Security Monitoring

7 posts

gitlab3 min readCurated summary

Automate detection testing with GitLab CI/CD and Duo

GitLab’s WATCH framework continuously tests whether security detections still work in real conditions, rather than only verifying that detection rules deploy successfully. It runs simulated attacks in staging, checks alert propagation through logging, SIEM, and SOAR systems, and reports failures automatically. The framework uses GitLab CI/CD to schedule randomized tests, correlate expected alerts, and publish detection-health results. ## The Detection-Validation Gap - Security detections can silently fail because of: - Log schema changes - SIEM updates - Ingestion or pipeline misconfigurations - Other changes between the log source and alerting systems - Reinjecting synthetic logs into a SIEM can test rule logic, but it does not validate real-world behavior or the log-ingestion path. - GitLab’s detections-as-code pipelines confirm that rules can be created and deployed, but not that they fire when the targeted activity occurs. - WATCH fills this gap by validating detections end to end. ## WATCH’s Testing Lifecycle - **Scheduling:** A weekly GitLab CI/CD pipeline discovers active tests and assigns them randomized execution times. - **Heads-up notification:** WATCH creates a dedicated “WATCH Heads Up” SOAR record containing the detections expected to fire. - **Execution:** Scripts perform simulated malicious actions in staging, such as resetting an administrator password or making suspicious API calls. - **Detection:** Activity logs flow through ingestion into the SIEM, where detection rules process them. - **Correlation:** SOAR matches alerts to registered WATCH tests using: - The time window between execution and alerting - Actor identity, such as an IP address or username - The detection rule ID - **Verification:** A follow-up job confirms that all expected detections fired, updates detection metadata, and publishes results to a GitLab Pages dashboard. - Failed tests generate notifications in the team’s Slack channel. - Correlation prevents test alerts from being escalated as genuine incidents while still validating the complete alerting pipeline. ## GitLab CI/CD Implementation WATCH is organized into three pipeline stages: - **`schedule_pipelines`:** - Runs weekly. - Finds active tests and groups them into scheduled pipelines. - Passes the selected tests through the `TESTS_TO_RUN` variable. - **`run_tests`:** - Executes the assigned attack simulations. - Saves execution results in `detection_status.json`. - Records SOAR identifiers needed for later alert correlation. - **`pages`:** - Queries the SOAR to verify alert generation and routing. - Updates `detection_status.json` with test results. - Deploys the latest status data and dashboard assets to GitLab Pages. The example configuration uses Python 3.12, pipeline inputs to enable weekly scheduling or dashboard updates, conditional `rules`, and GitLab Pages artifacts. Scheduled execution is randomized to avoid predictable test patterns and to expose timing-related problems. ## Practical Recommendation Organizations with critical security detections should add continuous behavioral testing alongside detections-as-code validation. A framework like WATCH can provide earlier warning of broken ingestion, rules, or routing while reducing the cost and generic limitations of commercial breach-and-attack simulation tools.

Read original(opens in new tab)
kakao4 min readCurated summary

Finding Real Threats Among Hundreds of Millions of Security Signals — Transforming the Security Monitoring Paradigm with AI

Kakao argues that monitoring hundreds of millions of daily security events cannot scale through human analysts and increasingly complex rules alone. Its solution is a hybrid AI pipeline that filters noise early, analyzes only high-value events with multiple models, and continuously improves through verified feedback. The goal is not to generate more alerts, but to understand context and identify threats worth investigating. ## The Scale Problem: Finding Threats in a Haystack - Endpoint activity such as process execution, network connections, file changes, and privilege escalation produces hundreds of millions of events. - The volume grows rapidly as services expand, while the proportion of genuine attacks remains very small. - Increasing the number of analysts alongside event volume is economically and operationally unsustainable. - AI is needed to correlate events, interpret behavior statistically and contextually, and dynamically distinguish normal activity from anomalies. ## Limitations of Rule-Based Monitoring - Rules can identify what happened, but not why, who initiated it, or whether it fits the environment. - Legitimate deployment commands can resemble backdoor installation, causing high false-positive rates. - Analysis quality varies by analyst experience, shift, and time of day. - Analysts must manually assemble host information, network sessions, process histories, and related logs into an incident narrative. - Expanding detection categories—behavior sequences, statistical anomalies, multi-source correlations, and rare events—makes manual rule maintenance impractical. - SIEM correlation improves on single-event rules but remains limited to predefined scenarios and struggles with unknown attack patterns. - As rule sets and event volumes grow, both maintenance costs and matching performance become problematic. ## A Funnel-Based Hybrid Architecture - Kakao filters events through multiple stages before using AI: - Rule-based filters remove obvious noise. - Learned normal patterns are automatically excluded. - AI performs detailed analysis only on the small remainder requiring judgment. - Rules handle clear, deterministic patterns quickly, while AI evaluates complex contextual situations. - The framework is designed to accommodate new threat types and detection categories without creating a separate system for each scenario. ## Multi-Model Verification and Operational Resilience - Multiple AI models independently analyze the same event and cross-check one another. - Disagreement is treated as an uncertainty signal that can trigger deeper analyst review. - Model diversity helps reduce bias, false positives, and missed detections. - It also provides resilience against model failures, API outages, and quality changes after model updates. - The design balances cost, processing speed, and accuracy rather than optimizing only for detection precision. ## Teaching AI the Environment’s Context - Generic LLMs initially misclassified legitimate activity because they lacked knowledge of Kakao’s infrastructure. - The system supplies structured context, including: - Host roles - Services running on each host - Accounts used for automation - Normal communication and operational patterns - This context allows the model to act more like an analyst familiar with the organization than a generic security classifier. ## Analyzing Complete Behavior Flows - Individual commands such as `curl`, `chmod`, and script execution can occur in both normal deployments and attacks. - Kakao therefore reconstructs activity at the host level, linking: - Process execution history - Network sessions - File changes - Temporal ordering - The same command can have different meanings depending on when, where, and in what sequence it occurred. - AI evaluates the complete sequence to distinguish routine operations from intrusion behavior. ## Translating Events into AI-Usable Data - Sending raw events directly to an LLM wastes tokens on irrelevant information and reduces accuracy. - Different detection tasks require different signals; statistical anomaly detection and sequence analysis cannot rely on one fixed format. - Kakao introduced: - A standardized event schema - Dynamic feature construction tailored to each detection type - This reduces token usage while improving the relevance and precision of AI analysis. ## WALT: A Self-Learning Detection Loop - Initially, analysts had to manually convert AI conclusions into new detection policies. - Kakao developed WALT, or **Whitelist-Assisted Learning and Tuning**, to automate this feedback process. - Repeatedly verified normal patterns are converted into exception policies. - Those policies filter future matching events before they reach the AI engine. - Thousands of detection policies are reportedly being generated and operated this way, allowing accuracy to improve over time. ## Cost and Performance Constraints - Sending every event to an AI model caused unsustainable costs and processing delays. - The funnel architecture addresses this by reserving expensive AI analysis for events that survive earlier filtering. - The overall system must continuously balance economic cost, response speed, detection accuracy, and reliability. Kakao’s practical recommendation is to treat AI as part of a carefully designed security pipeline—not as a replacement for rules or analysts. Effective large-scale monitoring combines deterministic filtering, contextual multi-model analysis, structured data, and a controlled feedback loop that learns from verified outcomes.

Read original(opens in new tab)
datadog3 min readCurated summary

Scaling real-time file monitoring with eBPF: How we filtered billions of kernel events per minute

File integrity monitoring must provide more than proof that a file changed: security teams need to know how, why, and by whom it changed. Datadog found that filesystem scans, inotify, and auditd could not provide sufficient context, reliability, or scalability. An eBPF-based approach delivered kernel-level visibility into processes and containers, but required extensive filtering and edge processing to handle more than 10 billion events per minute. ## Why Traditional Monitoring Falls Short - Periodic scans can miss changes that are made and reverted between scans. - Scans show that a file changed, but not the process, container, or mechanism responsible. - `inotify` lacks the system-level context needed to correlate file events with processes and containers. - `auditd` offers richer information but can impose significant performance overhead and struggle under heavy load. ## eBPF for Context-Rich File Monitoring - eBPF observes file activity directly in the Linux kernel in real time. - Events can include: - The modified file - The process that triggered the change - The container in which the process ran - Additional security-relevant metadata - This context makes events more useful for investigations than simple “file changed” notifications. ## Scaling at the Agent and Backend - Datadog observed more than 10 billion file-related events per minute across its infrastructure. - Each serialized event was approximately 5 KB, making unrestricted transmission infeasible—potentially several terabytes per second. - Sending every event would also overload Agents through excessive CPU, memory, serialization, and network usage. - Agent-side rules filter events locally, discarding noise before transmission. - This reduced the stream to roughly one million events per minute while preserving detection coverage. ## Filtering Events in the Kernel - A basic architecture loads eBPF programs into the Agent, observes system activity, writes events to a ring buffer, and evaluates them in user space. - Sensitive workloads can generate up to 5,000 relevant syscalls per second. - Initial implementations risked ring-buffer backlogs and dropped events, creating security blind spots. - Datadog moved as much evaluation as possible into eBPF programs to reduce the number of events reaching user space. - The Agent could then perform a deeper second-stage evaluation before forwarding events to the backend. ## Two-Stage Evaluation: Approvers and Discarders - eBPF’s safety constraints limit computation, especially on older Linux kernels. - The system therefore separates evaluation into: - **In-kernel filtering:** Lightweight decisions that quickly approve or discard events. - **User-space evaluation:** More complex analysis using richer context, correlations, and logic unsuitable for the kernel. - This design balances kernel safety and performance with the need for detailed security detection. Datadog’s approach shows that scalable FIM requires combining eBPF’s deep visibility with aggressive filtering at the edge and in the kernel. The practical recommendation is to keep expensive analysis in user space while rejecting irrelevant events as early as possible.

Read original(opens in new tab)
datadog2 min readCurated summary

Introducing Husky, Datadog's third-generation event store | Datadog

Datadog’s page announces that Gartner named it a Leader in the 2026 Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms. The provided content does not include the report’s evaluation criteria, Gartner’s analysis, or Datadog’s supporting evidence; it primarily contains website navigation and links to Datadog products. ## Gartner Recognition - Datadog highlights its placement as a **Leader** in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms. - The announcement links to a downloadable Gartner resource. - No details are provided about Datadog’s position, strengths, weaknesses, or comparison with other vendors. ## Datadog’s Product Portfolio The page navigation presents Datadog as a broad observability and operations platform covering: - **Infrastructure:** infrastructure, container, network, serverless, GPU, storage, and cloud-cost monitoring. - **Applications:** APM, universal service monitoring, continuous profiling, dynamic instrumentation, and agent observability. - **Data and logs:** database, data-streams, quality, jobs, log management, sensitive-data scanning, and observability pipelines. - **Security:** code, cloud, workload, vulnerability, compliance, SIEM, and application/API protection. - **Digital experience:** browser and mobile RUM, session replay, synthetic monitoring, product analytics, experiments, and error tracking. - **Software delivery and service management:** CI visibility, test optimization, internal developer portals, incident response, SLOs, workflow automation, and case management. - **AI capabilities:** AI integrations, GPU monitoring, Bits AI agents, investigation tools, MCP support, and agent observability. ## What the Provided Content Does Not Cover - Gartner’s methodology or assessment criteria - Specific reasons Datadog was named a Leader - Customer feedback, market vision, or execution scores - Technical architecture, pricing, implementation guidance, or product comparisons The material supports the conclusion that Datadog is promoting broad platform coverage and third-party recognition, but the linked Gartner report would be needed for a substantive evaluation.

Read original(opens in new tab)
datadog1 min readCurated summary

Profiling improvements in Go 1.18 | Datadog

The provided text does not include the blog post itself. It contains Datadog’s navigation menu and a promotional link announcing its recognition as a Leader in Gartner’s 2026 Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms, but no technical discussion or conclusions from the referenced article. ## Available content ### Datadog’s observability platform - Datadog promotes products for: - Infrastructure and Kubernetes monitoring - Application performance monitoring and profiling - Logs, databases, and data observability - Security and cloud protection - Real-user and synthetic monitoring - CI/CD and software delivery - Incident and service management - AI-powered investigation and automation ### Gartner recognition - The page links to Datadog’s announcement that it was named a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms. - The excerpt does not provide Gartner’s evaluation criteria, Datadog’s strengths or weaknesses, or supporting evidence. Please provide the article body or a working text extract for an accurate technical summary.

Read original(opens in new tab)
datadog3 min readCurated summary

Improving cloud security visibility with ChatOps

Datadog built a largely serverless AWS security monitoring pipeline to detect suspicious API activity across more than 15 AWS accounts. Rather than process every CloudTrail event equally, it categorizes actions as log, notify, or alert, reducing false positives while preserving broad visibility. The system centralizes events, batches activity, and uses automated workflows to verify engineers’ actions or escalate potential compromises. ## The Security Monitoring Challenge - Datadog manages extensive AWS infrastructure across multiple accounts and nearly 200 geographically distributed engineers. - Every console or CLI operation generates an AWS API call, creating a high-volume CloudTrail data stream. - The monitoring system must detect malicious activity while also catching accidental exposure caused by configuration mistakes. - Processing every event manually would require an expensive, constantly staffed Security Operations Center. ## Prioritizing Relevant API Calls - Datadog maintains a focused list of security-relevant AWS API calls and assigns each to one of three categories: - **Log:** Lower-risk events retained for investigation, such as `CreateGroup` or `UpdateUser`. - **Notify:** Events that require the initiating engineer to confirm their identity and intent, such as `CreateUser` or `PutUserPolicy`. - **Alert:** Rare, dangerous, or clearly misconfigured actions sent directly to the security team. - A representative alert is `AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress` with `0.0.0.0/0`, which exposes an EC2 security group to the entire Internet. - User verification reduces false positives and helps identify compromised AWS credentials. ## Cross-Account Event Pipeline - CloudTrail records API activity in each AWS account. - CloudWatch Event Rules filter for the selected API calls and publish matching events to SNS. - SNS forwards events across accounts to an SQS queue in a dedicated security AWS account. - Centralization is necessary because CloudWatch could not directly send events cross-account to SQS. - The queue also supports batching, which is important when Terraform generates many AWS changes in a short period. - A CloudWatch rule triggers a Lambda function every two minutes to drain the SQS queue and forward events to the security orchestration layer. ## Automated Decision-Making with Komand - Datadog uses Komand, a security orchestration and automation platform, to construct workflows from built-in and custom plugins. - A custom decision plugin evaluates: - The calling user - The event’s age - Request parameters and their content - Other contextual details - Based on the analysis, the workflow silently logs the event, notifies the engineer, or pages the security team through PagerDuty. ## Engineer Verification and Escalation - For notification-level events, the engineer receives an interactive Slack message containing API call details. - Confirming the action triggers a Duo push for second-factor identity verification. - If the engineer denies the action or fails to respond promptly, the workflow alerts the security team. - Komand coordinates the Slack, Duo, PagerDuty, and custom integration logic in one centralized workflow. ## Visibility and Continuous Improvement - Every workflow execution is logged and sent to Elasticsearch. - The resulting data helps Datadog visualize security events, measure detection effectiveness, identify behavioral trends, and improve alerting. - The pipeline is designed to provide actionable security intelligence without overwhelming engineers or security personnel. Datadog’s approach combines selective event filtering, cross-account centralization, batching, and automated identity verification. Organizations facing similar AWS-scale monitoring challenges can use the same principles to reduce alert fatigue while maintaining strong detection and response capabilities.

Read original(opens in new tab)