When to Engage Threat Hunters
| Revised Date | Author | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 29.03.2025 | Roger Johnsen | Article added |
Introduction
Effective cybersecurity is more than just responding to alerts. It requires proactive efforts to detect and neutralize threats before they escalate and cause havoc. Threat hunting plays a crucial role in this approach, working alongside traditional alerting, triage, incident response (IR), digital forensics and incident response (DFIR). This article explores when to engage in threat hunting versus other security processes, how it fits into the broader incident response lifecycle, and real-world scenarios where proactive threat hunting can uncover hidden risks before detections trigger those pesky alerts.
Understanding the Role of Threat Hunting in Incident Response
Threat hunting, as a dicipline, plays a unique and proactive role in cybersecurity operations, complementing alerts, triage, incident response (IR), And “Digital Forensics and Incident Response” (DFIR). While traditional security operations rely on automated detections and reactive processes, threat hunting involves actively searching for hidden threats that evade existing detection mechanisms. Understanding when to engage in threat hunting compared to other security processes helps organizations build a layered defense strategy.
However, a threat hunter, with their deep expertise in analyzing logs and uncovering patterns in seemingly chaotic data, can also serve as a valuable resource in incident response and digital forensics. During an active incident, threat hunters can assist by rapidly identifying potential attack paths, assessing the extent of compromise, and uncovering stealthy persistence mechanisms that traditional forensic analysis might overlook. Their ability to correlate seemingly unrelated events allows them to enhance root cause analysis, providing crucial insights that strengthen both immediate response efforts and long-term detection capabilities.
The Incident Response Lifecycle and Threat Hunting
Threat hunting, as a dicipline, fits into the broader incident response lifecycle by identifying threats before they escalate into incidents/alerts. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines the incident response lifecycle like this:
| # | Phase / Step | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Preparation | Ensuring policies, tools, and training are in place. |
| 2. | Detection & Analysis | Identifying potential security incidents through alerts, logs, and investigations. |
| 3. | Containment, Eradication & Recovery | Stopping threats, removing adversaries, and restoring operations. |
| 4. | Post-Incident Activity | Reviewing incidents and improving defenses. |
Threat hunting is most valuable in the Preparation and Detection & Analysis phases, where proactive efforts can uncover hidden adversaries before alerts or incidents occur.
When to Engage in Threat Hunting
Threat hunting should be considered in the following scenarios:
| Scenario | Description |
|---|---|
| Before Alerts Are Triggered | Automated security solutions rely on known attack patterns and signatures. Threat hunters proactively analyze logs, behaviors, and system anomalies to detect early indicators of compromise (IOCs) that are not yet recognized as threats. |
| During Periods of Low Alert Volume | If an organization experiences a sudden drop in security alerts, it could signal an issue. A critical log source may have stopped, network congestion might be interfering with data flow, or, in the worst case, attackers could be using stealth techniques to bypass detection—potentially even disrupting log ingestion. Alternatively, the cause could be something entirely different. Threat hunting helps identify these underlying problems while also uncovering living-off-the-land attacks, fileless malware, and advanced persistent threats (APTs) that evade signature-based defenses. Leveraging threat hunters for root cause analysis can yield valuable insights. |
| Following a Major Incident | After an incident is contained, hunting can identify related compromise points, ensuring that attackers have not established persistence elsewhere in the environment. |
| In Response to Emerging Threat Intelligence | If a new attack technique or threat actor group is reported, threat hunting teams can proactively search for indicators of similar activity in their environment. |
| When Conducting Security Maturity Assessments | Organizations looking to enhance their security posture can use threat hunting exercises to identify gaps in detection and improve log coverage. |
How Threat Hunting Complements Triage and DFIR
While alerts and triage focus on responding to known threats, and DFIR focuses on investigating incidents post-compromise, threat hunting complements these efforts in several ways:
Threat Hunting vs. Alert-Based Triage
| Automated Alerts | Threat Hunting |
|---|---|
| Generated based on predefined rules and signatures, helping analysts quickly identify known threats. | Digs deeper into logs, network traffic, and endpoint behavior to uncover unknown or stealthy threats that do not trigger alerts. |
Example:
| Alert-Based Triage | Threat Hunting |
|---|---|
| A security tool detects a PowerShell script executing an encoded payload and generates an alert. | A hunter reviews PowerShell execution logs over time and finds a pattern of abnormal usage, identifying an attacker’s attempt to move laterally across systems before an alert is triggered. |
Threat Hunting vs. DFIR
| DFIR | Threat Hunting |
|---|---|
| Reactively investigates security incidents to determine root causes, collect forensic evidence, and support remediation efforts. | Proactively searches for adversary behaviors and techniques to prevent future incidents before they require forensic analysis. |
Example:
| DFIR | Threat Hunting |
|---|---|
| Analysts investigate an incident where a workstation was compromised through a phishing attack, collecting forensic artifacts to understand the attack. | A hunter reviews email logs and endpoint behavior to identify similar phishing attempts that were not reported, potentially stopping future attacks. |
Proactive Threat Hunting: Identifying Risks Before Alerts Trigger
Some threats operate below the detection threshold of automated systems. Threat hunting can identify risks such as:
| Risk | Description |
|---|---|
| Credential Stuffing & Lateral Movement | Reviewing authentication logs for anomalous patterns, such as failed logins from new locations followed by successful access. |
| Beaconing & C2 Communications | Analyzing network traffic for periodic outbound connections to suspicious IPs, indicating malware or remote access tools (RATs). |
| Insider Threats & Misuse | Monitoring privileged account activity for unusual file access or system changes that do not align with business needs. |
Conclusion
Threat hunting serves as a crucial component of a mature cybersecurity strategy. It fills the gaps left by automated alerts and reactive incident response by proactively identifying threats before they cause harm. By integrating threat hunting with triage, DFIR, and the overall incident response lifecycle, organizations can build a more resilient security posture that anticipates, detects, and mitigates threats effectively. Security teams should leverage threat hunting as an ongoing process to stay ahead of adversaries and uncover sophisticated attack techniques before they escalate into full-scale breaches.
References
| Resource | Description |
|---|---|
| NIST Special Publication 800-61 | Guide to Computer Security Incident Handling |
| The DFIR Report | Real-world attack investigations and forensic analysis insights |
| MITRE ATT&CK Framework | Adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) |
| SANS Threat Hunting & Incident Response Summit | Industry best practices and case studies |
| Open Threat Hunting Frameworks | Resources and methodologies for proactive security |