running these in controlled environments to validate their behavior before you’re impacting live systems.

4. Granular controls

You want to make sure your teams are setting thresholds or scopes for automation so it doesn’t feel like a black box.

It’s about finding the balance between the desire for automation and the need for control. Cybersecurity automation is definitely not a one-size-fits-all type of thing.

Expel’s approach to auto remediation actions

Ben Baker: At Expel, we have automations that we call auto remediation actions. What is that?

Claire Hogan: At Expel, auto remediations enable us to automate certain response capabilities within your system so that attacks can be rapidly contained without requiring intervention from you. We use rule-based logic and integrate with third-party vendor tool APIs to enable us to take action in your environment.

However, our analysts create and assign all remediation actions in Workbench. The actions themselves are carried out within your specific vendor technologies. We automate the remediation action itself, but not the decision to remediate.

We know that our analysts are the cybersecurity experts. As they’re investigating an incident or potential incident, we want to make sure that they’re the ones saying “this is the desired action to take in this scenario” because every incident is different. We want to make sure they’re deciding what remediation actions to take, not just automatically tied to certain incidents.

Real-world example: The power of automated process termination

Ben Baker: What’s an example of an auto remediation action that feels small but actually saves a ton of time for customers?

Claire Hogan: A great example is some of the EDR actions – I’ll talk about kill process. Auto kill malicious process might feel small because it’s a lightweight action. No system isolation is involved, no user disruption, and it usually happens within milliseconds after detection.

But it can be pretty impactful:

• It saves time
• It prevents malware from spreading or escalating (think ransomware encrypting files)
• It eliminates the need for manual intervention in every single detection
• It reduces the total number of incidents requiring escalation by cutting them off early

Killing a malicious process using an automated action creates a compounding productivity effect. One process kill might prevent a whole investigation or a full-blown response scenario.

Customization and visibility in automated responses

Ben Baker: What role does visibility or context play in determining how we carry out remediation actions?

Claire Hogan: At Expel, we have a couple of ways that we enable customization. Our analysts make the call on when and what to remediate, but it’s based on the settings that you specify as a customer.

Our customers define what should or should not be automated, and then we test with our customers to make sure those rules are carrying out like they expect them to.

For example, we enable our customers to customize a deny list for each action we provide so that certain files, paths, users, et cetera, are not subject to the actions of remediation. We also enable customers to set device preferences so our analysts know where to apply remediations in different scenarios to work best with your systems.

As always, if an auto remediation isn’t working for you, you can shut it off. Our analysts will still provide remediation guidelines for every single incident that we work for you.

Measuring the impact of cybersecurity automation

Ben Baker: How do you measure the impact of auto remediations on a team’s productivity and burnout?

Claire Hogan: I think you can accurately measure the impact of auto remediations on your team’s productivity or burnout by using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative measures.

Quantitative measures

Mean time to respond or remediate – these values should go down. You can track how cybersecurity automation affects resolution speed over time.

Ticket closure rates – automation can span across both IT teams and security teams. For example, in the case of disabling a user, teams often create an internal ticket that routes to their IT team, who then disables that user account and sends a ticket back to the security team. It can be a big process. You could measure ticket closure rates or even ticket creation rates to see if those numbers are driving down.

Team productivity and output – are we able to see more incidents being worked over a shorter period of time?

Qualitative measures

Perceived workload satisfaction and mental fatigue – check if analyst fatigue has contributed to misses or delayed responses with and without the introduction of cybersecurity automation.

All in all, automation isn’t just a tech upgrade – it’s really an investment in both your people and your security as a company.

Key takeaways for cybersecurity automation implementation

The conversation reveals several critical insights for organizations considering cybersecurity automation:

• Start with clear problem identification before implementing automation solutions
• Balance automation with human control through transparency, testing, and granular controls
• Focus on high-volume, repetitive tasks that create analyst fatigue
• Measure success through both quantitative metrics (response times, ticket volumes) and qualitative indicators (team satisfaction, burnout levels)
• Customize automation to fit your specific environment and risk tolerance
• Remember the human element – automation should augment, not replace, security expertise

The future of cybersecurity automation

As cyber threats continue to evolve and security teams face increasing pressure to do more with less, cybersecurity automation will only become more critical. The key lies in thoughtful implementation that prioritizes both security effectiveness and team wellbeing.

Organizations that successfully implement cybersecurity automation will find themselves better positioned to handle the growing threat landscape while maintaining sustainable security operations. The goal isn’t to eliminate human involvement but to create systems where technology handles routine tasks, allowing security professionals to focus on strategic thinking, complex problem-solving, and the nuanced decision-making that remains uniquely human.

Frequently asked questions about cybersecurity automation

Q: What’s the difference between cybersecurity automation and AI in security?
A: Cybersecurity automation typically follows rule-based logic and predefined workflows, while AI can learn from data patterns and make more dynamic decisions. Both play important roles in modern security operations.

Q: How do I know if my organization is ready for automated remediation?
A: Organizations ready for cybersecurity automation typically have documented security processes, clear incident response procedures, and stakeholder buy-in for automated actions. Start with low-risk, high-volume tasks.

Q: What are the biggest risks of cybersecurity automation?
A: The primary risks include false positives leading to unnecessary actions, over-reliance on automation without human oversight, and potential disruption if automation logic is flawed. Proper testing and human oversight mitigate these risks.

Q: Can small security teams benefit from cybersecurity automation?
A: Absolutely. Small teams often benefit most from automation as it allows them to handle larger workloads without adding headcount. Focus on automating repetitive tasks that consume significant analyst time.

External resources for cybersecurity automation

• NIST Cybersecurity Framework for automation governance
• MITRE ATT&CK Framework for understanding threats that automation can address
• CISA Cybersecurity Performance Goals including automation recommendations

This transcript has been edited for clarity and readability. The cybersecurity automation strategies and insights discussed are based on real-world experience and industry implementation. Organizations should adapt approaches to their individual needs, risk tolerance, and technical capabilities.

For more cybersecurity automation insights and security operations resources, visit expel.com/blog or follow our LinkedIn page for updates on security trends and best practices.