Certified: The GIAC GSOM Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on a practical reality of security operations that beginners often do not expect until they see it up close, which is that much of a S O C’s daily workload is repetitive. The same kinds of signals appear again and again, analysts gather the same context repeatedly, and the same early investigation steps are performed over and over before anyone reaches the part of the work that requires real judgment. That repetition is not only boring; it is risky, because repetitive manual work increases errors, increases inconsistency between analysts, and drains the attention that should be used for high-value analysis. Automation is one of the most effective ways to improve the reliability of operations because it takes the steps that should be done the same way every time and makes them happen consistently. When automation is designed thoughtfully, it boosts speed and consistency while reducing burnout, but when it is designed carelessly, it can hide uncertainty or create new noise. The goal is not to replace people but to protect people by reducing mechanical work so human attention is used where it matters most.

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.

A good starting point is defining what counts as a repetitive task in a S O C context, because automation targets should be chosen based on repeatability and low decision complexity. Repetitive tasks often include gathering basic context about an alert, pulling related events, checking known benign conditions, assembling a timeline of key actions, and packaging information for escalation. These tasks usually follow a stable pattern, meaning most analysts would do them in a similar sequence if they had enough time. They are also tasks where the correct output is often a consistent set of facts rather than an interpretive conclusion, which makes them strong candidates for automation. By contrast, deciding whether a pattern truly indicates malicious activity is usually not repetitive in the same way, because it depends on context, nuance, and judgment, especially for ambiguous cases. For beginners, it helps to remember that good automation supports decisions rather than making decisions blindly. If you automate the collection and organization of evidence, you make it easier for humans to reason, and that increases both speed and correctness. When you automate the decision itself without adequate confidence, you risk false closure and missed threats.

Automation improves consistency because it reduces variation, and variation is one of the hidden enemies of reliable operations. If two analysts handle the same alert differently, they may reach different conclusions, escalate at different times, or miss different pieces of evidence, which creates unpredictable outcomes. This variation is not always caused by skill differences; it can be caused by fatigue, time pressure, or simply different habits. Automated steps, when designed well, create a standard baseline of evidence gathering and enrichment so every case begins with the same foundation. This also helps new analysts because they inherit a consistent workflow rather than having to guess what to do first. Consistency is especially valuable under pressure, when humans are more likely to skip steps or forget details. When repetitive work is automated, the team can spend more mental energy on interpretation, which is the part that actually requires expertise. Over time, consistent foundations make metrics more meaningful as well, because case handling becomes more comparable across people and time.

Burnout reduction is not just a comfort goal, because burnout directly affects detection quality and incident response reliability. Tired analysts miss patterns, make mistakes, and become less willing to dig deeply into ambiguous signals, which increases the chance that real threats slip through. Repetitive tasks are a major contributor to burnout because they consume time without providing intellectual reward, and they can create a feeling that the S O C is a factory rather than a learning environment. Automation reduces burnout by lowering the volume of low-judgment work and by reducing the constant switching between tools and data sources that drains attention. It also reduces frustration by shortening the time between receiving a signal and having enough context to make a decision. For beginners, it is important to see that burnout risk is operational risk, because a S O C’s effectiveness depends on sustained attention and consistent decision making. Automation is one of the strongest ways to protect that attention without lowering standards. When automation removes tedious work, it also creates capacity for proactive improvement activities like tuning and hunting, which further strengthens the program.

A core principle of S O C automation is that it should be evidence-first, meaning it should improve how evidence is collected, organized, and presented rather than hiding evidence behind opaque conclusions. The best automation produces outputs that help an analyst quickly see what happened, such as the relevant identities, the affected assets, the time window of activity, and the key events that support or contradict the alert. This turns triage into reasoning instead of scavenger hunting. Evidence-first automation also makes investigations more defensible, because decisions can be tied to a consistent evidence package rather than to personal memory. It also supports better communication with partner teams, because escalations include the necessary details up front, reducing back-and-forth. For beginners, think of evidence-first automation as building a consistent case file automatically, so the analyst starts with a coherent view rather than a blank slate. When the case file is consistent, the analyst can spend their time on what the evidence means and what action should follow. This is how automation strengthens human judgment rather than replacing it.

Another important automation target is enrichment, which means adding context to raw signals so they become meaningful quickly. A raw alert might contain a host identifier, an account name, and a timestamp, but without context it might be unclear whether the host is critical, whether the account is privileged, or whether the behavior is rare. Enrichment fills in those gaps by attaching details such as asset role, business criticality, expected access patterns, and ownership information. It can also include linking related events that provide a broader picture, such as surrounding authentication activity or recent configuration changes. The purpose is to reduce the time analysts spend hunting for basic facts and to reduce the chance that an analyst misjudges priority because they lack context. For beginners, enrichment is a key idea because it shows how the same alert can be easy or hard depending on what context comes with it. When context is automated and consistent, triage becomes faster and less subjective, which improves both performance and fairness. This is one of the clearest places where automation converts operational friction into operational speed.

Automation can also support triage consistency by performing standard checks that rule out common benign causes or highlight common suspicious patterns, without making the final decision. For example, if a certain alert type often triggers during maintenance windows, an automated step can identify whether the alert occurred during a known maintenance period and present that fact to the analyst. If an alert type is often associated with a particular misconfiguration, an automated check can flag whether that condition exists. The key is that these checks produce evidence and context, not an automatic dismissal, because false dismissals are dangerous. When standard checks are automated, analysts spend less time repeating the same basic validation work, and they can focus more on unusual cases that do not fit expected patterns. This also reduces inconsistency, because every analyst benefits from the same checks, not only those who remember them. For beginners, this approach reinforces that automation is a way to embed experience into the workflow so it is available consistently. When experience is embedded in standard checks, operations become smoother and less dependent on individual memory.

Another automation area that provides large benefits is case management workflow, because a surprising amount of S O C delay happens in administrative overhead. Creating tickets, updating status, notifying stakeholders, and tracking handoffs can consume time and introduce errors when done manually. Automation can ensure that cases are created with consistent fields, routed to the right queue, and updated with evidence and context as the investigation progresses. This reduces the chance that a case is forgotten, misrouted, or left without necessary information for the next person. It also improves visibility into workload, which helps leaders manage capacity and identify bottlenecks. For beginners, it helps to see that workflow consistency is part of security outcomes because missed handoffs and lost cases can lead to missed threats. When workflow is automated, it becomes harder for important work to fall through the cracks, which increases reliability under high load. This kind of automation does not feel glamorous, but it often produces major improvements in operational stability.

Even when automation is helpful, it must be introduced carefully to avoid shifting problems instead of solving them, and this is where the idea of controlled rollout matters. If you automate a step and it produces incorrect enrichment or misleading context, analysts may trust it too much and make faster but worse decisions. If automation increases the number of alerts by making it easier to generate cases, you may overload the team unless signal quality is addressed. If automation is inconsistent or fails silently, analysts may become confused and waste time diagnosing the automation instead of investigating the incident. A mature approach validates automation outputs, monitors for failures, and introduces changes gradually so the team can adjust workflows and trust can be built. For beginners, it is useful to remember that automation is part of the operational system, and it should be measured and improved like any other component. You should be able to tell whether automation reduced time to triage, reduced rework, and improved consistency, and you should watch for unintended consequences like increased noise. When automation is treated as a change that must be verified, it becomes a reliable improvement rather than a risky shortcut.

Automation also interacts strongly with playbooks, because playbooks describe the sequence of investigation and decision steps, and automation can perform parts of those steps reliably. A playbook might specify that analysts should gather certain evidence, check certain conditions, and document conclusions in a consistent way. Automation can make those playbook steps happen faster and more consistently by assembling evidence, performing standard checks, and formatting case notes. This creates a powerful effect because it reduces variation and reduces the amount of manual effort required to follow best practices. It also makes playbooks more likely to be used, because analysts are more likely to follow guidance that is integrated into the workflow rather than guidance that requires extra work. For beginners, this is an important connection because it shows how different maturity components reinforce each other. Automation makes playbooks easier to execute, and playbooks make automation targets clearer because they show which steps should be repeatable. When the two are aligned, the S O C becomes more consistent, and that consistency improves both quality and speed.

Another important lens is to use automation to protect high-value analyst time, because not all work is equal in importance. Analysts add the most value when they interpret ambiguous patterns, evaluate competing hypotheses, and decide on proportional actions that reduce risk. They add less value when they copy and paste data, click through the same screens repeatedly, or manually assemble basic timelines. Automation should therefore be targeted at the tasks that steal time from interpretation, especially tasks that occur in many cases. This targeting also supports sustainability because it reduces cognitive fatigue, which comes from constant context switching and repetitive steps. For beginners, it helps to think of analyst attention as a limited resource that must be spent wisely. When automation saves attention, it can be reinvested into tuning, hunting, and improvement work that reduces future noise and further protects attention. This creates a compounding effect, where automation creates capacity, and capacity enables improvements that reduce workload. Over time, the S O C becomes more proactive and less reactive because the team is no longer trapped by repetitive churn.

Finally, automation should be framed and communicated as an operational improvement with measurable goals, not as a technology project that is assumed to be beneficial. A good automation effort specifies which repetitive tasks will be reduced, how consistency will be improved, and how burnout risk will be reduced through lower manual workload. It also specifies how success will be measured, such as reduced time to triage for common alert categories, reduced rework and reopen rates, increased completeness of case documentation, and increased time available for proactive work. Communicating automation this way helps leaders support it because they can see the risk reduction and sustainability benefits, and it helps teams respect it because it is presented as support rather than as surveillance. For beginners, this reinforces that metrics, planning, and operational change are connected even here: you identify the bottleneck, design automation to relieve it, and verify improvement through measurement. When automation is treated as a measured improvement, it earns trust and becomes part of continuous maturity. Without that framing, automation can be perceived as a disruptive change that adds complexity without delivering value.

In closing, automating repetitive S O C tasks boosts consistency and reduces burnout by removing low-judgment work that consumes time, creates errors, and drains attention. The most valuable automation focuses on evidence-first collection, context enrichment, standard checks that support triage, and workflow steps that prevent cases from falling through the cracks. By reducing variation and manual overhead, automation makes investigations more defensible and improves the reliability of operations under pressure. It also protects analyst attention so the team can focus on interpretation, decision making, and proactive improvement, which strengthens security outcomes over time. The key is to introduce automation carefully, validate its outputs, and measure whether it truly improved speed and quality rather than simply changing the shape of work. When automation is aligned with playbooks and targeted at high-leverage repetitive steps, it creates a compounding maturity effect, where the S O C becomes more consistent, more resilient, and more sustainable with each improvement cycle. That is how automation becomes not just a convenience, but a strategic tool for operational excellence.