Certified: The GIAC GSOM Audio Course

In this episode, we step away from the idea that security work only begins after an alarm goes off, and we start building the mindset of proactive detection and analysis. Many beginners assume a Security Operations Center (S O C) exists to wait for alerts, confirm what happened, and then respond, but mature operations do more than react. They look for signs of harm before those signs become major incidents, and they design the environment so attackers have a harder time staying hidden. That proactive approach is usually discussed through two related ideas, which are threat hunting and active defense. Threat hunting is a disciplined search for evidence of malicious activity that may not have triggered an alert, and active defense is the set of choices that increase visibility and create friction for attackers while staying within normal operational boundaries. The fundamental goal of both is the same: reduce the time an attacker can remain unnoticed and reduce the freedom they have to move around.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

To understand proactive detection, it helps to first understand why reactive alerting alone is not enough, especially for a beginner’s mental model of how attacks unfold. Alerts are based on what you know how to detect today, and they depend on data that is collected correctly and analyzed in a way that highlights suspicious patterns. Attackers try to avoid those patterns, and even when they fail, the environment can still miss signals because logging is incomplete, correlations are weak, or the noise level is high. Some malicious activity looks almost identical to normal activity, especially when it uses valid credentials, common tools, or routine network paths. This means an organization can have plenty of security products and still have gaps that allow quiet compromise. Proactive detection is how you reduce dependence on perfect alerting by intentionally searching for what might be hiding in those gaps. When you accept that no alerting system is complete, threat hunting becomes a logical extension of responsible operations rather than an optional extra.

Threat hunting, at a fundamental level, is an evidence-driven investigation that starts without a confirmed incident. Instead of waiting for an alarm, you begin with a reasoned suspicion that a certain class of attacker behavior could exist in your environment, and you look for traces that would confirm or deny that suspicion. The word hunting can sound dramatic, but the practice is closer to methodical auditing with a security mindset. You define what you are looking for, what data would show it, and what normal behavior looks like so you can distinguish unusual patterns. A hunt is successful even when it finds nothing malicious, because it can still validate that controls are working and that visibility is adequate for that hypothesis. Another important beginner point is that hunting is not random searching through logs; it is structured, repeatable, and designed to produce defensible conclusions. When done well, it strengthens detection by revealing blind spots and by producing new signals that can later be turned into alerts.

A core concept in threat hunting is the difference between an alert and a hypothesis, because hunters do not start with an alert, they start with a question. A hunting hypothesis is a statement about possible attacker behavior that is specific enough to guide what data you query and what patterns you seek. For example, a hypothesis might focus on unusual use of administrative privileges, suspicious patterns in authentication, or unexpected connections between systems that normally do not communicate. The hypothesis is not a guess you hope is true, and it is not a story you want to prove, because that creates bias. Instead, it is a structured claim you attempt to validate or disprove by gathering high-value evidence and reconciling it against a timeline or expected behavior. This is why hunting fits naturally with incident investigation skills, because both rely on evidence, timelines, and the discipline of testing ideas. For a beginner, it is useful to think of hunting as practicing investigation skills before an emergency, so you build muscle memory in a calmer context. That practice is valuable because it improves response speed later when stress is high.

Another foundational idea is that proactive detection depends on visibility, and visibility depends on data quality and coverage. You cannot hunt for what you cannot observe, so the most basic hunting question is whether your environment produces the signals that would reveal the behavior you care about. That includes whether authentication activity is recorded, whether key system events are captured, whether network communication can be summarized, and whether changes to critical configurations are visible. In many environments, the challenge is not the lack of data, but the lack of consistent, reliable data across the assets that matter most. Proactive analysis often begins by identifying where visibility is weakest, such as older systems, specialized devices, or important services with limited logging. From there, a proactive program seeks to improve the collection and normalization of signals so that hunts are meaningful rather than speculative. This is an important connection, because threat hunting is not just a search activity, it is also a driver of better telemetry. When hunts reveal you cannot answer basic questions due to missing data, that becomes a concrete justification for improving monitoring and logging.

Active defense is closely related but slightly different in purpose, because it is about shaping the environment to make attackers easier to detect and harder to operate. Active defense does not mean hacking back or retaliating against attackers, which is a common misconception among beginners. Instead, it means actions inside your own environment that increase visibility, reduce attacker stealth, and slow down attacker movement. For example, you might improve how credentials are protected and monitored, ensure privileged actions are more visible, or reduce unnecessary pathways between systems so unusual movement stands out. Active defense also includes designing processes so high-risk actions require more scrutiny, making it harder for an attacker to blend into routine work. The key is that active defense is proactive by design, because you are not only looking for threats, you are changing conditions so threats are less likely to succeed quietly. When you think of active defense as increasing attacker friction and improving detection surface, the term becomes much more concrete and less dramatic.

A helpful way to connect threat hunting and active defense is to see them as two halves of a learning loop. Threat hunting asks what might be happening and tests that question against evidence, which reveals what you can detect and what you cannot. Active defense takes what you learned and changes the environment so that future hunts and future detections become easier and more reliable. For example, if a hunt shows that certain kinds of access activity are hard to distinguish from normal behavior, active defense might involve tightening privileges or adding monitoring that makes those actions clearer. If a hunt shows that a key system has weak logging, active defense might prioritize improving that visibility so you can detect abnormal behavior in that area. Over time, this loop reduces blind spots, improves signal quality, and decreases the time between attacker action and defender awareness. It also reduces wasted effort, because hunts become more targeted and less dependent on guesswork. This is the operational maturity path, where proactive work makes reactive work easier and faster.

It is also important to understand the role of baselines in proactive detection, because many hunts and analyses depend on knowing what normal looks like. Normal does not mean ideal, and it does not mean safe, but it does represent the patterns you expect in routine operations. Baselines can include typical login times, common access paths, normal service-to-service communication, and expected volumes of certain actions. Without a baseline, it is hard to tell whether a pattern is suspicious or just unfamiliar, which can lead to false conclusions and wasted investigations. A beginner-friendly approach is to treat baselines as evolving descriptions rather than fixed rules, because environments change as businesses change. Threat hunting can help refine baselines by highlighting what is common and what is rare, and active defense can help by reducing unnecessary complexity that makes baselining harder. When baselines are reasonable, anomalous patterns stand out more clearly, which makes both hunting and alerting more effective. In that sense, baselines are a foundational tool for turning raw activity into meaningful signals.

Another fundamental concept is that proactive detection should focus on high-impact behaviors rather than on endless lists of potential bad indicators. Indicators of Compromise (I O C) can be useful, but they can also be brittle, because attackers can change specific values like file names, addresses, or minor patterns. Behavior-based thinking focuses instead on what attackers must do to achieve their goals, such as obtaining credentials, escalating privileges, moving between systems, or accessing sensitive data. Those behaviors leave traces that can be searched even when specific indicators change. For beginners, this is a critical mental shift, because it moves you away from memorizing lists and toward understanding attacker objectives and constraints. When you hunt for behaviors, you are more likely to find novel activity and less likely to miss a threat simply because it does not match a known indicator. Active defense supports this by making those behaviors more visible and less easy to hide among normal operations. Together, behavior focus and improved visibility create a stronger detection posture than indicator chasing alone.

Proactive analysis also requires careful thinking about confidence and evidence quality, because hunting conclusions can influence important decisions. If a hunt suggests suspicious activity, you must decide whether it is an early sign of compromise or a benign anomaly, and that decision should be based on corroboration and context. Corroboration means you look for independent supporting evidence, such as multiple data sources aligning, or a timeline that makes sense, rather than relying on a single weak signal. Context means you understand the asset’s normal role, the user’s expected behavior, and any legitimate changes that might explain anomalies. A common beginner mistake is to interpret any unusual pattern as malicious, which can lead to false alarms that erode trust in proactive efforts. Another mistake is to dismiss unusual patterns too quickly because there is no obvious alert, which defeats the purpose of hunting. The balanced approach is to treat suspicious findings as hypotheses that require deeper validation, and to document the reasoning so the conclusion is defensible. This keeps proactive work credible and ensures it strengthens operations instead of creating chaos.

To build the fundamentals well, you also want to recognize that proactive programs must be repeatable and measurable in some way, or they tend to fade when daily work becomes busy. Repeatable does not mean rigid, but it means hunts are documented well enough that someone else can understand what was tested, what data was used, and what conclusions were reached. It also means findings are turned into improvements, such as new detection logic, better data collection, refined baselines, or updated response playbooks. Even if you do not use formal metrics, you can still evaluate whether proactive work is producing value by asking whether it is reducing uncertainty, revealing gaps, and improving detection over time. Active defense is also evaluated by whether it increases visibility and reduces attacker freedom, which can be seen in clearer signals and fewer ambiguous cases. For a beginner, it is useful to think of proactive detection as an investment that pays off when future incidents are detected earlier and scoped faster. Without that payoff, proactive work can be perceived as extra effort, so connecting hunts to tangible improvements is essential. This connection is what turns fundamentals into a sustainable operating model.

In closing, proactive detection and analysis is the discipline of finding and understanding threats before they become obvious emergencies, and it is built on the fundamentals of threat hunting and active defense. Threat hunting uses hypotheses, evidence, and timelines to search for attacker behaviors that may not have triggered alerts, and it remains valuable even when it finds nothing because it validates controls and exposes visibility gaps. Active defense strengthens the environment by increasing visibility and creating friction for attackers, not by retaliating, which is a key misconception to avoid. Together, they form a learning loop where hunts reveal what is missing and active defense improves what is missing, making future detection faster and clearer. When you focus on behavior, build reasonable baselines, evaluate evidence quality, and turn findings into improvements, you create a proactive program that strengthens the S O C rather than distracting it. These fundamentals matter because they reduce attacker dwell time, improve investigative readiness, and make every later phase of response more efficient and more trustworthy.