Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This study provides an empirical assessment of Large Language Model integration within Security Operations Centers, revealing a pragmatic divide where analysts accept automation for low-level tasks but deem high-stakes incident analysis unfeasible due to current limitations in technical depth. The findings highlight that readiness gaps and human over-reliance are more critical barriers than model deficiencies themselves, offering concrete requirements for safer, operationally viable LLM-assisted security workflows.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

From Chasing Ghosts to Missed Attacks: Perspectives and Perceptions of SOC Practitioners on LLM Integration, Risks, and Readiness

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.00672v1 Announce Type: cross 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.

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.

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2608.00672 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2608.00672v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.00672 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 297 words

Related coverage