Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR) is what stands between a sleepy 03:17 a.m. SOC and a seven-figure breach. Your dashboard has just breached 12,842 open alerts—again. Two analysts are drowning in phishing triage while a ransomware beacon pings from the Paris branch. In the next 60 seconds a regulator could mandate disclosure, your IR budget could triple, and customer trust could vanish. SOAR acts as the always-awake nerve centre that suppresses noise, enriches true positives and isolates threats before humans even reach for coffee. Ahead, we show how tier-one banks slash mean-time-to-respond by 87 %, the integration pitfalls that sink most pilots, and the ROI metrics your board will demand. Sleep may stay optional—firefighting won’t.

---

---

SOAR Overview: Definition, Architecture, and Core Components

Defining Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)

At its core, SOAR is a stack of integrated software tools that enables organizations to gather cybersecurity telemetry and respond to incidents with little or no human assistance. The primary goal of deploying a SOAR platform is to dramatically improve the efficiency and consistency of security operations, both physical and digital. By connecting to numerous security (and even non-security) systems and automating routine workflows, SOAR allows security teams to handle threats faster and focus on high-priority issues instead of repetitive tasks.

Key capabilities that define SOAR include the ability to ingest alerts from multiple sources, enrich those alerts with context (from threat intelligence or asset data), apply automated decision logic (playbooks), and execute response actions across various technologies. In essence, a SOAR platform acts as the central nervous system of a Security Operations Center (SOC) – integrating disparate tools, applying automated analysis, and orchestrating incident response end-to-end.

SOAR Architecture and Core Components

SOAR solutions typically comprise three core components or “pillars”: security orchestration, security automation, and security response (often manifested as case management). These components work in tandem as part of the SOAR architecture:

• Security Orchestration: Orchestration refers to the connectivity between the SOAR platform and the myriad of security (and IT) tools in an environment. A SOAR platform comes with integrations and APIs to connect disparate internal and external systems – from SIEM tools and firewalls to endpoint protection, identity management, ticketing systems, cloud services, threat intelligence feeds, and more. By pulling together data from vulnerability scanners, user directories, Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS), email gateways, etc., the SOAR creates a unified ecosystem for incident management. Effective orchestration means consolidating alerts and data from many sources into a single pane of glass. The benefit is richer context for threats (since data is correlated across tools) and the ability to coordinate actions across those tools. The trade-off, however, is that bringing in more data and alerts can increase the volume of information that must be handled. Orchestration lays the groundwork by gathering and correlating information; the next step is automation of responses.
• Security Automation: Automation is the muscle of SOAR – it executes repetitive processes and responses at machine speed, according to predefined rules or playbooks. The SOAR ingests the alerts and context collected via orchestration and then triggers automated workflows to handle routine tasks that an analyst would otherwise do manually. Common automated actions include enriching an alert with additional data (e.g. querying a threat intel database for an indicator), performing a vulnerability scan, resetting a user’s credentials, quarantining a suspicious file, or updating a ticket. Playbooks (detailed in the next section) codify these step-by-step response procedures. Advanced SOAR platforms may leverage AI/ML to prioritize threats or recommend actions based on historical analyst decisions, further accelerating decision-making. Crucially, automation is configurable – teams can choose fully automated responses or require human approval at certain steps. If a scenario is beyond the automation’s scope or confidence, the SOAR can escalate to a human analyst instead of acting blindly. Overall, security automation standardizes incident response so that known attack types are handled consistently and rapidly every time.
• Security Response (Case Management): The third pillar is the human-facing side of SOAR – often implemented as an incident or case management module. This provides a central console for analysts to monitor and manage incidents, document findings, and collaborate on response. All alerts, actions taken, evidence gathered, and response outcomes are tracked here as a “case.” A strong case management function includes workflow for escalation, assignment of tasks to team members, capturing of notes/evidence, and post-incident reporting. By offering a single view into the end-to-end incident lifecycle, the SOAR’s response/case management component enables better cross-team collaboration and knowledge sharing (e.g. between the security team, IT operations, and network teams). It often integrates with ticketing systems (like ServiceNow or Jira) to align security incidents with broader IT processes. Reporting and analytics are also a part of this component – e.g. generating incident metrics, compliance reports, and post-mortem analyses. In short, the case management aspect of SOAR ensures that automated actions are visible and auditable, and that analysts have a hub for any manual steps and decision-making after automation runs. It closes the loop by facilitating lessons learned and continuous improvement of incident handling.

How SOAR Differs from SIEM (and Other Tools)

It is important to distinguish SOAR from other security management technologies, especially the closely related Security Information and Event Management (SIEM). Both SIEM and SOAR ingest data from multiple sources and are staples of modern SOCs, but they serve different primary purposes. SIEM systems focus on log collection, correlation, and alerting, whereas SOAR focuses on automating the response to those alerts and orchestrating across tools.

SIEM vs SOAR (Detect ⇢ Respond)

Aspect	SIEM (Security Information & Event Management)	SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation & Response)
Primary Focus	Data aggregation, threat detection, and alert generation (analytics-focused).	Incident response automation and process orchestration (action-focused).
Data Handling	Collects and correlates logs/events from multiple sources to identify anomalies.	Ingests alerts/events (often from SIEM and other tools) and enriches them with context; does not perform extensive correlation itself.
Outputs	Alerts and dashboards for analysts, compliance reports (notifies humans of issues).	Automated actions (blocking threats, sending notifications, opening tickets) and tracked incident cases (resolves or contains issues).
Automation	Limited automation – mainly triggers alerts; some scripting for response but usually manual follow-up.	Extensive automation of workflows via playbooks; can execute multi-step responses without human intervention.
Integration Scope	Integrates primarily with data sources (log collectors, threat intel feeds for correlation).	Integrates with a wide range of tools (security and IT systems) to orchestrate actions (firewalls, endpoints, email, IAM, ticketing, etc.)
Analyst Involvement	Analysts investigate SIEM alerts to determine response (alert triage is manual).	Analysts design playbooks and handle exceptions; routine alerts are handled automatically, freeing analysts for complex cases.
Use Case	Real-time threat detection, compliance monitoring, forensic analysis on aggregated logs.	Accelerating incident response, reducing dwell time, and standardizing remediation steps across systems.
Limitations	Can produce alert fatigue due to many false positives, requiring manual review.	Can be complex to implement and highly dependent on well-maintained integrations and playbooks.

• Complementary Roles: Rather than an either/or choice, SIEM and SOAR are often deployed together for a comprehensive SOC capability. SOAR is frequently used to augment an in-house SIEM. The SIEM detects and feeds alerts into the SOAR, which enriches and handles them. Many organizations start with a SIEM and later add SOAR to deal with the avalanche of alerts more efficiently. In fact, the trend in the industry is convergence: many SIEM vendors have been adding built-in SOAR features (automation, orchestration) into their products (marketed as “next-generation SIEM”). Likewise, some SOAR tools now incorporate basic log management or detection capabilities. The line is blurring, but conceptually: SIEM = detect; SOAR = respond.
• SOAR vs. Other Tools: It’s also worth noting how SOAR differs from or relates to other emerging solutions:
  • SOAR vs. Incident Response Platforms: Prior to the term SOAR, organizations used incident management or ticketing tools (and still do) to track incidents. SOAR encompasses that case management function but adds heavy automation and integration that older IR platforms lacked.
  • SOAR vs. EDR/XDR: Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tools focus on detecting and responding to threats on endpoint devices, and Extended Detection and Response (XDR) platforms broaden EDR across multiple domains (endpoint, network, cloud). XDR solutions often integrate some automation too. A key difference is scope: XDR is a detection-focused tool across multiple layers, whereas SOAR is a broader process automation platform. XDR might pinpoint a malware on an endpoint and even auto-quarantine it, but a SOAR can take that input and orchestrate additional steps (notify teams, isolate affected user accounts, update firewall rules, open a ticket, etc.). In practice, XDR and SOAR can complement each other, and some XDR offerings include SOAR-like orchestration capabilities.
  • SOAR vs. Automation Scripts: Security teams have long written custom scripts to automate tasks (using Python, Bash, etc.). SOAR provides a more maintainable, scalable way to automate, with a visual workflow engine, hundreds of pre-built integrations, and better error handling and case tracking. It reduces dependence on ad-hoc scripts by providing a systematic automation framework.

As shown above, SIEM and SOAR address different challenges in the SOC. SIEMs excel at making sense of huge volumes of security data and spotting potential incidents, whereas SOAR picks up where SIEM leaves off by orchestrating the response and automating the investigation and remediation of those incidents. A mature security program will often leverage both: the SIEM to detect and provide initial alerts, and the SOAR to rapidly triage and respond to those alerts according to predefined playbooks.

Key Functionalities of SOAR Platforms

While the architecture outlines what makes up a SOAR solution, it’s useful to dive into the practical functionalitiesthat SOAR platforms offer. Modern SOAR tools come with an array of features that empower security teams to streamline operations. Key among these are: incident response playbooks, automation workflows, threat intelligence integration, and case management & collaboration. Each of these functionalities is detailed below.

Incident Response Orchestration and Automated Actions

Incident response orchestration is the central function of SOAR – it means coordinating multiple tools and actions in a seamless workflow when an incident occurs. In traditional incident response, an analyst might have to jump between a SIEM console, a firewall interface, an endpoint security console, an Active Directory admin panel, etc., to gather information and take action. SOAR removes this fragmentation. Through its integrations (orchestration) and playbooks (automation), a SOAR platform can perform a series of steps across systems with a single trigger.

For example, consider a scenario where the SIEM raises an alert about a suspicious executable on a server:

• The SOAR playbook might automatically retrieve the file hash from the endpoint protection system and check it against a threat intelligence database.
• In parallel, it could query the SIEM or EDR for any other machines that have seen this file or this hash recently.
• If the hash is known malicious or the behavior is confirmed as malware, the SOAR can then instruct the endpoint security tool to quarantine the infected host, instruct the firewall to block outbound traffic from that host, and disable the affected user’s account in the identity management system – all within seconds and without requiring manual intervention on each system.
• The playbook could then create an incident ticket in the IT service management system and notify the security team (e.g. via email or Slack) that “Malware X was detected and containment actions were taken on host Y.”

This orchestration of multi-system actions is what makes SOAR so powerful. It ensures rapid containment and consistent responses. Instead of an analyst manually performing each of those steps (which could take many minutes or hours, especially under stress), the SOAR handles them in a fraction of the time. SOAR platforms often include a library of pre-built integrations and action modules (APIs, SDKs, or plugins for common products) to facilitate this. The Rapid7 InsightConnect platform, for instance, touts over 290 plugins to integrate with various tools, enabling analysts to quickly build new workflows that fit their environment.

Automated incident response through SOAR also includes alert prioritization and basic decision-making. The platform can be configured to automatically suppress or dismiss low-confidence alerts (to reduce noise) or to escalate critical ones. It can perform checks to decide if an alert is a true positive before taking action – for example, pinging a host to confirm it’s online and compromised, or cross-correlating an IP address against an allowlist to avoid blocking something legitimate. These automated decisions are defined in playbooks (often via conditional logic in the workflow). By handling the front-line analysis – what’s often called “triage” – SOAR tools dramatically speed up the incident assessment phase and enable “machine-speed” containment for routine incidents.

It’s important to note that automation levels are adjustable. Organizations can choose to run certain playbooks in a fully automated fashion (no human in the loop) for straightforward tasks like phishing email takedowns, whereas other playbooks might be set to require human approval at a critical step (for example, before shutting down a production server in response to an incident). The degree of automation is completely customizable – ranging from fully manual (SOAR just suggests actions) to fully automated, or a hybrid of both. Early in a SOAR adoption, many teams start with more manual/human checkpoints and gradually move to greater automation as trust in the system grows and playbooks are fine-tuned.

Security Playbooks and Workflow Automation

Playbooks are at the heart of SOAR automation. A playbook (sometimes called a runbook) is a predefined set of actions and logic that the SOAR will execute in response to a certain trigger or event. Think of playbooks as the “recipes” that tell the SOAR what to do step-by-step for a given incident type. They enable process workflows to be codified and executed automatically, ensuring each incident is handled according to best practices and predetermined procedures. Playbooks are essential to SOAR success because they encapsulate the organization’s incident response knowledge into repeatable processes.

A playbook typically includes:

• Trigger conditions: what starts the playbook (e.g., an alert of a certain type, a user-submitted phishing email, a scheduled task).
• Automated steps: a sequence of actions – such as making API calls to query data or execute changes on devices, running scripts, or calling other playbooks.
• Flow control and decision branches: logic to handle different cases (e.g., “if the file hash is found in VirusTotal as malicious, do X, otherwise do Y”). This may include waiting for human input at certain decision points.
• Notifications and escalation: instructions on when to notify analysts or escalate to management.
• Closure activities: documentation steps, summary reports, or resetting systems to normal operations.

SOAR platforms often come with pre-built playbook templates for common scenarios (like phishing response, malware containment, lost device, etc.), which can be customized. Organizations can also build playbooks from scratch to fit their unique processes. Modern SOAR interfaces usually provide a visual workflow editor where analysts (even those without software development skills) can drag-and-drop actions and logic to create playbooks. This low-code approach to security automation is becoming more popular, enabling faster adoption and customization of SOAR workflows.

To illustrate, TechTarget provides a simple example of a phishing email playbook: if a malicious URL is found in an email attachment during a scan, the playbook will automatically block the email (prevent it from reaching the user), alert the employee that a phishing attempt was stopped, and add the sender’s IP to a blocklist. Additionally, the SOAR might trigger follow-up actions like searching other mailboxes for similar emails and removing them, or updating an email security gateway rule to filter such messages in the future. All of this happens consistently every time that threat pattern is observed, without relying on each analyst’s individual judgment or memory. Playbooks thus ensure a standardized response – a critical factor in incident response quality.

Another example: a privileged account compromise playbook might be triggered if anomalous behavior is detected on an admin account. The playbook could automatically disable the account, log the user off active sessions, dump recent login activity for an analyst to review, and notify the identity management team and CISO of the potential breach. Meanwhile, it creates a case in the SOAR with all relevant information attached (logs, user details, systems accessed) so an investigation can proceed. Multiple playbooks can be chained or run in parallel to handle complex incidents that involve several parallel tasks or sub-incidents.

Process workflow flexibility is key – a good SOAR allows any manual security process to be translated into a playbook. This includes handling decision points (like pausing for approval) and integrating custom scripts or tools if needed. As one practitioner guide notes, workflows should support both built-in and custom integrations and even allow manual analyst input during the flow for maximum flexibility. This ensures that automation augments analysts rather than restricts them.

In summary, playbooks are how organizations achieve force multiplication with SOAR. By automating the tedious steps of investigation and response, playbooks free up analysts to focus on strategy and complex problems. They also encode organizational knowledge (e.g. lessons from past incidents or compliance requirements) into the response process, leading to more consistent and error-free outcomes.

Threat Intelligence Integration and Enrichment

Today’s SOC is inundated not only with internal data but also with external threat intelligence (TI) – feeds of known malicious IPs, domains, file hashes, threat actor tactics, and more. One of the valuable functionalities of SOAR is its ability to integrate threat intelligence sources and apply them during incident analysis and response. Instead of an analyst manually looking up an indicator of compromise (IOC) on multiple websites or databases, the SOAR can do this in milliseconds as part of an automated workflow.

Threat intelligence integration in a SOAR can take several forms:

• Enrichment of alerts: When an alert comes in, the SOAR can automatically query threat intel databases (open-source feeds, commercial TI platforms, ISAC feeds, etc.) to pull reputation data on IP addresses, URLs, file hashes, or attacker email addresses involved in the incident. For instance, if an alert contains an IP address communicating with your network, the SOAR might check that IP against a threat feed and find it’s associated with a known botnet command-and-control server. This context will be added to the incident details, immediately telling the analyst (or playbook) how serious the threat is. Without automation, the analyst would spend time pivoting to various intel sources to gather this info.
• Automated blocking and containment using TI: If threat intel strongly identifies something as malicious, the SOAR can leverage that to take automatic action. For example, if a file hash is known to belong to ransomware malware (according to a TI feed), a SOAR playbook could skip straight to containment steps – isolating the host or deleting the file – rather than waiting for further analysis, because the external intel already confirmed the malicious nature. Similarly, integration with TI allows proactive defense – e.g., ingesting daily threat intel updates and automatically updating firewall blocklists or endpoint block policies with newly reported malicious IPs or domains (thus preventing an attack before it even reaches detection stages).
• Threat intelligence management: Some advanced SOAR platforms double as a mini threat intelligence platform (TIP). They can aggregate intelligence from multiple sources, deduplicate and correlate it, and even score the relevance of intel for your environment. Because the SOAR has access to incident data and context, it’s in a unique position to correlate threat intel with internal activity. For example, a SOAR might notice that an IP address that appears in multiple past incident cases also just appeared in a new threat feed – indicating an ongoing threat actor targeting the organization. This could prompt a deeper threat hunting investigation. The correlation of indicators across incidentsis a powerful approach – some SOARs provide visual link analysis charts to show relationships between incidents, affected entities, and threat intel indicators. This helps analysts see the bigger picture (e.g., multiple seemingly isolated alerts are actually related to the same campaign).
• Support for threat intel standards and sharing: Enterprises often participate in threat intelligence sharing communities, especially within specific sectors (for example, the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center – FS-ISAC – for banks). SOAR tools commonly support open standards like STIX/TAXII to ingest structured threat intel and even share information out to partners. A bank, for instance, could use its SOAR to automatically ingest new indicators from FS-ISAC feeds and cross-match them against its own logs, alerting if any matches are found – a process that would be nearly impossible to do manually at scale. Additionally, if that bank’s SOAR discovers a new phishing domain targeting its customers, it could format that intel and push it back to the sharing community through the same standards. This bidirectional intel flow is increasingly important in collaborative defense against threats.

The net effect of threat intel integration is that SOAR provides greater insight and context for each alert, enabling more meaningful and faster response decisions. It helps prioritize incidents (e.g., those involving known dangerous indicators get higher priority) and can reduce false positives by adding context (if an indicator is benign per multiple intel sources, the SOAR might downgrade or ignore the alert). A well-integrated threat intel capability in SOAR also contributes to proactive security: by continuously matching intel to internal data, some incidents can be caught that otherwise might have gone unnoticed.

However, it’s worth noting that threat intelligence is only useful if it’s actionable. SOAR ensures it becomes actionable by automatically doing the looking-up and cross-referencing as part of the workflow, rather than dumping intel data on analysts and expecting them to find the needle in the haystack. This results in a more intelligence-driven incident response, where external data enriches internal alerts seamlessly.

Case Management and Collaboration

Handling security incidents is not just about automation; it’s also a people process. Teams need to collaborate, hand off tasks, and keep records for each incident. SOAR platforms recognize this by providing robust case management and collaboration features as a core functionality. In essence, the SOAR’s case management is the modern replacement for the spreadsheets, ticketing systems, or ad-hoc documentation that teams might have used to track incidents historically. Instead, everything lives in one system, tied to the automated actions for a holistic incident management approach.

Key aspects of the case management function in SOAR include:

• Incident Tracking: Every alert or group of alerts that represents an incident is tracked as a “case” or record in the SOAR. The case contains all relevant information: the initial alert details, all actions taken by the SOAR (with timestamps), any additional evidence or data gathered, and the current status (e.g., open, under investigation, resolved). Analysts can add notes or attach files (like malware analysis results or screenshots) to the case. This creates a centralized incident log, which is crucial for auditing and post-incident analysis. According to Sumo Logic, a comprehensive SOAR should include “basic case management functionality, such as tracking cases, recording actions taken during the incident, and providing reporting on critical metrics and KPIs”.
• Analyst Collaboration: Multiple team members can work on a case within the SOAR platform. They can divide tasks (one person examining network logs, another contacting the affected user, etc.), and the SOAR can assign and track these tasks. Some SOARs have built-in chat or comment systems so analysts can discuss findings in context. This avoids siloing information in individual inboxes or chat threads that aren’t tied to the incident record. Role-based access controls ensure that the right people can access the necessary information and that sensitive incident data is protected. In larger incidents, various teams (SecOps, IT ops, DevOps, management) may need to collaborate – a SOAR provides a controlled environment for that. Collaboration extends beyond internal teams as well. If an incident requires engaging external parties (say, a malware sample needs to be sent to a third-party for analysis, or legal/compliance teams need to be looped in), the SOAR case can track those communications too. Open standards for sharing (like STIX mentioned earlier) enable collaboration with outside organizations as well.
• Documentation and Evidence Management: Throughout an incident, a lot of data is generated and collected – log excerpts, PCAPs, malware samples, forensic images, etc. SOAR case management often includes evidence management features: the ability to attach or link evidence to the case, store it securely, and even track chain-of-custody if needed (important for investigations that might lead to legal action). For example, if a suspicious file was downloaded, the SOAR can keep a copy of that file attached to the case, along with notes on who handled it and when (chain of custody). Having all evidence in one place not only helps the response effort but is invaluable for post-incident forensics and for satisfying auditors or regulators that proper procedures were followed.
• Incident Reporting and Metrics: Because the SOAR tracks every action and timestamp, it can easily generate reports and metrics. Common metrics include the time taken for each phase of response (detection, containment, remediation), which feeds into mean time to respond/resolve (MTTR) calculations; the number of incidents handled in a given period; classification of incidents by type/severity; and so on. Many SOARs come with dashboards to visualize this data. This is crucial for management and continuous improvement – teams can identify bottlenecks (e.g., “we’re slow in closing the loop with IT on patching”) and demonstrate improvements over time (e.g., “we reduced average containment time from 2 hours to 15 minutes after deploying SOAR”). The case management system essentially provides analytics on the SOC performance. For a CISO, these metrics help in demonstrating the security program’s effectiveness and ROI (more on this in the CISO section). Additionally, such reports help ensure compliance with any regulatory requirements to document incidents and response actions.
• Knowledge Base Integration: Some SOAR solutions allow linking incidents to knowledge base articles or past incident records, so analysts have references for how similar incidents were handled historically. This can accelerate response to recurring attack patterns. Over time, as the SOAR accumulates data on many incidents, it becomes a rich repository to mine for trends or lessons learned (for example, to identify that a particular type of incident is increasing in frequency and needs more attention or new countermeasures).

In summary, the case management and collaboration aspect of SOAR turns incident response into a well-documented, team-oriented process. It ensures nothing falls through the cracks: every alert is accounted for, every action is logged, and every incident yields data that can improve future responses. As an added benefit, having this centralized system greatly facilitates executive visibility into incidents (since reports can be easily produced) and simplifies compliance reporting (since evidence of due diligence and timely response is recorded).

By combining robust automation with human oversight and collaboration, SOAR platforms deliver a balanced approach: machines do the heavy lifting, while humans handle the nuances. All actions, whether automated or manual, feed into one workflow, creating an efficient and transparent incident response practice.

Implementing SOAR is a journey, not a one-time project. Start with a strong foundation, keep refining your playbooks, and foster collaboration between your people and automation. The result will be a security operation that runs like a well-oiled machine, ready to face whatever cyber threats come its way.

Common SOAR Use Cases Across Industries

SOAR technology can be applied to many scenarios across different industries – essentially anywhere there are repetitive security operations or time-sensitive incident response needs. Some common use cases where SOAR shines include phishing email handling, malware detection and containment, and vulnerability management/patching. We’ll explore each of these, among others, to see how SOAR is used in real-world contexts. By automating these common tasks, organizations in various sectors achieve faster response times and relieve the burden on their security teams.

Phishing Investigation and Response

Phishing emails are one of the most widespread threats that every organization faces. Users may report suspicious emails, or automated email security systems might flag them. Manually investigating each phishing attempt – analyzing the email headers, checking URLs, sandboxing attachments – is a time-consuming and error-prone process. In fact, for a typical organization, it can take anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes to triage a single suspected phishing email by hand. Given that millions of phishing emails are sent daily, no SOC can realistically keep up with manual analysis of each, leading to backlogs and potentially missing dangerous phish.

SOAR provides an ideal solution through phishing playbooks:

• When a user reports a phishing email (say by clicking the “Report Phishing” button that sends the email to a monitoring mailbox) or when the email security gateway flags an email, the SOAR can automatically kick off a phishing investigation playbook.
• The playbook might extract indicators from the email: the sender’s address, any URLs in the body, attachments, etc. It can then analyze these indicators: check the URLs against threat intel or safe browsing APIs, detonate attachments in a sandbox environment, and query the email server to find if other recipients got the same email.
• If the email is confirmed malicious (for example, the attachment is malware or the URL is stealing credentials), the SOAR can take containment actions immediately: quarantine or delete the email from all user inboxes (preventing anyone from clicking it), block the sender’s address or domain across the email system, and update web proxy/firewall rules to block the phishing URL if someone tries to access it.
• The SOAR will then notify the security team of what it found and did – e.g., “Phishing email from X detected and removed from 5 mailboxes; malicious URL Y was blocked; attachment analyzed as malware Z.” It might also alert the potentially affected users to inform them a phishing attempt was intercepted and remind them to be cautious.
• All these steps happen in moments. Compare that to the earlier manual effort: an analyst spending an entire day just to handle the organization’s phishing emails was not unusual in some financial companies before SOAR, which was hugely inefficient and tiring. After deploying SOAR, that same company reduced the phishing analysis process to a matter of minutes with automated workflows.

The benefits of using SOAR for phishing response are significant:

• Speed and Scalability: The faster an email is removed or blocked, the less chance a user clicks it. SOAR can reduce the time from phishing detection to removal drastically (from hours to minutes or less). This is crucial when hundreds of phishing emails might target an organization weekly – automation handles the volume consistently.
• Consistency: Each phishing attempt is handled in a standardized way according to the playbook. This reduces reliance on individual analyst intuition and eliminates oversight (e.g., forgetting to blocklist the sender domain).
• Reduced Workload: By quarantining suspected phish automatically and performing initial analysis, SOAR frees analysts to focus on only the emails that truly need human review. If a SOAR filters out the obvious bad stuff, analysts can concentrate on more subtle spear-phishing attempts or on refining detection rules.
• Prevention of Spread: Often phishing is a precursor to wider attacks (like a malware drop or credential theft leading to account compromise). Stopping it quickly with SOAR means downstream attacks are prevented. For example, if credentials were phished, a SOAR can automatically reset the user’s password or initiate multi-factor authentication enrollment as part of the response.

A real-world outcome reported by a SOAR user: after implementing an automated phishing workflow, what used to occupy a full analyst’s day now takes only a few minutes of automated processing, with the analyst only stepping in for the most complex cases. This not only improves security but also morale – analysts can work on higher-value tasks instead of the dull grind of phishing analysis. As one source noted, SOAR tools bring rigorous logic and speed that reduces human error in phishing response. Many organizations consider phishing use cases the “low-hanging fruit” for SOAR – a great starting point to demonstrate value.

Malware Detection and Containment

Another prime use case for SOAR is responding to malware infections or alerts. Detecting malware in an enterprise might involve alerts from endpoint detection and response (EDR) agents, antivirus software, or network monitoring tools. Once malware is suspected on a machine, swift action is needed to isolate it before it spreads. Without SOAR, an analyst would have to manually confirm the malware, identify affected systems, and take containment steps like network isolation or device quarantine, all while coordinating with IT. This can be slow – one report noted it often takes hours to manually identify and quarantine malware across endpoints, as an analyst moves from console to console.

SOAR can streamline malware response with automation:

• Automatic triage and validation: When a malware alert fires (e.g., “Possible ransomware detected on Host A”), the SOAR can instantly gather context. It might pull the hash of the suspicious file and check it against known malware databases or sandbox results. It can retrieve recent logs from that host (via SIEM or EDR) to see if the behavior truly looks malicious (e.g., new processes, connections to known bad IPs). This helps reduce false positives – if the hash is unknown and behavior is borderline, the SOAR might flag for human review; if it’s a known bad hash or clearly malicious behavior, the SOAR trusts the alert.
• Containment actions: If malware is confirmed or highly suspected, the SOAR can execute containment within seconds. Common containment steps include instructing the EDR agent to isolate the host from the network (many endpoint security tools have a “quarantine” or network disconnect feature that can be triggered via API), disabling the machine’s account in Active Directory to cut off any lateral movement, and blocking the file hash or related indicators enterprise-wide. The SOAR might also search other endpoints for the presence of the same file hash or process name, to see if the malware has spread. If it finds another infected system, it can quarantine that as well automatically. This “contain one, contain all” approach drastically reduces the chance of an outbreak.
• Eradication and recovery: After containment, the playbook can also assist with eradication – for instance, scheduling the machine for reimaging or triggering the deployment of a malware removal tool. It can ensure that any traces of the malware (registry entries, scheduled tasks, etc.) are cleaned using known cleanup scripts. Then, for recovery, it might reconnect the machine to the network and remove it from quarantine once verified clean. Some of these steps might be left for IT or an analyst, but the SOAR ensures the critical containment is done immediately.
• Notification and documentation: As always, the SOAR logs all actions in the case and notifies relevant teams. If company policy requires notifying, say, the IT desktop support team or a manager when a host is isolated, the SOAR can automate that communication. It might also kick off a parallel process to open a help desk ticket for the affected employee (e.g., “your computer was infected and is being reimaged”).

The outcome of using SOAR for malware incidents is a far faster and more coordinated response. The example above highlights that as soon as malware is detected on one endpoint, the SOAR can immediately check other endpoints and quarantine any infected devices before malware spreads across the network. This kind of rapid containment is extremely difficult to achieve manually, especially after hours or if multiple alerts happen simultaneously. By automating it, organizations can dramatically cut down the “reaction time” – often measuring in minutes what previously took hours.

Also, consider the difference in workload: an analyst manually responding to a malware incident might have to remote into the machine, run scans, coordinate with IT for isolation, etc., which could consume a significant chunk of time. With SOAR handling 90% of the steps, the analyst’s role shifts to oversight – reviewing the automatically gathered intel to confirm it’s truly malware, and then later doing a root cause analysis or improving detection rules post-incident. This shift from firefighting to strategic work is a key advantage of SOAR.

Vulnerability Management and Patching Automation

Beyond immediate incident response, SOAR is increasingly used in proactive security operations such as vulnerability management, patching, and configuration compliance. While vulnerability management isn’t an “incident” in the traditional sense, it’s a repetitive and process-driven activity that can benefit from orchestration and automation.

Consider a typical vulnerability management cycle:

• Regular scans (with tools like Nessus, Qualys, etc.) find numerous vulnerabilities on servers and PCs.
• The security team must triage these findings, prioritize critical vulnerabilities, notify system owners, and ensure patches or mitigations are applied.
• They then track the remediation progress and maybe rescan to verify closure.

This process involves lots of coordination and can be slow – leaving critical security gaps open longer than necessary. SOAR can automate many of these steps:

• Ingesting scan results: The SOAR can automatically pull in vulnerability scan reports. It can parse the results and create “cases” or tickets for the most critical vulnerabilities (based on severity, asset importance, or number of affected systems).
• Prioritization and assignment: Using orchestration, the SOAR might cross-reference the vulnerable assets with an asset management database to gather context like asset owner, criticality (is it a production server or a test machine?), and whether the asset is already scheduled for maintenance. It can then automatically assign the remediation task to the responsible team/person (for example, send a ticket to the server team if it’s a server vulnerability).
• Automated remediation (where possible): In some cases, SOAR can directly apply fixes. For instance, if a critical patch is available for a known vulnerability and there’s confidence it won’t disrupt operations, a SOAR could trigger the patch management system to deploy that patch to affected machines immediately (perhaps during an approved maintenance window). Or, if a known configuration error is reported (like a dangerous service being enabled), the SOAR might run a script to disable or reconfigure it. Organizations often are cautious with fully automated patching, but it can be done for certain well-tested updates or urgent zero-day fixes.
• Tracking and verification: The SOAR’s case management keeps track of all open vulnerabilities being worked on. It can send reminders to system owners approaching a deadline (“Patch X on server Y is due by tomorrow per policy”). Once remediation is marked done or a rescan confirms it, the SOAR closes the case. If an item remains unpatched past an internal SLA, the SOAR can escalate the issue (notify management or increase its severity).
• Reporting: The SOAR can generate metrics on vulnerabilities – such as how quickly critical vulns are addressed (average time to patch), how many are outstanding, etc., giving security and IT leadership a clear view of risk posture.

A concrete example of the benefit: Using SOAR to monitor and automatically apply patches removes the mundane cycle of manually tracking and updating patches, saving time for the SecOps team and significantly reducing risk. By automating the routine patch management tasks, one organization found they could dramatically shrink their exposure window for known vulnerabilities. For instance, rather than waiting for a weekly patch meeting, a SOAR could push out a critical patch within hours of its release for a critical vulnerability that is being actively exploited in the wild.

Moreover, SOAR platforms give visibility into an organization’s vulnerabilities that might otherwise be siloed in scan reports. When integrated with vulnerability scanners and asset data, the SOAR can present a consolidated dashboard of security flaws – missing patches, misconfigurations, weak settings – highlighting those that need urgent action. This helps teams address issues efficiently and not overlook something important.

It’s not just patching – similar workflows can automate configuration compliance (ensuring systems are hardened to baseline standards), user access reviews, or cloud security posture checks. For example, if a cloud storage bucket is found to be publicly accessible (a common misconfiguration), a SOAR playbook could automatically disable public access and notify the cloud admin team, preventing a potential data leak.

By extending into these areas, SOAR helps organizations move from reactive security to proactive risk mitigation. Instead of waiting for an incident caused by an unpatched vulnerability, the SOAR helps ensure the patch is applied in time. This use case shows SOAR’s versatility: it’s not limited to incident response; it can orchestrate any security operations workflow.

Other Use Cases and Emerging Applications

While phishing, malware, and patching are among the most common SOAR use cases, the applications of SOAR are continually expanding. Some other notable use cases include:

• Threat Hunting: As mentioned earlier, SOAR can support threat hunting by automating data collection. A threat hunter can offload tasks like pulling logs from various systems or checking dozens of IOCs against logs to the SOAR. Swimlane notes that SOAR significantly improves the speed of threat research by automating the analysis, correlation, and enrichment of data, letting analysts spend more time on finding new threats rather than data wrangling.
• User Account Provisioning/Deprovisioning: Some organizations use SOAR to streamline user lifecycle management. For example, when an employee leaves the company, a SOAR playbook might be triggered to disable their accounts, revoke certificates, and remove access across all systems, ensuring no access is lingering. This is a security task (removing potential unauthorized access) that can be automated end-to-end.
• Insider Threat Detection and Response: If user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) or SIEM flags an insider threat (like a user downloading an unusual amount of data), a SOAR can coordinate the response: maybe log the user off, require immediate password change, alert HR or security personnel, and begin monitoring the user’s accounts more closely.
• Fraud detection (in sectors like finance): If a fraudulent transaction is detected, a SOAR could automatically gather all related data (transaction logs, customer info, history), notify the fraud team, and even interact with systems to put a temporary hold on the account pending investigation.
• Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation: When a DDoS attack is detected by network monitoring, a SOAR could automatically invoke scripts or cloudflare/API calls to increase network capacity, update firewall rules to drop traffic from certain source ranges, and alert network engineers.
• IT Operations and SecOps Cross-Tasks: Some tasks straddle IT and security – e.g., responding to a service outage that might be caused by an attack. SOAR can be used to coordinate multi-team responses. Additionally, some organizations are finding creative “outside the SOC” uses, like using SOAR to automate aspects of employee onboarding (assigning laptops, adding to groups) with the same tool that handles offboarding security tasks. This leverages the orchestration engine beyond pure security.

The future of SOAR is likely to bring even more use cases. As one source suggests, low-code security automation is gaining popularity to combat analyst burnout and talent shortages. Unconventional use cases “beyond the SOC” (like automating routine IT tasks or compliance evidence collection) are emerging. Essentially, any repetitive, defined process in security or IT can potentially be handed to a SOAR.

What remains constant across all these applications is the value proposition: SOAR platforms eliminate a lot of the grunt work that teams deal with daily, allowing them to focus on the newest and most pressing risks. As threats evolve and the security landscape changes, SOAR workflows can be updated or new ones built, giving organizations a flexible tool to adapt quickly.

Challenges and Limitations of SOAR

For all its promise, implementing a SOAR solution is not a magic bullet. Organizations must be mindful of several challenges and limitations that come with SOAR adoption. Successful use of SOAR requires overcoming technical complexities, managing expectations, and allocating sufficient resources to maintain the system. Here we discuss some of the key challenges, including integration complexity, handling false positives, resource and skill requirements, and aligning SOAR with organizational processes.

Integration Complexity and Tool Compatibility

By its very nature, a SOAR platform needs to connect to a wide array of tools, data sources, and APIs. This integration can be technically challenging and time-consuming. While most commercial SOAR solutions come with many out-of-the-box integrations, it’s unlikely that every single tool in your environment is supported natively. Custom integrations or adapters often need to be built for home-grown systems or less common products. This requires software development effort or vendor support.

Even with standard integrations, there is work involved in configuring and maintaining connections: setting up API credentials, ensuring network connectivity to each system, and handling version updates (e.g., if your firewall’s API changes after an upgrade, the SOAR integration might break and require adjustment). As the Fidelis comparison noted, SOAR’s power comes with the drawback that it is “highly dependent on playbook customization and tool integration”. In other words, a SOAR is only as effective as its integrations allow it to be. If key tools aren’t integrated, those processes can’t be automated.

Additionally, orchestrating complex workflows across systems can introduce new failure modes. If one system is down or slow, the whole playbook might stall. Error handling needs to be built in (and most SOARs do allow for this) – e.g., if the ticketing system API call fails, maybe try again or alert an admin. All this adds to the complexity of setup.

Data normalization is another aspect: different tools output data in different formats. The SOAR has to normalize and make sense of data to use it in playbooks. This might require mappings and transformation logic. A related challenge is maintaining contextual awareness across systems – ensuring, for example, that an “asset ID 123” in the vulnerability scanner is recognized as the same system as “Server ABC” in the CMDB. These mappings often need to be configured.

Because of these factors, implementing SOAR can be complex and time-intensive initially. Organizations should be prepared for a ramp-up period where engineers (either in-house or from the vendor/partner) are dedicating effort to integrating systems and developing playbooks. It’s not unusual for full deployment to take a few months for a large enterprise SOC, especially if numerous integrations are needed.

False Positives, Alert Quality, and Automated Actions

SOAR doesn’t inherently solve the problem of false positives or poor quality alerts – if anything, it can actually amplify issues if not carefully managed. For example, if your SIEM generates a lot of false positive alerts and you plug it into a SOAR that automatically responds, you might end up automatically acting on false alarms, which can be disruptive.

Imagine a false positive alert leads a SOAR to isolate a critical server unnecessarily – this could cause an outage. Thus, one challenge is ensuring that the rules and thresholds feeding the SOAR are tuned and that the playbooks include logic to verify an alert before taking drastic action. Many teams initially opt to have potentially high-impact actions (like shutting down a system) require human confirmation to mitigate this risk.

Alert fatigue is a related concept. SIEMs notoriously can produce too many alerts (hence the fatigue). SOAR can help reduce this by automating triage, but if not configured well, it could also overwhelm analysts with too many low-priority cases or notifications – essentially shifting the noise from one system to another. It’s critical to strike the right balance: use the SOAR’s ability to enrich and add context to filter out noise, not to simply pass it on faster.

Another angle is that certain nuanced threats are hard to encode in playbooks. SOAR works best with known patterns (e.g., phishing, known malware, standard procedures). If an alert is very context-dependent or novel, a rigid playbook might not apply well. In these cases, the playbook needs to kick it to a human. Recognizing the limits of automation – knowing when to let a human analyst handle it – is an important part of designing SOAR workflows. Over-automating without proper checks can lead to either security gaps (if the automation misses something) or business disruption (if the automation misfires on a benign event).

In summary, SOAR itself doesn’t eliminate false positives; it manages them. It’s still up to the security team to refine detection logic and to incorporate validation steps in playbooks. Many companies address this by starting with semi-automated playbooks (where the SOAR suggests actions but an analyst approves them) until they are confident in the accuracy, and only then moving to full automation for those scenarios.

Resource Requirements and Skill Gaps

There is a misconception that installing a SOAR will allow an organization to reduce its security staff. In reality, SOAR is meant to augment and empower analysts, not replace them. You will still need skilled security professionals to build playbooks, monitor the SOAR’s performance, handle exceptions, and continuously improve the system. If an organization undervalues its human analysts or redirects “too many security staff resources to other tasks” too soon, they risk weakening their security program.

Skilled personnel are needed in several phases:

• Initial Implementation: People who understand both security operations and some scripting or development are ideal to set up a SOAR. They need to translate processes into playbooks – essentially an engineering mindset applied to SecOps. This might require training existing analysts or involving security engineers. Some teams partner with the SOAR vendor or a consulting firm for initial deployment due to this skill gap.
• Ongoing Maintenance: Playbooks are not “set and forget.” As the threat landscape changes, as your internal processes evolve, or as you add new tools, playbooks need updates. Connectors might break and need fixing. Someone must own the care and feeding of the SOAR. Organizations should plan to dedicate at least part of an FTE (full-time employee) to this role – sometimes called a SOAR engineer or automation engineer.
• Monitoring and Tuning: Just like a SIEM, a SOAR requires tuning. Analysts need to watch for any playbook failures, investigate why (was it a bug? a data format change? a logic issue?), and adjust. They also need to review metrics the SOAR provides to identify areas for improvement (e.g., a particular playbook is taking too long on one step – can we optimize that?). This continuous improvement cycle means analysts and engineers will interact with the SOAR daily.

There’s also the risk of overinflated expectations. Upper management might expect that after getting a SOAR, incidents will drop to zero or the SOC will need half the staff. But SOAR doesn’t reduce the volume of attacks; it just helps handle them more efficiently. If not communicated properly, this could lead to disappointment or budget cuts that hurt in the long run. It’s important to set the narrative: SOAR will increase capacity and speed, but it won’t eliminate the need for human decision-making on sophisticated threats.

In fact, the true value of SOAR is to free up human analysts for more challenging work. Successful adoption often sees those analysts who used to grind through phishing tickets now spending time on threat hunting, security engineering, improving detections, etc., which adds much more value to the organization. However, that only happens if you retain and upskill those analysts. Reassigning them away without filling the knowledge gap can leave the SOAR running on autopilot, which can be dangerous.

Another challenge related to resources is initial cost and ROI justification. SOAR platforms can be expensive (though costs vary, and some are more cost-effective or open-source). CISOs might face questions from the CFO or others on whether the investment is worth it. We address ROI considerations in the CISO section, but it’s a factor – a SOAR project might need a champion who can articulate the expected returns (in risk reduction and efficiency) to justify the expense and effort.

Organizational Process and Culture Challenges

Introducing SOAR is not only a technical endeavor but also a process and culture change for the security team. There may be resistance or adaptation issues:

• Change Management: Analysts who are used to doing things manually might be initially skeptical of automation (“Will it do my job right? What if it makes a mistake?”). It takes time for trust to build in the playbooks. Including the team in playbook design and gradually ramping up automation can help ease this transition.
• Security Culture and Silos: One pitfall noted is failing to address the security culture, which can further information silos. If the introduction of SOAR is not accompanied by efforts to improve communication and collaboration, it might end up only used by a subset of the team or not integrating with IT processes as intended. For instance, if the IT operations team isn’t on board with automated tickets or changes coming from the SOAR, they might push back or create roadblocks.
• Scope Creep and Strategy Alignment: It’s easy to get excited and try to automate “everything” or assume SOAR can solve “edge” security issues automatically. But some things are beyond the current scope of SOAR (despite marketing hype that might conflate it with full AI-driven security). If leaders think SOAR will completely cover strategic security gaps, that’s a mistaken conflation with AI or an overestimation of its intelligence. It’s crucial to align SOAR use cases with the broader security strategy and maturity. For example, if the organization’s incident response process is not well-defined to begin with, deploying a SOAR will be chaotic – you need to have or develop those processes to encode them. In other words, SOAR is not a substitute for having a solid incident response plan; it’s a tool to enforce and accelerate that plan.
• Metrics and Success Measurement: Another challenge is determining how to measure the success of SOAR. Are you looking at reduction in average incident response times? Higher throughput of alerts handled? Reduction in impact from incidents? It can be “limited or unclear what success looks like” if you haven’t set those goals. Defining key performance indicators (KPIs) for the SOAR program (like MTTR improvements, number of incidents auto-resolved, etc.) is important. Without it, the effort could lose direction or fail to demonstrate value to executives.

Finally, one should consider that SOAR is not a silver bullet for every security problem. It excels at known patterns and response actions. But novel attack scenarios or complex investigations will still heavily involve human expertise. As TechTarget’s guidance emphasizes, “SOAR tools cannot fully replace security pros or compensate for talent shortfalls; their utility is to lighten the load by automating the tedium and freeing up skilled analysts for higher-risk incidents”. Recognizing this and positioning SOAR as a force multiplier, not an autonomous security brain, will set realistic boundaries and help ensure it’s used effectively.

In conclusion on challenges: Implementing SOAR requires technical integration effort, vigilant tuning, sufficient skilled personnel, and cultural adaptation. These hurdles are surmountable with planning: by phasing the rollout, keeping humans in the loop initially, training the team, and managing leadership expectations. When done right, the payoff is substantial. But skipping these considerations can lead to a stalled SOAR project or one that doesn’t deliver on its promise.

SOAR in the Financial Services Industry

The financial services industry (banks, credit unions, insurance companies, investment firms, etc.) has some of the most advanced cybersecurity requirements of any sector. These organizations face relentless attacks (from cybercriminals and nation-state actors), hold highly sensitive customer data, and must comply with stringent regulations. It’s no surprise that financial institutions were early adopters of SOAR technology and continue to drive innovative use cases for it. In this section, we focus on how SOAR applies specifically to financial services, covering the industry’s threat landscape, specific SOAR applications in finance, regulatory compliance considerations, and risk mitigation strategies that SOAR enables.

Why Financial Services Need SOAR: Threat Landscape and Challenges

Financial institutions are prime targets for cyber attacks due to the direct monetary gain potential and the wealth of personal data they hold. The threat landscape includes everything from phishing campaigns against bank employees or customers, to sophisticated malware (like trojans that siphon funds or ransomware targeting core banking systems), to insider fraud, and advanced persistent threats aiming for large-scale breaches. Indeed, news of hackers stealing banking data or disrupting financial services seems to break on a weekly basis. The sector also deals with volume: a large bank can see thousands of security alerts per day across its global networks.

Security in the financial services world remains as essential as ever, and those companies that maintain a strong cybersecurity focus gain a competitive advantage in terms of customer trust and uptime. However, many financial firms still struggle with inefficiencies in their security operations that can slow down response. Legacy processes might involve a lot of manual work – one financial services analyst noted that previously their team had workflows that were “largely manual,” such as spending an entire day, every day, just triaging phishing emails targeting the company. This kind of resource drain is unsustainable, especially as the business grows or threats increase.

Enter SOAR: For financial institutions, SOAR is a game-changer for a few reasons:

• High Volume of Threats: SOAR’s automation is ideal for handling the large number of daily alerts (many of which are routine or false positives) that a bank’s SOC faces. It allows the SOC to scale without merely adding more analysts linearly.
• Need for Speed: In finance, time is literally money. A faster incident response can mean preventing substantial fraud or stopping a breach before millions of customer records or dollars are lost. SOAR drastically reduces response times. For example, consider a phishing attack on a bank’s customers – if the bank’s SOC can shut down the phishing site and inform customers within hours via automated processes, the impact is reduced compared to a response that might take days.
• Complex IT Environments: Banks have complex, layered IT architectures (mainframes, distributed systems, cloud services, fintech integrations, etc.) and a multitude of security tools. SOAR helps by stitching together diverse systems – something particularly valuable when a transaction flows through many systems and a security incident might touch multiple platforms. The orchestration component of SOAR can link the old and new seamlessly.
• 24/7 Operations: Financial markets and online banking operate around the clock, so SOCs in finance are often 24/7 as well. Automated playbooks can respond to threats even at 3 AM on a Sunday, perhaps containing an issue until the on-call team can review. This “always-on” defense is critical for global financial entities.

One real example from the industry: Hilltop Holdings, a financial services company, found that before SOAR, one analyst had to dedicate 100% of their time to phishing email analysis daily. After implementing Rapid7’s InsightConnect SOAR, that same phishing triage process took only minutes, freeing the analyst’s time almost completely. This illustrates the massive efficiency gain SOAR can deliver in a financial SOC. Not only did it improve operational efficiency, but it also improved the team’s effectiveness – they could now focus on more complex threats and strategic improvements rather than drowning in a sea of phishing emails.

Beyond phishing, financial institutions are using SOAR to handle things like:

• Fraud alert coordination: A suspected fraudulent transaction can trigger a SOAR playbook that gathers all related info (account details, transaction history, geolocation, etc.) and alerts the fraud team immediately, possibly even interfacing with customer databases to lock the account pending investigation.
• Card skimmer or ATM malware incidents: If an ATM or point-of-sale system is suspected to be compromised, a SOAR can automate an incident response that involves notifying physical security, disabling the device from the network, alerting incident responders to go check the ATM, and looking for similar activity on other devices in the region.
• Insider trading or policy violations: If monitoring systems detect, say, an employee accessing customer accounts inappropriately (a potential insider threat), the SOAR can assemble evidence and alert the security and compliance officers, ensuring rapid action to stop the behavior and begin an investigation.

Importantly, keeping valuable data protected is a huge competitive differentiator in finance. Customers need trust that their banks and insurers can safeguard their assets and information. A fast and effective incident response, enabled by SOAR, directly contributes to that trust by minimizing damage from incidents. Conversely, a slow or sloppy response can lead to breaches that erode reputation and incur heavy costs.

Regulatory Compliance and SOAR in Finance

Financial services is heavily regulated when it comes to cybersecurity and data protection. Banks and financial firms must comply with regulations and guidelines from bodies such as:

• Government and international regulations (e.g., in the US: FFIEC guidelines, SEC rules for public companies, GLBA for financial data privacy; in the EU: GDPR for data protection, PSD2 for payment security, and the new Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) for banks).
• Industry standards like PCI DSS if they handle payment cards.
• Regulatory reporting requirements for cybersecurity incidents (many central banks or financial authorities require prompt reporting of significant incidents).
• Internal policies mapped to frameworks like NIST CSF, ISO 27001, etc., often mandated by regulators or auditors.

Compliance in this sector often means having documented incident response plans, demonstrating fast reaction to incidents, and keeping logs and evidence of how incidents are handled. This is where SOAR can provide immense value:

• Audit-Ready Incident Logs: SOAR’s case management automatically records every action taken, by whom, and when. This is a treasure trove during audits or regulatory examinations. Instead of manually compiling evidence that “we did respond to incident X appropriately,” the CISO can pull a comprehensive report from the SOAR showing the timeline of actions, communications, and outcomes for that incident. Regulators appreciate that level of documentation. In fact, leveraging SOAR can help meet requirements like those in DORA which demand retaining incident records for a set period (e.g., 5 years of incident documentation).
• Meeting Reporting Deadlines: Some regulations enforce extremely tight reporting timelines for incidents. For example, the U.S. SEC’s 2023 cybersecurity rules require that public companies file an incident disclosure (Form 8-K) within 4 business days of determining a material cyber incident has occurred. EU’s DORA goes further for operational incidents in finance: major incidents must be reported within 2 hours to regulators, with additional reports following shortly after. These timelines are challenging if you rely on manual processes. SOAR can help by immediately notifying the necessary internal stakeholders (legal, compliance, execs) when certain severe incidents occur, ensuring the clock doesn’t run out. Moreover, a SOAR can timestamp key actions and store information needed for reporting in one place. By automating the gathering of incident scope, impact, and root cause information, SOAR can effectively prepare much of the content needed for a regulatory report.
• Consistent Process = Compliance: Many guidelines require that companies have a consistent, tested incident response process. SOAR playbooks ensure that whenever an incident happens, the team follows the predefined process (because the tool executes it). This consistency helps avoid compliance gaps. For instance, if policy says “for any critical incident, notify the Board within 24 hours,” a SOAR can have that notification as a step in the critical incident playbook, so it’s never missed. SOAR essentially enforces the policy in real-time.
• Audit Trails and Approvals: In finance, making changes to systems often requires approval or oversight (to avoid a rogue action causing issues). SOAR can incorporate approval workflows to satisfy change management controls. For example, an automated action to block an account could require a quick approval click from a manager if required by policy. All such approvals are logged, creating a clear trail for auditors that proper controls were followed even in an automated response.

A concrete example is the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) in the EU, which came into effect in 2025 for financial entities. DORA mandates not just fast incident reporting (2 hours for major incidents ) but also thorough incident response and recovery capabilities. The act requires complete incident documentation, root cause analysis, and corrective actions to be delivered within a month of the incident. Compliance with such strict requirements is tough manually, but, as an analysis in Israel Hayom notes, modern SOAR platforms can cover many of these aspects – they can automatically sort incidents by severity, notify management immediately, track the 2-hour and 4-hour reporting deadlines, and even interface with authority reporting systems. For instance, some SOARs could be configured to auto-populate incident report forms for regulators based on the data in the case management, saving precious time.

Similarly, in the US, the SEC’s rules about including cybersecurity risk management processes in annual reports (10-K) mean companies must show they have robust processes. Using a SOAR is strong evidence of a mature process – it indicates you have implemented technologies to manage threats efficiently and can produce detailed records of how threats are handled. It also helps the CISO in articulating the company’s cyber risk posture to the board in a concrete way (for example, “this quarter we automatically blocked 500 phishing attacks targeting our customers, preventing any fraud losses,” which shows operational resilience).

Financial regulators also emphasize not just reacting, but building resilience. SOAR contributes to resilience by enabling faster recovery and continuity. If an outage is security-related, SOAR can help coordinate failovers or backups as part of the response. Even for disaster recovery tests and cyber drills (which many banks must perform), SOAR can be used to automate aspects of these exercises and then document results.

In summary, SOAR helps financial institutions not only bolster their security but also confidently meet regulatory obligations. It provides demonstrable assurance that incidents are handled in a controlled, timely manner in line with regulatory expectations. In an audit or exam, a bank leveraging SOAR can quickly answer, “How do you handle incident type X and prove you did Y?” by pulling the data from the SOAR.

Financial Services SOAR Use Cases and Applications

We touched on phishing and malware in a general sense; in financial services, those use cases often have an extra dimension (like protecting customers or transaction systems). Let’s highlight a few specific applications of SOAR in financial settings:

• Payment and Transaction Fraud Response: Banks often have fraud detection systems that flag anomalies in transactions (like unusual wire transfers, credit card fraud patterns, etc.). When such an alert triggers, a SOAR can orchestrate the immediate response: notify the fraud investigation team, pull up all details of the transaction and account, possibly freeze the account or transaction pending review, and even interface with other banks or networks if needed (for instance, sending a recall request for a fraudulent wire transfer automatically). The speed here is crucial – recovering fraudulent transactions is time-sensitive. Automating those first steps can make the difference in stopping funds from leaving the institution or improving recovery rates.
• Threat Intelligence Sharing via ISACs: The financial industry has one of the most active information sharing communities, FS-ISAC. Financial organizations get daily or real-time feeds of threats observed (like new phishing campaigns targeting customers, or indicators related to attacks on another bank). A SOAR can integrate FS-ISAC feeds (using STIX/TAXII integration) and automatically cross-check those indicators against the bank’s environment. For example, if FS-ISAC shares that IP X.Y.Z.Q is being used in a banking Trojan campaign today, the SOAR could search its SIEM logs to see if that IP communicated with the bank’s network. If yes, that could trigger an incident to investigate a possible undetected breach. Conversely, if the bank experiences an incident, the SOAR could package the indicators (malware hash, IPs, domain) and automatically submit them to FS-ISAC for the benefit of others, subject to the bank’s sharing policies. This speeds up sector-wide awareness. Essentially, SOAR can act as the bank’s threat intel hub, ensuring participation in collective defense with minimal manual effort.
• Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement: Financial firms perform regular compliance checks, like making sure encryption is used, certain ports are closed, or only authorized software is present (often guided by frameworks or regulations). A SOAR can routinely check configurations (via scripts or scanning tools) and automatically remediate minor deviations. For example, if a public S3 bucket is found in a bank’s cloud (violating policy), a SOAR playbook could automatically restrict access and notify the cloud team, as mentioned earlier. This helps maintain a strong security posture in line with regulatory expectations without waiting for a human to notice.
• Cyber Threat Drills (War Games): Some banks use SOAR to assist in cyber ranges or drills. They program simulated incidents into the SOAR and use it to measure response or to generate realistic events for the team to react to, then use the case data for lessons learned. It’s a bit meta – using the tool to test the team – but it can standardize how drills are run and ensure the drill scenarios are comprehensive.
• Integration with Physical Security: Financial institutions consider physical and cybersecurity together (think of a bank vault heist that also involves hacking security cameras). A SOAR could be used in a “fusion center” context, where a physical incident triggers digital actions. For instance, badge access logs indicating an off-hours entry to a data center could prompt the SOAR to check if any critical systems were accessed or if any alarms are disabled, marrying physical and digital evidence. This kind of use case is less common but exemplifies how orchestration can span different security domains in a financial enterprise.
• Executive and Customer Communications: In the event of a major incident (like a data breach affecting customers), a SOAR could help prepare templated communications or ensure that notifications (to customers, regulators, executives) happen in the proper sequence. For example, once a breach is confirmed and classified as significant, a playbook might auto-generate an email draft to customers or a briefing report to the CEO based on known incident data. While humans will refine and send such communications, having them prepped saves time under pressure.

Financial services organizations have also pioneered Cyber Fusion Centers – combining threat intelligence, incident response, and sometimes fraud and physical security together. SOAR is a natural fit in fusion centers because it connects the dots across different functions and data sources.

Risk Mitigation and Benefits for Financial Organizations

From a risk management perspective, SOAR provides tangible benefits to financial institutions:

• Reduced Incident Impact: By mitigating threats faster, SOAR reduces the potential damage of incidents. A malware outbreak stopped in 5 minutes affects maybe a handful of machines; in 5 hours it could be hundreds and lead to a much larger breach. Faster containment = lower impact = lower risk.
• Lower Operational Risk and Downtime: Automation through SOAR leads to more reliable and predictable responses. This reduces the risk of an incident escalating due to human error or slow reaction. In banking, outages and downtime have not only financial costs but also can incur regulatory scrutiny if they result from poor operational resilience. SOAR, by enabling smart containment strategies, helps minimize disruption during incidents.
• Compliance Risk Reduction: Meeting those strict regulatory deadlines and requirements through SOAR means a lower chance of incurring fines or other penalties for non-compliance. It also means the organization is less likely to experience a secondary crisis (like regulatory action) in the middle of dealing with a primary incident.
• Transparency and Oversight: SOAR provides dashboards and reports that give management and risk officers a clear view of the organization’s security posture. For example, a CISO can use SOAR metrics to report to the Board on cyber risk in quantifiable terms: “We have automated responses for 80% of our low-medium alerts, our average response time to contain high-risk incidents is now 10 minutes, down from 1 hour, and we’ve seen a corresponding reduction in potential loss estimates.” This helps integrate cybersecurity into the broader enterprise risk management framework.
• Resource Optimization: Financial institutions, especially large ones, have sizable security teams and invest heavily in technology. SOAR maximizes the return on these investments by ensuring tools are used to their full potential (through integration) and analysts’ time is used efficiently. The ROI for a bank might be seen in avoiding the need to increase headcount as much as threats grow – the existing team can handle more with SOAR. Or it might be seen in the fact that analysts can now tackle threat hunting and advanced investigations (which, while not immediately quantifiable, can prevent future losses by catching stealthy threats early).
• Consistent Risk Mitigation Strategies: In finance, consistency is key to risk management. SOAR ensures that when a known risk scenario happens (say, DDoS attack or rogue trading software detected), the response is executed exactly as designed in the risk mitigation strategy. This predictability is something risk officers value – it reduces variability in outcomes.

Another angle is that using SOAR can help in aligning with cybersecurity frameworks that financial institutions often adopt, like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework or ISO 27001. For instance, NIST CSF emphasizes timely response and recovery processes; a SOAR is a tool that can significantly improve the maturity level in those CSF domains by formalizing and accelerating response.

Finally, SOAR’s logging of incidents can feed into a lessons learned process that is critical in finance. Banks typically perform post-incident reviews to identify control gaps or process failures. With SOAR, they have a detailed record to analyze and can also adjust the playbooks immediately to address any shortcomings found (closing the feedback loop quickly).

In summary, financial services stand to gain perhaps the most from SOAR because they operate in a high-threat, high-stakes environment with rigorous oversight. SOAR enhances their cyber resiliency, ensures they can meet regulatory demands, and ultimately helps protect the institution’s integrity and customer trust by minimizing the likelihood and impact of security incidents.

SOAR Insights for CISOs and Security Leaders

For CISOs and other security executives, SOAR implementation is not just a technical project but a strategic initiative. In this concluding section, we distill insights specifically tailored for CISOs, focusing on ROI considerations, strategic implementation tips, executive-level reporting, and aligning SOAR with broader cybersecurity frameworks and business objectives. These insights can help security leaders make a strong case for SOAR, deploy it successfully, and integrate its value into the organization’s security strategy and governance.

Evaluating ROI and Business Value of SOAR

One of the first questions a CISO might face when proposing SOAR is: What’s the return on investment? While security ROI can be tricky to quantify, SOAR provides some concrete areas where value can be measured:

• Efficiency Gains (Time Savings): Perhaps the most straightforward metric. SOAR can drastically reduce the time to perform certain tasks. For example, if phishing email response drops from 30 minutes per email to 2 minutes via automation, and you process hundreds of such emails a month, those saved hours can be tallied. These translate to productivity gains – your team can cover more ground or you might avoid hiring additional analysts to handle growing workload. Many SOAR platforms come with reporting that shows how much time was saved on each automated action or how many tasks were handled without human intervention.
• Incident Response Metrics Improvement: Key metrics like Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) and Mean Time to Respond/Remediate (MTTR) are commonly tracked by CISOs. SOAR almost invariably improves MTTR since it automates containment and response steps that used to wait for human action. A reduction in MTTR from hours to minutes for certain incident types is a strong indicator of risk reduction (faster response = less damage). Some organizations also track Mean Time Between Incidents or number of incidents handled per analyst – which can improve if low-level incidents are resolved automatically, leaving analysts more time to prevent the next incident.
• Alert Handling Capacity: You can measure how many alerts or incidents your team handles per month before and after SOAR. If previously 50% of alerts were not being thoroughly investigated due to volume, and after SOAR that approaches 100%, that’s a significant risk reduction and value add (fewer things slip through cracks). SOAR can thus be tied to the metric of coverage – ensuring a higher percentage of security events get a response.
• Quality and Consistency: Although harder to quantify, you can use metrics like percentage of incidents handled following defined process or compliance audit scores. If a CISO can show that with SOAR, 100% of critical incidents followed the documented playbook (because the playbook executed in SOAR), whereas previously maybe some steps were skipped under pressure, that’s an improvement in quality. It reduces the chance of an incident blowing up due to human error, which is a form of risk reduction.
• Financial Impact Avoidance: This is often an estimate, but CISOs sometimes model how faster response or improved security lowers the likelihood or impact of a breach, and thus potential losses. For instance, if the average cost of a breach of a certain size is $X (industry data can be used, e.g., Ponemon Cost of a Breach reports), and by using SOAR to shorten containment time you reduce the probability of a breach reaching that size by Y%, you can argue an expected loss avoidance of $X * Y%. While these numbers are not precise, they provide a narrative: “Investing $A in SOAR could avoid an expected $B in incident costs.”
• Reduced Downtime or Service Impact: If your organization has metrics around uptime or availability, you can correlate how automated, swift incident response maintains higher uptime. For example, if a malware outbreak is contained in 10 minutes instead of 2 hours, that might mean only a minor blip in service rather than a full outage of a branch office for half a day. Those operational metrics matter to the business side.

Many SOAR platforms help with ROI by providing built-in analytics. For example, Splunk SOAR (Phantom) has an “Automation ROI” dashboard that shows metrics needed to measure success and demonstrate value. Swimlane notes that a SOAR is ideal for aggregating data and provides detailed metrics on MTTR, individual and team performance, and technology value contribution. By tracking every step of the IR process and how each component contributes, a CISO is “provided with detailed metrics on mean time to resolution (MTTR), individual and team incident response behavior, and technology value contribution”. This granularity supports robust ROI monitoring.

When presenting ROI, it’s effective to use before-and-after comparisons:

• Before SOAR: “We had X analysts handling Y alerts per day, each alert took Z minutes on average, and some alerts were missed or delayed.”
• After SOAR: “We handle 3Y alerts with the same team, average handling time for common incidents dropped to Z/5, and we now respond to nearly 100% of critical alerts within 15 minutes.”

Any improvement in those can be tied to cost savings (either direct savings or cost avoidance).

Another element is technology consolidation or better utilization. If the SOAR allows you to get more out of existing tools (for instance, integrating two tools that previously were siloed, now they work in concert to catch threats), you’re getting better value out of those investments too. In some cases, organizations might even retire point solutions if the SOAR can replace some functionality (though usually SOAR complements rather than replaces tools).

Ultimately, CISOs should frame SOAR’s ROI not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of business risk reduction and operational resilience, which are high priority for executives. You can say: “SOAR investment will allow us to reduce the likelihood of a major incident turning into a business crisis, ensure we meet regulatory obligations (avoiding fines), and allow our team to keep up with threats without linear cost increases.” ROI is seen over time as the number and impact of incidents that actually cause damage remains low despite an increase in attacks – a sign that the security program is effectively mitigating risk.

Strategic Implementation Tips for CISOs

Successful SOAR adoption requires strategy and planning. Here are some tips and best practices that security leaders should consider:

• Start with Clear Use Cases: Don’t try to automate everything at once. Identify a few high-value, achievable use cases (like phishing response, malware containment – especially those that are currently pain points for the team) to implement first. These early wins will build confidence and justify further investment. For example, many start with phishing because it’s well-understood and repetitive. Once stakeholders see phishing being handled smoothly by SOAR, they’ll be more eager to tackle other areas.
• Do the Upfront Process Work: One lesson from practitioners is the importance of upfront planning and design of workflows. Before diving into building playbooks, map out your current incident response process for that use case. Involve the people who usually do the job. Understand each step, decision point, and data source. This exercise often uncovers process improvements even before automation (maybe some steps are unnecessary or could be done in parallel). As Rapid7’s case study highlighted, taking the time to understand and design the process led to effective workflows and an efficient outcome. Essentially, don’t just automate the status quo if the status quo process is flawed – refine it, then automate.
• Phased Rollout & Iteration: Implement SOAR in phases. For instance, phase 1 might integrate a subset of tools and roll out a couple of playbooks with human oversight. Phase 2 can expand integrations and move more playbooks to fully automated mode. This phased approach manages risk – you learn and adjust as you go. It also avoids overwhelming the SOC staff with too much change at once.
• Keep Humans in the Loop Initially: It’s wise to start many playbooks in a “monitor” or “suggestion” mode. Let the SOAR execute and maybe prepare actions, but have an analyst click “approve” to actually execute potentially impactful changes. This mitigates fears and allows tuning. Over time, as playbooks prove reliable, you can take the training wheels off. Remember the earlier guidance: the degree of automation can be gradually increased from mostly manual to hybrid to fully automated. Use this gradation to your advantage.
• Comprehensive Training: Ensure the SOC team is trained on the SOAR platform. This includes playbook creation, debugging, and best practices for writing automations. Some team members may need deeper training (SOAR “power users” or engineers) to handle integrations and complex logic. Training alleviates fear and empowers the team to contribute ideas for new playbooks. It’s also key for continuity – you don’t want only one person knowing how everything works.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Get buy-in not only from the SOC, but also from IT operations, compliance, and any other groups who will be impacted or benefit. For example, involve the IT ops team early if SOAR will create tickets for them or execute changes on their systems. If they understand the benefits (like fewer midnight calls because SOAR auto-resolves an issue), they’ll be supportive. Bring risk management or compliance folks into the conversation to show how it will help with audit and reporting – this can get them on your side if any policy adjustments are needed (like pre-approving certain automated actions).
• Vendor Support and Community: Leverage the SOAR vendor’s experience – they often have playbook templates, expertise from other customer deployments, and professional services that can accelerate your success. Also, connect with user communities or forums. Many SOAR users share custom scripts or solutions for common challenges (e.g., how to integrate with a less-common tool).
• Metrics and Monitoring from Day 1: Define how you will measure success early (as discussed in ROI). Set up the dashboards or reports to capture those metrics. Also monitor the SOAR’s own performance – e.g., track if any playbook errors are occurring, how often analysts are overriding automation, etc. This will highlight areas to fix. It’s often said, “you can’t improve what you don’t measure,” so treat the SOAR like any process improvement – continuously measure and refine.
• Plan for Maintenance: Set expectations that SOAR is not a one-time project but an ongoing capability. Allocate time for your team to maintain playbooks and integrations. Also plan for periodic reviews of playbooks – perhaps every quarter, review each major playbook: Is it still valid? Does it need updates due to changes in environment or threat landscape? Having this discipline keeps the SOAR effective long-term. One bank described their experience as actually fun to implement but noted the importance of a good working relationship with the SOAR vendor for quick support and new feature requests.
• Avoid Over-Automation: Beware of trying to automate extremely complex or highly interpretative tasks. Some decisions require human judgment and that’s okay. Use SOAR to gather data and present it to a human in those cases, rather than force an automation that might do the wrong thing. A CISO should encourage a balanced approach: automate the repetitive 80%, but don’t try to automate the 20% of scenarios that are really unique or complicated, at least not until maybe future AI capabilities mature.Incident Response Plan Integration: Update your formal incident response plans and runbooks to incorporate SOAR. For example, if your IR plan says “Analyst does X,” it might now say “SOAR platform performs X, and Analyst verifies outcome.” This ensures everyone knows the new workflow and you remain compliant with any standards (some auditors will want to see that your documented procedures match what you actually do with SOAR in place).
• Tabletop Exercises: Conduct tabletop exercises including the SOAR. Simulate an incident and step through how the SOAR would respond, where humans intervene, etc. This not only trains staff but also tests that the playbooks handle the scenario as expected. It’s better to discover any gaps in a test than during a real incident.

By following these strategic tips, a CISO can greatly increase the chances of a smooth SOAR deployment that delivers on its promises. It transforms SOAR from just a tool purchase into a well-integrated element of the security program.

Executive Dashboards and Reporting for CISOs

One significant advantage of SOAR for a CISO is the ability to generate meaningful executive reports and dashboards that demonstrate the value and status of security operations. Rather than just reporting raw numbers of attacks or vague qualitative assessments, the CISO can leverage SOAR data to provide concrete insights:

• Operational Metrics: As mentioned, metrics like number of incidents handled, average response time, percentage of incidents automatically resolved, etc., can be displayed. Executives love to see trends – e.g., a graph showing how response times have come down over the past 6 months since SOAR implementation. This quantifies improvement in operational excellence.
• Risk Metrics: A CISO can translate the above into risk terms: “We have reduced the window of exposure for malware incidents by 85%, thereby reducing potential damage.” Some dashboards might categorize incidents by risk level and show how quickly each was contained, aligning with the concept of minimizing impact on high-risk events.
• Compliance Dashboard: If regulators or the board ask, “Are we meeting our cyber incident compliance requirements?”, the CISO can show a dashboard from the SOAR that indicates, for example, how many reportable incidents occurred and that all were reported within required time frames, or how many times customer data was potentially at risk and that notifications (if any were needed) were done properly. SOAR’s timestamps provide evidence. Even if not directly asked, proactively showing that “we have our compliance under control” builds confidence with the board.
• ROI and Value Delivered: A CISO report might include a slide like “SOAR in the last quarter: X analyst hours saved, equivalent to $Y, which were redirected to other critical projects; Z incidents automatically contained; business impact avoided in at least N cases.” Some organizations put monetary values on time saved or incidents prevented to help executives grasp the benefit in business terms.
• Incident Details for Storytelling: While execs don’t need technical minutiae, they often appreciate a short narrative of a significant incident: “In May, our SOAR detected and stopped a phishing-based account takeover attempt targeting the CFO. Within 2 minutes of the phishing email landing, it was removed and the attempted fraud was averted. This illustrates our improved resilience.” These anecdotes, supported by data (timeline, actions from the SOAR log), can be powerful in board presentations to show real examples of how the investment is protecting the company.
• Trends and Forecast: Because SOAR logs everything, over time you can spot trends. The CISO could report, “We are seeing a 20% increase in phishing attempts quarter over quarter, but due to automation our mean time to remediate remains low and stable.” This helps the board understand the evolving threat environment and that the security team is keeping pace. If trends show something worrying (like a type of attack getting through the playbooks), the CISO can highlight that as an area needing attention or resources.
• Integration with Enterprise Reporting: Some CISOs integrate SOAR metrics into higher-level business risk dashboards or balanced scorecards. For instance, if the company uses enterprise risk management software, the SOAR’s outputs might feed a “cyber risk index” or contribute to operational risk scores. The idea is to tie security operations to business risk in the same way other units tie their metrics to business outcomes.

When presenting to executives or the board, visuals are key. SOAR tools often allow exporting data to BI tools or have their own UI for charts. A polished dashboard showing key KPIs pre- and post-SOAR, current status, and goals can succinctly convey performance.

CISOs should also report on alignment with frameworks and strategy (next sub-section) to show that the SOAR initiative is part of a deliberate program, not just a tech gadget. For instance, “This capability helps us fulfill the ‘Respond’ function of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework to a high maturity level.”

Another benefit of SOAR for reporting is ad-hoc queries. If an executive asks, “Have we ever seen indicator X in our network?” or “How often do we get ransomware attempts?”, the CISO can query the SOAR’s historical data and answer confidently, often even during the meeting. This makes the security program look well-managed and under control.

On a related note, SOAR facilitates board engagement by establishing a common language and data-driven foundation for discussions. IBM’s guidance suggests that integrating tools like SOAR helps CISOs articulate risk posture to leadership in a way that opens constructive dialogue. Regular reporting from SOAR data ensures security stays on the agenda not just when incidents happen, but as a standing business consideration.

Alignment with Cybersecurity Frameworks and Broader Strategy

CISOs often use established cybersecurity frameworks and models to structure their programs and communicate with stakeholders. Implementing SOAR should be positioned within that context:

• NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF): SOAR primarily strengthens the Respond function of NIST CSF, and also contributes to Detect (through orchestration and enrichment improving detection context) and Recover (through automation of restoration steps and lessons learned documentation). A CISO can map SOAR capabilities to CSF categories: for example, Respond/Analysis (RS.AN) and Respond/Mitigation (RS.MI) are greatly enhanced by automated analysis and containment. If an organization measures itself against CSF maturity, the CISO can show an increase in those areas thanks to SOAR. This alignment demonstrates that the SOAR is part of a strategic effort to move the needle on the organization’s cyber maturity.
• ISO/IEC 27001 and 27035: ISO 27001 requires having incident management procedures (A.16). SOAR can be cited as part of how the organization meets those controls by providing an automated, consistent mechanism for incident handling. ISO 27035 is specifically about incident management – SOAR is an implementation tool for many of its recommendations. The CISO can mention in policy documents and audits that “we utilize a SOAR platform to ensure rapid detection and response to incidents in line with ISO standards.”
• MITRE ATT&CK and Defense Alignment: Some organizations align their detection and response capabilities to the MITRE ATT&CK matrix to ensure coverage of various tactics and techniques. The CISO can map playbooks to MITRE techniques – e.g., we have a playbook for phishing (covers initial access via Spearphishing), one for privilege escalation detection, one for lateral movement (like detecting pass-the-hash and isolating affected machines), etc. This ensures that the SOAR isn’t just automating random tasks but is systematically addressing known adversary behaviors. It also helps identify gaps – if a certain ATT&CK technique has no playbook or automated response, perhaps that’s an area to develop next.
• Business Continuity and Operational Resilience Frameworks: In sectors like finance, operational resilience is a big theme. Having automated incident response ties into resilience by reducing downtime and impact. The CISO can align SOAR with the organization’s continuity plans, demonstrating that if a cyber event occurs, the automated response will help keep critical services running or recover them quickly, which is a key requirement in operational resilience guidelines (like those from regulators in the US, UK, and DORA in EU).
• Overall Cyber Strategy: Most CISOs have a cyber strategy that spans people, process, and technology. SOAR touches all three. The CISO should communicate how SOAR fits: e.g., “Our strategy includes leveraging automation (technology) to streamline processes and enable our people to focus on high-value tasks. The SOAR deployment is a cornerstone of achieving that strategy.” That way, the team and management see SOAR not as a standalone project but part of the bigger picture of where the security program is heading (e.g., towards an AI-assisted SOC, towards an adaptive defense posture, etc.).
• Security Architectures like Zero Trust: Though SOAR isn’t directly part of Zero Trust architecture (which is more about access control), the ability to respond quickly to any anomalies supports the Zero Trust principle of assuming breach and limiting damage. If an organization is pushing Zero Trust, the CISO can note that “SOAR helps us respond when a breach is detected in our Zero Trust environment, automating containment to maintain that zero trust stance dynamically.”
• Integration with IT Service Management (ITSM) and DevOps: Aligning with broader IT processes is crucial. SOAR should dovetail with the organization’s ITIL processes (incident/problem/change management). The CISO should ensure and communicate that SOAR actions are integrated with change management where appropriate (to keep records clean), and that security incidents managed by SOAR don’t live in a vacuum but are linked to business incident management if needed. Alignment here means no surprises to IT folks and a unified approach to incident handling, whether security or operational. In a DevSecOps environment, the SOAR might integrate with CI/CD pipelines to automatically handle security findings (like automatically creating a ticket for a vulnerable library discovered in a build). That shows security automation supporting the agile development process.
• KPIs and KRIs: Many organizations have Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) or KPIs at the board level for cyber risk (e.g., “percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA” or “time to contain high-severity incidents”). The CISO should align SOAR deliverables with improving those indicators. Actually, some KRIs might be newly introduced thanks to SOAR’s measurement capabilities (like mean time to respond to critical incidents). Tying improvements in these indicators to the SOAR implementation helps cement its value in governance terms.

By framing SOAR as part of the strategic puzzle, CISOs make it easier for executive peers to see why it matters. It’s not just a fancy SOC tool – it’s key to meeting our target state in our security roadmap, to complying with frameworks our board cares about, and to safeguarding the business according to agreed standards.

Conclusion

Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response is increasingly a must-have for modern enterprise security programs. For a CISO, adopting SOAR is about enhancing the organization’s cyber defense capabilities to match the speed and scale of today’s threats. A well-implemented SOAR platform can transform a SOC from reactive and overburdened to proactive and efficient. It enables not just faster incident response, but a better alignment of security operations with business priorities – incidents are handled consistently, compliance requirements are met, and executives gain visibility into security like never before.

In rolling out SOAR, technical depth and strategic vision both play important roles. The technical side involves integrating systems and crafting playbooks – essentially encoding your team’s expertise into automated workflows. The strategic side involves ensuring these efforts support business continuity, comply with financial industry regulations (if applicable), and reduce risk in measurable ways. When those pieces come together, the result is a stronger security posture and potentially significant cost avoidance (fewer impactful breaches, less downtime, more efficient use of resources).

For CISOs and security professionals reading this, key takeaways include:

• Invest the time to get SOAR right – plan your processes, involve your team, and iterate. The payoff is worth it.
• Use SOAR data to tell your story – demonstrate to the board and management how security is improving and contributing to business resilience.
• Keep humans at the center – use automation to augment your analysts, not replace them. Free them from drudgery so they can apply their creativity and intellect to complex problems.
• Align automation with strategy – ensure it maps to your risk management framework and closes the gaps you care about the most.

As threats continue to grow in volume and sophistication, and as businesses digitalize further, Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) will be a linchpin in enterprise security. It allows security teams to respond to attacks with the speed and precision of machine-driven workflows, combined with the oversight and intelligence of human experts, achieving a balance that is greater than either alone. In the high-stakes world of IT security and especially in data-critical sectors like finance, that balance can spell the difference between a contained incident and a major crisis. SOAR is not a silver bullet, but in the hands of a capable team and a forward-looking CISO, it is a powerful catalyst for a more resilient and efficient cybersecurity program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Keep the Curiosity Rolling →

• Security Automation: Knowing When to Automate for Max Impact
• AI Reshaping Cybersecurity Strategies
• IAM and SIEM Integration: Enhancing Your Security
• DevSecOps: Enhancing Development with Security Operations
• AI Threat Detection: Transforming Cyber Defense Strategies