AI agents investigate every alert, add context, and prepare cases for response, on a full-stack SecOps platform that captures and correlates all your security data.
Cloud-based SIEM platform providing visibility across all your data sources
Every alert investigated, with a verdict and the evidence behind it
Manage your external footprint, publicly available data, and Dark Web leaks
Log management and threat detection across any of your log sources
Get ultimate assurance that your environment is free from threat actors
Fully featured distrubuted NDR for on-premises and public cloud environments
A SecOps platform purpose-built for industrial and OT environments
Integrated endpoint agent providing deep visibility, response and forensics
Deploy honeypots and honeytokens and stay ahead of threat actors
24x7 security operations from our Australian SOC. AI investigates every alert, and experienced analysts validate findings and contain threats around the clock.
24x7 managed detection and response across endpoint, network, cloud, identity, and log sources
Eyes-on-glass SOC and continuous threat hunting
Expert hunters and AI agents find attacker activity your alerts missed
Quickly recover from cyber attacks and breaches
ThreatDefence is the only SecOps as a Service company providing broad coverage across your entire technology stack with evidence-based security.
We provide security teams with full-stack SecOps infrastructure – you get deep visibility from day one, gain control over your security data, and get access to a comprehensive set of ready-to-use tools, detections, workflows, playbooks and scenarios.
24x7 SOC, Continuous Monitoring, Threat Containment and Incident Response
Visibility and actionable insights for all IT assets
Leverage our Cyber Range to train defenders based on real-world scenarios and simulations
OT and industrial cyber security services for critical infrastructure
Essential Eight monitoring, reporting, and evidence for ongoing compliance
Privacy Act reform impacts, obligations, and practical security considerations
Monitoring and compliance support for critical infrastructure environments
A practical guide to securing critical infrastructure with continuous monitoring
A practical buyer’s guide for schools evaluating SIEM and SOC services
A practical guide to selecting the right SIEM and SOC service for local government
Articles on security operations, AI and compliance
Events, awards and company news
Read what our customers say about us
Solution briefs and datasheets
How we keep your data secure
Technical support and knowledge base
Guides, case studies, and advisories in one place
How AI agents investigate alerts and run security operations
Free ebook: a practical guide to adopting an AI SOC platform
A practical guide to incident response and digital forensics
Where SOAR playbooks fit and where AI agents take over
November 2, 2026
October 31, 2026
We provide end-to-end SecOps solutions for Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs), Managed Service Providers (MSPs), and Value-Added Resellers (VARs).
Find out how you can become a ThreatDefence partner.
Protect your entire technology stack and build your SecOps on your own pace
White-labeled AI SOC for every client tenant, co-managed with our SOC team
Launch your SOC business without any upfront investment
Embed security operations, threat intelligence and exposure data in your product
Sovereign SOC for Australian MSPs and MSSPs, with onshore analysts and client data
Set the rules for closing alerts automatically, with evidence checks and review
How MSPs deliver branded security monitoring with a SOC partner
ThreatDefence was an official partner of the Cyber Resilience Summit NSW, 29 October 2026 at Hilton Sydney.
Our team was back at BSides Canberra, and our cyber quiz was a hit again.
Two days in Perth with our partner Ever Nimble, on security operations and cyber resilience.
Sponsors of the AUSCERT Cyber Security Conference on the Gold Coast.
Sponsors of the Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit in March.
Sponsors of the Cyber Security for Critical Assets Summit in Perth, February 2026.
Expert conversations with speakers and attendees at CyberCon Melbourne 2025.
SOC automation helps MSSPs investigate alerts, manage cases, and respond across client environments with less manual work. Rules, playbooks, and AI agents handle repeatable tasks while applying each client’s tools, context, and response permissions.
Much of an analyst’s shift happens between detections and decisions. An alert arrives in one console, account details sit in another, and the client’s response procedure lives somewhere else. The analyst gathers the evidence, updates a case, contacts an approver, and checks whether the requested action worked.
SOC automation connects that work. An alert can trigger account and asset lookups, start an investigation, and prepare a response without someone copying information between systems. Analysts spend more time assessing the threat and less time assembling the material needed to assess it.
For an MSSP, the opportunity extends across clients. A well-designed investigation method can serve many environments, even when their security products and response rules differ. The difficult part is making the method reusable without treating every client as identical.
A playbook defines how a task proceeds: what triggers it, which checks run, what happens at each decision, and where it stops. SOAR platforms orchestrate these steps across connected tools. Fixed logic suits work with a known sequence, such as looking up an account, requesting approval, or updating a ticket.
AI agents add flexibility where the next question depends on the evidence. An agent examining a suspicious sign-in might check mailbox changes, then investigate an application consent it discovers. An approved playbook can execute the resulting containment plan.
Both approaches need permissions, failure handling, and records of their work. Choosing an agent does not remove the need to define what the workflow is allowed to achieve.
Start with work that occurs often, takes meaningful analyst time, and produces results the team can check. A narrow workflow that reliably removes several manual steps is more useful than a broad one that constantly needs repair.
Automatic closure and containment require additional validation. A reliable account lookup does not establish that an account should be disabled, and a convincing verdict does not establish that the proposed response is safe.
Before building, confirm that the necessary data and permissions exist. Also count the work that will remain: reviewing results, handling exceptions, maintaining integrations, and supporting the workflow when it fails.
Shared automation must establish the client before retrieving evidence or preparing changes. A username or private IP address is not enough to identify a target across an MSSP’s client base. Use the tenant together with the relevant account, device, or application identifier throughout the run.
The workflow then needs three kinds of client information:
Which tools to query, which credentials to use, and whether the integration supports the required operation.
Asset criticality, user roles, approved activity, required evidence, and known data gaps.
Permitted actions, protected targets, authorized approvers, notification order, and any time restrictions.
A connected tool is not necessarily ready for every task. Its credentials might allow reading alerts but not querying underlying events or isolating a device. Check those capabilities before relying on the workflow.
Missing configuration should produce a visible exception. It should never cause a run to borrow another client’s settings or treat an unavailable source as a clean result.
Access controls must cover background jobs, generated reports, and ticket updates as well as interactive searches. An analyst viewing the correct tenant does not prove that an automated export or integration is using the correct scope.
Yes. Separate the common investigation method from the settings that vary by client. A shared account-compromise workflow might always retrieve sign-ins, examine authentication changes, and search mailbox activity. Each client supplies its own integrations, exclusions, contacts, and response authority.
Copying a playbook for every client creates a maintenance problem. A fix to the investigation logic then needs to be found and applied across many versions, while local changes become difficult to track.
Build smaller reusable tasks for account lookups, approvals, case updates, and outcome checks. Define what each task receives, returns, and does when it cannot complete. This makes a broken integration easier to isolate without rewriting the whole investigation.
Version the shared logic and client settings. Record which versions ran in each case, and release changes to a limited set of applicable clients before expanding. Different tool versions or audit settings may make an update suitable for some clients and unsuitable for others.
Protect credentials separately from workflow content. Use scoped service identities, restrict where credentials can be sent, and avoid embedding secrets in reusable templates or case output.
Consider an illustrative report from an employee at Acme Corp. The message links to a suspicious login page. A useful phishing playbook does more than check the URL’s reputation.
Another client can use the same investigation method while requiring approval before message removal. The shared method establishes what happened; the client policy determines what the service may do about it.
Keep containment and recovery distinct. Removing a lure or revoking sessions may interrupt the attack, but an affected account can still need further investigation and remediation.
Set autonomy by client and action type. An MSSP can automate evidence collection across an investigation while keeping closure and containment subject to approval.
Automation describes work performed by software. Autonomy describes how far that work can proceed without another human decision.
A client might authorize closure of a proven benign alert class while requiring approval for every account change. A confidence score cannot override that distinction or compensate for missing evidence.
Approval requests should identify the target, proposed change, expected effect, and recovery options. Define who receives the request, what happens if nobody answers, and when the request expires. Sending a notification is not the same as obtaining approval.
Recheck permissions and relevant conditions immediately before execution, especially after a request has been waiting. A changed target or policy may require a new decision.
The distinction between fixed workflows and agent-led decisions is explored in AI SOC vs SOAR.
Production automation encounters expired credentials, unavailable APIs, rate limits, and ambiguous responses. Design for those conditions before a workflow has authority to change client systems.
A timed-out request may have succeeded even though the workflow received no confirmation. Retrying blindly can create duplicate tickets, send repeated notifications, or repeat a disruptive action.
Use a unique reference for the operation where supported, and check the existing result before issuing it again. For tasks that can safely be repeated, document that behavior rather than assuming every API works the same way.
An API success response also needs interpretation. The tool may have accepted a job that is still pending. Microsoft documents, for example, that its session-revocation operation can take a few minutes to take effect. Record what has been requested separately from what has been verified.
If message removal succeeds but account containment fails, the case is partly complete. Preserve both results, stop dependent steps where necessary, and assign the remaining work. A completed playbook run should not hide an unresolved threat.
Cap the number of targets, concurrent runs, and action rate for each client and across the service. Provide a way to suspend an affected workflow without stopping unrelated work.
Document recovery for each action. Releasing an isolated endpoint may restore connectivity, but revoked sessions cannot be restored as the same sessions. A user may need to authenticate again. Restoring a workflow version also does not undo changes it already made.
AI-driven workflows need additional protection against attacker-controlled content. Emails, log fields, and tool results can contain instructions designed to redirect an agent. Enforce permissions and action checks outside the model so that this content cannot grant new authority.
Give every production playbook an owner. Test the full path from trigger to verified outcome, including the records an analyst will use to review it.
Use confirmed attacks, expected activity, and ambiguous cases to assess investigation quality. Then test missing evidence, duplicate triggers, rejected approvals, expired access, timeouts, and partial completion. Include a check that one client’s run cannot use another client’s credentials or records.
Recommendation-only runs help validate findings. Controlled execution tests are still needed to establish whether actions, approvals, and recovery work. Start with test targets, then a limited production scope agreed with the client.
Expand when results hold across representative environments. Recheck affected workflows after changes to APIs, permissions, models, investigation skills, or shared logic. Retire unused paths and review old exceptions so the service does not accumulate automation nobody understands or maintains.
Measure whether automation produces correct investigations, completes the intended response, and reduces the team’s workload. Workflow counts and closure rates say little on their own.
Analyst agreement, verdict changes, incorrect closures, and missed escalations found through review.
Verified actions, failed or unknown outcomes, reversals, and unintended disruption.
Separate investigation time, approval waiting, and execution time to reveal the actual bottleneck.
Which client sources and alert classes are included, excluded, or repeatedly blocked by missing evidence.
Manual work avoided after subtracting review, exception handling, and ongoing maintenance.
Break results down by client and workflow. Strong averages can hide one integration that regularly fails or an alert class the system handles poorly. Sample automatically closed cases and check verified outcomes where available, because analyst agreement alone does not establish correctness.
Keep the evidence with the case: client scope, queries, relevant results, verdict, workflow and policy versions, approvals, actions, and verification. Include held steps and failures so another analyst can continue without reconstructing the run.
Use those records for service reports that explain completed work and unresolved risks. Recurring benign findings can also support proposed rule tuning, while confirmed attacker behavior can inform new detections. Review changes before production so automation reduces future workload as well as handling today’s queue.
ThreatDefence combines an AI SOC platform with a 24x7 SOC for MSPs and MSSPs. Agents investigate every alert across each client’s connected tools, keeping queries, evidence, and verdicts in the case. Low-confidence verdicts go to an analyst.
Each client has a separate tenant, with its own procedures, approvers, and escalation paths. Set operating modes per client and action type. Every autonomous action is reversible and reviewed by an analyst, and agents treat alert and log content as untrusted data.
Monthly reports cover analyst agreement, overrides, incorrect closures, and rolled-back actions. Cases route into ConnectWise, Autotask, HaloPSA, or ServiceNow, and proposed detection changes are reviewed before production.
Deliver the service under your brand, with guaranteed service levels and an incident response retainer included.
Explore AI SOC for MSSPs
Faster investigations. Clear evidence. Coordinated response.
CountryAustraliaUnited StatesNew ZealandUnited KingdomCanadaSingaporeOtherI'm an MSP, MSSP, or reseller
Δ
SOC automation for MSSPs uses software to perform security tasks across client environments. Rules, playbooks, and AI agents can gather evidence, investigate alerts, manage cases, and execute authorized response while applying each client’s settings and permissions.
SOC automation is the work performed automatically. SOAR is a category of platforms used to coordinate and execute that work across tools, commonly through playbooks. Some SOAR platforms also support AI agents, allowing fixed steps and adaptive investigation to work together.
Start with frequent tasks whose results are easy to verify, such as enrichment, case preparation, and reporting. Validate investigation decisions separately, then introduce specific response actions after testing their permissions, effects, and recovery procedures.
It can run without a new approval for each case when the client has already authorized the specific action and conditions. Actions outside that delegation need approval. Broad access to a client’s tools does not itself grant response authority.
Keep client scope and credentials explicit, separate shared logic from client settings, and release changes gradually. Limit target counts and execution rates, monitor results, and provide workflow suspension. Data separation alone cannot prevent faulty shared logic from affecting multiple clients independently.
Test known benign and malicious cases, ambiguous evidence, exclusions, approvals, and failure conditions. Use controlled targets to verify execution and recovery, then inspect a limited production rollout. Recommendation-only testing cannot establish whether response actions work.
No. It reduces manual collection and repeated execution so analysts can focus on uncertain findings, complex incidents, and response decisions. The service still needs people to review quality, maintain automation, and coordinate with clients.
Track investigation quality, verified response completion, incorrect closures, missed escalations, and net analyst effort saved. Measure approval waiting separately from investigation and execution, and review results by client and workflow rather than relying only on service-wide averages.
AI for MSPs
Reducing False Positives for MSPs