Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we take a practical look at machine learning in monitoring, because it can be genuinely helpful when your data and goals are clear, and genuinely harmful when they are not. Many security teams are drawn to machine learning because event volume is large and the human brain is not built to spot subtle patterns across millions of records. That motivation is reasonable, but it can lead to disappointment if machine learning is treated as a substitute for foundational engineering like clean telemetry, consistent context, and disciplined response processes. The right way to approach machine learning is to see it as another detection and prioritization tool that must earn trust through evidence, feedback, and measured performance. If you set clear objectives, understand the limits, and design validation pathways, machine learning can reduce noise and surface unusual behaviors faster. If you treat outputs as truth, you can amplify bias, chase phantom anomalies, and distract analysts from real risk. Our goal here is to evaluate machine learning with sober optimism, using it where it fits and refusing it where it becomes a liability.

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.

Machine learning monitoring can be defined as pattern detection across large event streams, where models learn statistical relationships and deviations rather than relying solely on fixed rules. In practice, this often shows up as anomaly detection, clustering, classification, and prioritization scoring applied to logs, network flows, endpoint telemetry, or identity events. Instead of a rule that says a specific sequence equals suspicious, the model might learn what typical behavior looks like and then highlight deviations that are rare or unusual in context. Machine learning can also learn correlations that are difficult to encode manually, such as subtle timing patterns or combinations of features that together predict risk. That sounds powerful, and it can be, but it depends heavily on what data is available and how the model is trained. A model is not a mind; it is a function that produces outputs based on patterns in input data. If the inputs are incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated, the outputs will reflect those flaws. Understanding this definition helps keep expectations grounded, because machine learning is a method for extracting patterns, not a guarantee of security insight.

One benefit is anomaly spotting, because anomalies are often the first clue that something is off, especially in environments where attackers try to blend into normal behavior. Machine learning can surface unusual authentication patterns, such as a user account accessing systems it rarely touches or logging in at times that are inconsistent with prior behavior. It can highlight endpoints whose process and network activity deviates from peer devices, which can point to malware, misuse, or misconfiguration. It can detect shifts in application behavior, such as abnormal error patterns or unexpected access flows that suggest abuse. These anomalies are not necessarily malicious, but they are useful investigative leads, and machine learning can generate those leads at scale. Another benefit is prioritization support, where machine learning helps rank alerts or entities so analysts focus first on what is most likely to matter. Prioritization can be especially helpful when there is a surge of events, because it provides a structured way to allocate attention without relying purely on gut instinct.

Machine learning can also reduce the operational burden by grouping related events and entities, which can help analysts see campaigns rather than isolated alerts. Clustering can connect similar behaviors across multiple hosts, which may reveal coordinated activity that would otherwise look like scattered noise. It can also help identify outliers within a cluster, highlighting the specific systems or accounts that deviate from the group in meaningful ways. Machine learning can support triage by suggesting which features drove an anomaly score, such as unusual destinations, rare commands, or atypical authentication methods. When these outputs are presented well, they shorten the time to hypothesis and the time to first investigative action. The best use of machine learning is often not replacing analysts, but giving them better starting points and better prioritization when the event stream is too large to inspect manually. That is why machine learning is often most valuable in monitoring contexts where volume and variety exceed what static rules can handle alone.

The limits matter just as much as the benefits, and two limits show up repeatedly: bias and concept drift. Bias in this context means the model learns patterns that reflect your environment’s historical behavior, including historical blind spots and historical inequities in data representation. If certain user groups, locations, or systems are underrepresented or poorly logged, the model may treat them as anomalies simply because it has little data about them. Bias can also appear when training data includes artifacts of prior detection decisions, such as labeling certain behaviors as suspicious because analysts were more likely to investigate them, not because they were truly riskier. Concept drift means the environment changes, and the statistical meaning of normal shifts over time, which can happen due to new applications, new workflows, seasonal business cycles, mergers, or changes in remote work patterns. Drift can cause models to flag a wave of anomalies that are simply the new normal, or it can cause models to miss new attack behaviors because the model’s learned patterns are outdated. These limits are not reasons to reject machine learning, but they are reasons to demand monitoring and retraining discipline.

A third limit is that machine learning outputs can be difficult to interpret, which makes response harder if you do not plan for explainability. Analysts need to know why something was flagged, what evidence supports the flag, and what to check next, especially when time is limited. If the model produces only a score without context, analysts may either ignore it or overreact to it. Interpretability is not always perfect, but it can often be improved by presenting top contributing features, comparisons to baseline behavior, and links to supporting events. Another limit is dependency on consistent features, because if the input fields change due to parsing updates or source changes, the model may degrade silently. This is similar to detection rules in a S I E M, but the failure mode can be harder to notice because the model still produces outputs that appear valid. These limits reinforce the point that machine learning must be operationalized with monitoring, validation, and maintenance, not treated as a black box. If you cannot explain or validate outputs, you cannot responsibly use them for high-impact decisions.

A major pitfall is treating machine learning alerts as truth without validation, because that invites both false positives and false negatives to drive decisions. A machine learning anomaly score is a signal about unusualness, not a verdict about maliciousness. If analysts treat the score as certainty, they may launch disruptive actions based on incomplete evidence, such as isolating endpoints or disabling accounts because a pattern was rare. This creates operational damage and erodes trust in the monitoring program. The opposite failure mode also occurs, where analysts trust the model to catch everything and reduce other detection investment, which increases risk because models will miss certain classes of attacks. Validation is how you keep the system honest, meaning you confirm whether the flagged behavior matches a plausible threat scenario and whether supporting evidence exists across logs, identity context, endpoint activity, and network signals. Validation also includes confirming that the anomaly is not simply a logging artifact, a system change, or a new business process. When validation is built into the workflow, machine learning becomes a useful lead generator; when validation is skipped, it becomes a source of confusion or disruption.

A quick win that makes machine learning steadily better is requiring feedback loops so models and workflows improve over time. Feedback loops mean that analysts classify outcomes, such as true incident, benign anomaly, expected change, or data quality issue, and that classification feeds back into model tuning or into the use case logic around how model outputs are consumed. Feedback also supports improvements in enrichment, because if analysts repeatedly need certain context to validate anomalies, that context can be automated. Feedback loops should be lightweight enough that analysts actually use them, otherwise they become paperwork and get ignored. They also need governance so someone owns the feedback pipeline and turns it into improvements, because feedback without action is wasted effort. Over time, feedback loops reduce noise, improve prioritization, and increase trust, because the system adapts to the environment rather than remaining static. This is how machine learning becomes a living capability rather than a one-time feature rollout.

Scenario rehearsal helps reinforce disciplined response, such as a case where anomaly volume spikes suddenly. A spike could be caused by a real attack wave, such as a new phishing campaign leading to unusual logins, or by a benign change, such as a new software rollout that alters process behavior across many endpoints. The right response is to verify before reacting, starting with checks that distinguish a systemic change from targeted malicious behavior. You look for common factors, such as whether the anomalies align with a planned change window, whether they affect a broad population uniformly, and whether supporting evidence suggests compromise, such as suspicious authentication methods or unexpected outbound connections. You also check data pipeline health, because ingestion delays or parsing changes can create artificial anomalies when features suddenly appear missing or shifted. If the spike is benign, you adjust the model baseline or the consumption logic to reduce noise, and you document what changed. If the spike is malicious, you use the model output as a prioritization guide while confirming through rules, telemetry, and targeted investigation. This rehearsal trains the team to treat machine learning as a signal that triggers verification rather than a trigger for immediate disruption.

Training data must reflect the current environment and behaviors, because models learn normal from what you show them. If you train on a period that does not represent today, such as before a major cloud migration or before remote work became widespread, the model will treat today’s normal as anomalous. If your training data is skewed by incomplete logging, the model will learn patterns that reflect visibility gaps rather than true behavior. Training data also needs coverage across key populations, such as different device types, different business units, and different user roles, because behavior differs legitimately across those groups. A model trained only on office-based endpoints may misclassify remote patterns, and a model trained mostly on low-privilege users may misclassify administrator workflows. It is also important that training data includes enough volume and diversity to learn stable baselines, especially for rare but legitimate events. When training data is curated thoughtfully, model outputs become more meaningful and less noisy. When training data is treated as whatever happened to be available, the model becomes a mirror of accidental data conditions.

Machine learning outputs should be combined with rules and human judgment, because each covers gaps the others cannot. Rules are strong for known patterns, compliance-driven requirements, and high-confidence detections based on well-defined behaviors. Machine learning is strong for surfacing unusual patterns and supporting prioritization when the space of possibilities is too large for static rules. Human judgment is strong for interpreting context, weighing tradeoffs, and making proportional response decisions when evidence is incomplete. Combining them means machine learning can suggest leads, rules can confirm known risk signals, and analysts can decide what action is appropriate based on impact and evidence. This combination also supports safer automation, because you can require both a machine learning anomaly score and a rule-based indicator before taking higher-impact actions. It also helps communicate to leadership that machine learning is part of a layered monitoring strategy, not a replacement for sound detection engineering. In mature operations, machine learning is integrated into the detection and response ecosystem as one source of signal among several.

Model performance must be monitored and retrained when accuracy degrades, because degradation is inevitable in dynamic environments. Monitoring performance includes tracking false positives, false negatives when known incidents were missed, and changes in score distributions that suggest drift. It also includes monitoring the stability of input features, because changes in parsing or source fields can degrade model quality without obvious errors. Retraining should be triggered by evidence, such as sustained increases in noise or decreased detection usefulness, not by arbitrary schedules. Retraining also needs governance, because you want controlled changes, versioning, and the ability to roll back if a new model behaves worse. The operational reality is that a model is a deployed component, and deployed components require lifecycle management. If you ignore this, machine learning becomes stale and eventually becomes either noisy or irrelevant. When you manage model performance deliberately, you preserve usefulness and trust over time.

A helpful memory anchor is data quality and feedback determine machine learning usefulness. Data quality includes completeness, consistency, time alignment, and accurate context fields that allow meaningful patterns to emerge. Feedback includes analyst labeling, outcome tracking, and the discipline to turn feedback into tuning and retraining decisions. If data quality is poor, machine learning will learn the wrong patterns and produce noise. If feedback is absent, machine learning will not improve and will remain misaligned as the environment changes. This anchor is useful because it shifts the focus from model mystique to operational reality. It also provides a simple way to evaluate whether a machine learning initiative is likely to succeed, because you can ask whether you have clean data and whether you have a feedback process that will actually run. When those conditions are present, machine learning has a fair chance to help. When they are absent, the same effort is often better spent improving telemetry, correlation, and response fundamentals.

When you communicate machine learning results, you should use confidence levels rather than certainty, because certainty is rarely justified and it invites overreaction. Confidence can be expressed as a score, a tier, or a descriptive category, but the key is that it signals uncertainty honestly. Communication should also include what drove the score, what evidence supports it, and what validation steps are recommended. This helps analysts and stakeholders understand that the model output is a starting point, not a final judgment. It also helps prevent leadership from demanding immediate disruptive actions based on a high anomaly score without understanding context. Over time, consistent communication of confidence levels builds trust because it aligns expectations with reality and reduces the emotional swings that come from treating model outputs as definitive. Confidence communication also makes post-incident review easier because you can evaluate whether decisions were proportional to the evidence at the time. In security, credibility is preserved by precision, not by hype.

For the mini-review, it is useful to name requirements for effective machine learning monitoring because they are practical prerequisites, not optional enhancements. One requirement is high-quality, consistent telemetry, because models need stable inputs to learn meaningful patterns. A second requirement is representative training data, because models must learn normal behavior as it actually exists across your current environment. A third requirement is a feedback loop with governance, because models must be evaluated, tuned, and retrained as drift occurs and as analysts learn what is truly suspicious. These requirements also imply operational capacity, because someone must own data pipelines, model evaluation, and the workflow integration that turns output into action. If these requirements are not met, machine learning will tend to produce either noise or blind spots. When they are met, machine learning can reduce cognitive load and improve prioritization in a measurable way. The requirements are therefore a readiness checklist, not a theoretical discussion.

To conclude, decide one monitoring problem machine learning might help solve in your environment, and frame it as a clear objective rather than a vague desire for intelligence. A strong objective might be improving prioritization of identity anomalies for privileged accounts, surfacing unusual outbound connection patterns from endpoints, or detecting abnormal application access patterns that indicate abuse. Choose an objective where you have strong data coverage and where analysts currently spend meaningful time sorting signal from noise. Define how you will validate outputs, how you will capture feedback, and what success will look like in terms of time saved and outcomes improved. This ensures machine learning is evaluated as an operational capability rather than as a marketing feature. When you approach it this way, machine learning becomes one more tool in a mature monitoring program, supporting human judgment with scalable pattern detection. And when data quality and feedback are treated as first-class requirements, the tool has a real chance to deliver value instead of simply producing more alerts.