Can SOC Operators Explain their Decisions while Triaging Alarms? A Real-World Study
arXiv SecurityArchived Apr 27, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.22001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Security Operations Centers (SOCs) are pivotal in modern enterprises. Tasked to monitor complex network environments constantly under attack, SOCs can be active 24/7 and can include hundreds of operators supported by state-of-the-art technologies. Abundant research has studied the internal processes of SOCs, highlighting their pros and cons, as well as the challenges faced by SOC analysts -- such as dealing with the overwhelming number of false ala
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 23 Apr 2026]
Can SOC Operators Explain their Decisions while Triaging Alarms? A Real-World Study
Jessica Moosmann, Irdin Pekaric, Giovanni Apruzzese
Security Operations Centers (SOCs) are pivotal in modern enterprises. Tasked to monitor complex network environments constantly under attack, SOCs can be active 24/7 and can include hundreds of operators supported by state-of-the-art technologies. Abundant research has studied the internal processes of SOCs, highlighting their pros and cons, as well as the challenges faced by SOC analysts -- such as dealing with the overwhelming number of false alarms triggered by automated security mechanisms. In this context, we wonder: given that "someone" must triage the alarms, and that such triaging must be grounded on established knowledge or evidence-based reasoning, can SOC employees justify why a certain decision was taken while triaging alarms? Answering such a research question (RQ) can better guide future efforts.
We hence tackle this RQs. First, via a systematic literature review across 257 research documents, we provide evidence that such RQ received limited attention so far. Then, we partner-up with a real-world SOC and carry out a field study (n=12) with SOC employees. We show them real alarms raised in their SOC, and inquire whether such alarms are indicative of true security problems or not. Then, we ask to explain their decision. We found that while most analysts were able to separate "true from false" alarms (the decision was correct in 83% of the cases), a correct justification was hardly provided (only 39% of the provided explanations reflected the actual root cause). Ultimately, our results highlight the need for decision-support systems that help SOC analysts not only make the right call -- but also understand and articulate why it is right.
Comments: Accepted to DIMVA'26
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.22001 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2604.22001v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.22001
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Giovanni Apruzzese [view email]
[v1] Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:35:31 UTC (3,607 KB)
Access Paper:
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)