From Chasing Ghosts to Missed Attacks: Perspectives and Perceptions of SOC Practitioners on LLM Integration, Risks, and Readiness
Authors: Jonas Thurner, Nadine Jost, Stefan Albert Horstmann, Fabian Ising, Lea Groeber, Alena Naiakshina, Sebastian Schinzel
Organizations: FH Münster, Germany · Ruhr University Bochum, Germany · University of Cologne, Germany · Fraunhofer SIT and National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE, Germany · ICSI, UC Berkeley, USA
Abstract
Security Operations Centers (SOCs) process large volumes of security events, requiring analysts to accurately detect and assess ongoing cyberattacks under time pressure. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) suggest potential benefits for security operations, yet their practical suitability for real-world SOC workflows remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with SOC practitioners who had prior experience with LLMs, complemented by interactive scenarios to anticipate challenges and identify opportunities for the responsible integration of LLM-based tools into SOC workflows. We identified 15 LLM use cases grouped into six functional categories. While LLMs are valued for automating repetitive, low-level tasks such as report automation, practitioners rate high-impact tasks such as incident analysis as not yet feasible, reporting limitations in technical depth, context awareness, and organization-specific knowledge. They locate these limitations less in the models than in the readiness of their SOCs and human factors driving over-reliance. Despite concerns, practitioners express a strong willingness to adopt LLMs, describing competitive pressure that leaves few alternatives. This work contributes an empirical, practitioner-driven analysis of LLM use across SOC roles and organizations and derives concrete design and integration requirements for human-centered, operationally safe LLM-assisted security operations.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as analyst assistants in security operations centers (SOCs), where they ingest log and alert data to produce triage labels, incident summaries, or remediation advice. We study a structural failure mode of this design: many log fields are attacker controlled. User agents, URLs, payloads, DNS queries, and attempted usernames can therefore carry instructions to the model alongside evidence of the intrusion. We call this setting \emph{log-substrate prompt injection}. We introduce a four-class taxonomy of log-substrate attacks: direct override (S1), persona hijack (S2), context manipulation (S3), and obfuscated payloads (S4). We evaluate 48 strategy-defense-task combinations using \texttt{gpt-4o-mini} as the analyst. Three findings stand out. First, direct overrides are ineffective in our setting: all S1 classification attacks achieve 0% suppression. In contrast, persona hijacks suppress 68% of malicious logs under a naive classifier and remain effective under stronger defenses. Second, summarization is the highest-risk task: context manipulation reaches 96% injection success without defenses and 38% even with constrained output. Third, defenses reduce but do not eliminate the attack surface: average injection success falls from 26.6% under naive prompting to 11.8% under our strongest defense. We also compare empirical results to a deterministic mock analyst and find that simulation substantially mispredicts current model behavior, especially for direct overrides. These results suggest that SOC copilots should treat raw log content as adversarial input rather than ordinary analyst context.
Security Operations Centers (SOCs) face mounting operational challenges. These challenges come from increasing threat volumes, heterogeneous SIEM platforms, and time-consuming manual triage workflows. We present an end-to-end threat management framework that integrates ensemble-based detection, syntax-constrained query generation, and retrieval-augmented resolution support to automate critical security workflows. Our detection module evaluates both traditional machine learning classifiers and large language models (LLMs), then combines the three best-performing LLMs to create an ensemble model, achieving 82.8% accuracy while maintaining 0.120 false positive rate on SIEM logs. We introduce the SQM (Syntax Query Metadata) architecture for automated evidence collection. It uses platform-specific syntax constraints, metadata-based retrieval, and documentation-grounded prompting to generate executable queries for IBM QRadar and Google SecOps. SQM achieves a BLEU score of 0.384 and a ROUGE-L score of 0.731. These results are more than twice as good as the baseline LLM performance. For incident resolution and recommendation generation, we demonstrate that integrating SQM-derived evidence improves resolution code prediction accuracy from 78.3% to 90.0%, with an overall recommendation quality score of 8.70. In production SOC environments, our framework reduces average incident triage time from hours to under 10 minutes. This work demonstrates that domain-constrained LLM architectures with retrieval augmentation can meet the strict reliability and efficiency requirements of operational security environments at scale.
We introduce the Cyber Defense Benchmark, a benchmark for measuring how well large language model (LLM) agents perform the core SOC analyst task of threat hunting: given a database of raw Windows event logs with no guided questions or hints, identify the exact timestamps of malicious events. The benchmark wraps 106 real attack procedures from the OTRF Security-Datasets corpus - spanning 86 MITRE ATT&CK sub-techniques across 12 tactics - into a Gymnasium reinforcement-learning environment. Each episode presents the agent with an in-memory SQLite database of 75,000-135,000 log records produced by a deterministic campaign simulator that time-shifts and entity-obfuscates the raw recordings. The agent must iteratively submit SQL queries to discover malicious event timestamps and explicitly flag them, scored CTF-style against Sigma-rule-derived ground truth. Evaluating five frontier models - Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3 Flash - on 26 campaigns covering 105 of 106 procedures, we find that all models fail dramatically: the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) submits correct flags for only 3.8% of malicious events on average, and no run across any model ever finds all flags. We define a passing score as >= 50% recall on every ATT&CK tactic - the minimum bar for unsupervised SOC deployment. No model passes: the leader clears this bar on 5 of 13 tactics and the remaining four on zero. These results suggest that current LLMs are poorly suited for open-ended, evidence-driven threat hunting despite strong performance on curated Q&A security benchmarks.