Risks and Controls:Managing Manual Interventions in a Multi-Stakeholder Scenario

In a multi-stakeholder environment, where the implementing agency is not under direct control, manual interventions in security systems remain a necessary part of the security landscape.

However, such interventions can introduce various risks, including human error, inconsistencies in execution, and potential for intentional misconduct.

When multiple stakeholders are involved, these risks are amplified by coordination challenges, differences in policies, and the complexity of ensuring that all parties follow consistent practices.

This article explores how manual interventions impact security in a multi-stakeholder context, the risks that arise when the implementing agency operates independently, and what can be controlled or automated by different parties to mitigate these risks.

Why Manual Interventions Are Still Necessary in Multi-Stakeholder Environments

While automation tools have made significant strides in streamlining security operations, there are still critical instances in multi-stakeholder scenarios where human intervention is necessary.

In such settings, different organizations or parties may have distinct responsibilities, but there are common scenarios where manual intervention is required:

Emergent or Complex Threats:

In situations where an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) or a zero-day exploit is identified, automated detection systems, despite their sophistication, may not always be capable of accurately assessing the full scope or nuances of the threat.

This is particularly true for APTs, which are designed to remain undetected for long periods and employ highly sophisticated techniques to bypass traditional detection methods. Zero-day exploits, on the other hand, target previously unknown vulnerabilities, for which no signature or fix exists at the time of the attack.

In these cases, human expertise from security teams becomes indispensable. However, in a multi-stakeholder scenario where security responsibilities are divided among different parties and the implementing agency is not directly under central control, this expertise may be distributed across various teams or external contractors. Coordination and timely communication between these stakeholders are critical for several reasons:

a. Understanding the Threat Context

While automated systems can flag suspicious activities, they may not have the context or capacity to determine the intent or origin of a sophisticated attack. A security analyst’s deep understanding of the organization’s environment, normal network behavior, and specific attack patterns is often necessary to accurately assess the severity of the threat.

For instance, an APT may involve a series of subtle actions (e.g., lateral movement, data exfiltration, or privilege escalation), which can appear benign in isolation but are part of a broader, coordinated attack.

Security teams that have knowledge of the specific infrastructure and potential targets, including sensitive assets and systems, are crucial to provide that context and make informed decisions.

b. Adapting to the Evolving Nature of the Threat

APTs and zero-day exploits are dynamic and evolve as they interact with the environment. Attackers continuously adapt their methods to evade detection and exploit weaknesses.

Automated systems, although highly capable at identifying known threats, are often not flexible enough to deal with the adaptive nature of these types of attacks. Humans are required to:

Interpret changing attack vectors: As the attackers modify their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), security teams must adapt defenses in real-time.

Provide decision support: Analysts use intuition, experience, and knowledge of the organization's specific risks to make decisions about containment, mitigation, and remediation.

This might involve setting up custom rules, blocking new attack vectors, or taking systems offline to prevent further damage.

c. Coordinating a Multilateral Response

When dealing with an APT or zero-day exploit, responses must be highly coordinated. In a multi-stakeholder environment, where various parties (internal teams, third-party vendors, external security consultants, etc.) are involved, managing the response becomes more complex:

Shared decision-making: Different teams, possibly with different areas of expertise (e.g., network security, endpoint protection, forensics, etc.), need to collaborate on the right course of action. Human expertise is required to bring all stakeholders together, assess the situation, and prioritize actions.

Cross-team communication: Effective communication and coordination are essential to avoid duplication of efforts or gaps in coverage. Automated systems can assist by providing real-time alerts and data, but the interpretation and management of that data require human judgment, especially when addressing a novel or sophisticated attack.

d. Forensic Analysis and Root Cause Investigation

APTs and zero-day exploits often leave complex traces that need to be carefully examined to understand how the attackers gained access, what vulnerabilities they exploited, and how to prevent future attacks.

Forensic analysis, including log reviews, network traffic analysis, and endpoint investigation, requires human expertise to:

Detect subtle indicators of compromise (IOCs) that automated tools may miss, especially in cases where attackers use advanced evasion techniques.

Reconstruct the attack timeline to understand how the breach unfolded, which systems were targeted, and what data or assets were affected.

Without human involvement, automated systems might not fully capture the complexity of the attack or the broader impact on the organization.

e. Contextualizing Risk and Making Ethical Decisions

Human experts can weigh the risk of immediate actions (such as isolating a system, shutting down services, or applying emergency patches) against the potential operational impact. In many cases, especially when a zero-day exploit is involved, there may be no immediate fixes available, and decisions may need to balance urgency against the potential side effects of a hasty response.

Ethical and legal considerations may also play a significant role in these decisions. For instance, isolating an affected system may result in operational downtime or service disruption. If there are third-party partners involved, the legal ramifications of shutting down access to their systems may need to be considered.

Human expertise plays a critical role in addressing threats such as APTs and zero-day exploits, which may be beyond the reach of automated detection systems. In a multi-stakeholder environment, where security management is spread across different teams, organizations, or third-party agencies, effective coordination and communication are key to a successful response. While automation tools provide invaluable support in identifying and flagging potential threats, it is the human touch — in the form of security experts analyzing, adapting, and responding in real time — that enables a nuanced understanding of complex threats and ensures an effective and well-coordinated defense.

Customized Security Configurations:

Each stakeholder, whether an internal IT team or an external vendor, may have specific configurations that require manual fine-tuning. Automated systems can handle generic settings, but custom adjustments for a particular infrastructure, use case, or business requirement often need human oversight.

Incident Response and Recovery:

During high-severity incidents like a ransomware attack or a data breach, swift decisions must be made to contain the threat and mitigate damage. If the implementing agency operates independently, it may need to rely on manual intervention to implement emergency procedures. Coordination with other stakeholders is crucial during this phase to ensure the right actions are taken in a timely manner.

Compliance Verification:

Regulatory and compliance requirements often necessitate human involvement in verification processes. Even though automated tools can assist with monitoring, certain compliance checks, documentation, and reporting may require manual review and approval from different stakeholders.

Risks Associated with Manual Interventions in a Multi-Stakeholder Setting

When different parties are involved, the risks associated with manual interventions are not just technical but organizational as well. The primary risks include:

1. Human Error

Human errors can occur due to misunderstandings, lack of knowledge, or simple mistakes. In a multi-stakeholder environment, this becomes more complex as different parties may interpret or execute security processes in slightly different ways. The risks include:

• Configuration Mistakes: With different teams managing various aspects of the security infrastructure, manual configuration changes can lead to misconfigurations that create vulnerabilities. For example, an external vendor might make changes to access controls that inadvertently open up systems to unauthorized access.
• Patching Failures: Manual application of security patches across various systems may result in missed patches or incorrect installations, leaving systems vulnerable to exploitation.
• Data Exposure: In a collaborative environment, sensitive data may inadvertently be exposed if one stakeholder mishandles it, such as sending sensitive information to the wrong recipient or failing to secure it appropriately.

2. Inconsistency and Lack of Standardization

The involvement of multiple stakeholders with varying levels of access and authority can lead to inconsistent security practices. If each party has different standards for monitoring, responding to alerts, or managing incidents, security gaps can emerge. This risk is exacerbated by:

• Diverging Security Policies: Different organizations may have their own security policies, and when these are not aligned, it creates conflicts in how security issues are addressed. One party may implement stricter controls, while another may adopt a more lenient approach, weakening overall security.
• Inconsistent Incident Response: Different stakeholders may have different priorities or response times, leading to a fragmented incident response. For example, if one team manually intervenes to isolate an affected system, but others are slow to respond or unaware of the change, the attacker may still exploit vulnerabilities elsewhere.

3. Intentional Misdeeds (Insider Threats)

When the implementing agency operates independently, the risk of insider threats increases, especially if the party handling the security has access to sensitive data or systems. The risk of intentional misconduct includes:

• Privilege Abuse: Administrative privileges granted during manual interventions can be misused by individuals within any stakeholder organization, whether maliciously or out of negligence. In a multi-party environment, it can be difficult to ensure that all stakeholders adhere to the principle of least privilege.
• Data Exfiltration: An insider from one of the involved organizations with access to sensitive systems might intentionally steal or leak data. In a multi-stakeholder scenario, detecting and mitigating such threats becomes more challenging due to the complexity of monitoring all parties’ activities.
• Manipulation of Logs: If manual intervention is not properly tracked or documented, an insider might attempt to cover up their actions by erasing or manipulating logs, making it harder to trace the source of an incident.

4. Coordination Delays and Response Time

In a multi-stakeholder environment, slow or poor communication between parties can delay the identification of threats or the implementation of response measures. Some stakeholders might not act as quickly as others, especially if manual intervention is required to escalate the issue or contain the threat. The risks include:

• Delayed Threat Detection: Automated detection systems can generate alerts, but validating the alerts and deciding on the next steps often requires input from different stakeholders, which can delay the overall response.
• Slow Containment: If multiple organizations are involved in responding to an incident, manual coordination is often needed to implement containment measures (e.g., disconnecting infected systems or isolating a compromised network segment). Inadequate communication and manual intervention during this process could allow an attack to spread.

What Can Be Automated vs. What Requires Manual Intervention in a Multi-Stakeholder Scenario?

In a scenario involving multiple stakeholders, automation can reduce human error, improve consistency, and ensure faster response times. However, certain actions still require manual oversight or decision-making. Below is an outline of what can be automated versus what may need human intervention:

Tasks That Can Be Automated

1. Monitoring and Detection: Automated systems can handle 24/7 monitoring of networks, endpoints, and systems, and flag anomalies for investigation. Machine learning models can assist in identifying potential threats based on patterns of behavior.
2. Patch Management: Automation tools can ensure that patches are applied to all systems across all stakeholders. This helps reduce the risk of human error in missing critical patches or applying them inconsistently.
3. Access Control Enforcement: Role-based access control (RBAC) and identity management systems can automatically enforce access restrictions, ensuring that users and systems only have the access they need.
4. Alerting and Incident Response Automation: Automated workflows can be configured to trigger immediate responses to certain types of incidents, such as blocking suspicious IPs or isolating affected systems. These actions can be predefined to ensure a rapid response.
5. Reporting and Auditing: Logs and audit trails can be automatically generated and stored for compliance, monitoring, and forensic purposes. Automated reporting ensures transparency and accountability.

Tasks That Require Manual Intervention

1. Complex Incident Response: In multi-stakeholder environments, the response to sophisticated incidents like APTs or data breaches often requires human decision-making. Security analysts from different stakeholders may need to collaborate to assess the scope of the attack, prioritize response actions, and implement containment strategies.
2. Custom Configurations: Custom security settings and configurations often require manual input. Security teams from various organizations may need to coordinate and manually adjust controls to meet specific operational requirements.
3. Root Cause Analysis and Forensics: After an incident, human investigators are essential for understanding how the breach occurred, identifying vulnerabilities, and making recommendations to prevent future attacks.
4. Ethical and Legal Decision-Making: Decisions that involve ethical or legal considerations — such as reporting a breach to authorities, handling confidential data, or engaging with third-party vendors — often require human judgment and cross-organizational coordination.

Mitigating Risks in a Multi-Stakeholder Environment

To manage the risks of manual interventions in a multi-stakeholder scenario, organizations can adopt the following strategies:

1. Standardize Processes and Communication: Establish clear and standardized security policies and incident response procedures that are agreed upon by all parties. This helps ensure consistent actions across different stakeholders and reduces the risk of conflicting decisions.
2. Access Control and Authentication: Implement strict access controls and multi-factor authentication to ensure that only authorized personnel from each stakeholder organization can perform critical security tasks.
3. Collaborative Tools and Platforms: Utilize collaborative platforms to enhance communication and ensure that all parties involved in security management are informed in real time, especially during incident response. This can reduce delays in decision-making and improve coordination.
4. Regular Audits and Monitoring: Conduct regular audits of manual interventions to ensure they are compliant with security policies. Implement continuous monitoring and automated logging to track actions taken by all stakeholders and ensure accountability.
5. Training and Awareness: Ensure that all stakeholders' security teams are regularly trained on best practices and threat intelligence. This helps minimize human error and ensures that everyone involved is equipped to handle security incidents effectively.
6. Segregation of Duties: Implement segregation of duties to minimize the risks of insider threats. Ensure that no single party has control over all aspects of security, and establish a checks-and-balances system to monitor manual actions.

Managing manual interventions in a multi-stakeholder security environment is both a necessity and a challenge. While automation can handle routine tasks and mitigate many risks, there are still numerous situations where human expertise and judgment are essential. This is especially true when responding to advanced and sophisticated threats, such as Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) or zero-day exploits, which require nuanced decision-making and coordinated responses across multiple parties.

In a multi-stakeholder scenario, the involvement of various teams, contractors, or third-party vendors adds complexity to security operations. While the need for manual interventions remains critical — whether for fine-tuning security configurations, handling complex incidents, or ensuring regulatory compliance — these interventions introduce significant risks.

Human error, inconsistent application of policies, insider threats, and delayed responses can all undermine the effectiveness of security measures. Furthermore, in environments where the implementing agency is not under direct control, aligning different parties around a common security protocol can be difficult, exacerbating the challenges of ensuring consistent and reliable security practices.

To mitigate these risks, organizations must focus on creating a clear framework of controls that balances automation with the need for human intervention. Key strategies include:

- Standardizing Procedures and Communication: Establish clear, consistent security policies and incident response workflows across all stakeholders to ensure alignment and reduce inconsistencies.

- Implementing Strong Access Controls and Monitoring: Restrict and monitor who has the ability to make manual interventions, ensuring that only authorized personnel can perform sensitive actions, while also maintaining a complete audit trail.

- Enhancing Collaboration and Coordination: Utilize collaborative platforms and tools that enable real-time communication and decision-making among stakeholders, ensuring a unified approach to security incidents.

- Regular Training and Awareness: Continuously train personnel across all teams on security best practices, threat intelligence, and incident management to reduce the likelihood of human error and ensure everyone is prepared to act swiftly.

- Combining Automation and Human Expertise: Leverage automated systems for detection, reporting, and routine tasks, while relying on human expertise to manage complex, high-impact incidents. Automation can enhance human decision-making by providing real-time data, insights, and suggestions.

Ultimately, managing manual interventions effectively in a multi-stakeholder scenario requires a combination of technical controls, procedural safeguards, and a culture of collaboration and accountability. By adopting these strategies, organizations can strike the right balance between automation and human oversight, thereby strengthening their security posture, minimizing risks, and ensuring a swift and coordinated response to evolving threats.