“People who work in SOCs are now seeing overwhelming volumes of data, and they’re getting fatigued,” Griffiths tells CSO.
AI can help automate portions of analysis, validate alerts, and improve visibility into complex environments. But Griffiths cautions that some AI-assisted vulnerability discovery tools are also producing large numbers of false positives.
That matters because false positives do not eliminate work. They create it. As organizations confront escalating volumes of findings, distinguishing genuine risk from erroneous results may become as important as discovering vulnerabilities in the first place.
The experts agree that technology alone will not determine outcomes. People will.
Crowley argues that cybersecurity professionals must recognize that uncertainty is intrinsic to the profession. “We are the group that deals with uncertainty,” he says. “That’s really and truly what cybersecurity is.”
That reality places responsibility on both individuals and organizations. Analysts need mechanisms for managing stress. Teams need to recognize when colleagues are approaching their limits. Managers need to establish healthy escalation practices and realistic expectations.
Hubbard rejects the notion that burnout is inevitable.
“It is not a foregone conclusion that security operations jobs have to be a painful grind that everyone hates,” he says.
He has seen organizations where employees remain engaged for years because leaders actively manage workload, create supportive cultures, and encourage open communication.
That includes making it safe for analysts to admit when they have reached their limits. “If people are unwilling to say, ‘I’m maxed out right now, and I’m going crazy,’ that’s going to be the thing that breaks a lot of teams,” Hubbard says.
Pay alone may not solve the problem. Crowley pointed to SANS/SOC survey findings showing that compensation ranked fourth among retention factors, behind meaningful work, training, and professional development.
The future SOC may look very different
Griffiths believes organizations will need to respond not only with better technology but with structural changes. Traditional tiered SOC models may need to evolve into more collaborative teams with diverse expertise working together in real-time.
“I think we’re going to have to eliminate the hierarchies a little bit and have teams of people with different expertise working together,” she says.
She also argues that organizations should invest in human expertise rather than simply increasing AI consumption. “Buy engineers, not tokens,” she says.
Professional networks and peer support will matter as much as any tool, Griffiths says, because defenders need trusted communities where they can compare notes, share practices, and avoid facing sustained pressure in isolation.
If there is a consensus emerging among experts, it is that AI is exposing weaknesses that already existed.
The staffing shortages, alert fatigue, burnout, and process failures affecting SOCs did not begin with generative AI. AI is simply amplifying them.
At the same time, AI is providing new tools that may help organizations manage those very challenges.
The future SOC may spend less time manually triaging alerts and more time validating automated findings, conducting threat hunting, and making strategic decisions. Human expertise may increasingly be paired with AI systems that act as operational partners.
The transition will not be painless. Some teams will struggle. Some practitioners may leave the field. Others will adapt and thrive.
“In a way,” Griffiths says, “we’re turning the whole SOC inside out.”
Montenegro sees the transition as a cybersecurity version of the Red Queen effect: defenders and attackers must keep running simply to stay in place.
Borrowing from science-fiction author William Gibson, Montenegro offered perhaps the simplest description of the industry’s current moment: “The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.”
For security leaders, that future is arriving in the form of AI-generated vulnerabilities, AI-assisted investigations, and AI-enabled adversaries. The question is no longer whether security operations centers will change. It is whether organizations can adapt quickly enough to keep pace.
