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
AI investigations and 24x7 MDR on the Microsoft Sentinel you already own
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
Free ebook: modern security operations with Microsoft Sentinel
November 10, 2026
November 6, 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.
An AI SIEM uses artificial intelligence to help security teams detect threats, search events, and investigate activity across their environment. It makes security data easier to work with and can reduce the research needed to turn an alert into a decision.The term covers different capabilities, from behavioral analytics and query assistants to agents that run investigations. Understanding those differences helps you choose features that improve the work your SOC needs to do.
A SIEM collects and organizes security events so teams can search history, detect suspicious activity, and investigate across systems. Identity, endpoint, email, network, and cloud records become more useful when an analyst can examine them together.
AI adds ways to find and interpret that evidence. Three capabilities often appear under the same label:
Establish patterns and identify unusual activity. A new access pattern may warrant investigation, but being unusual does not make it malicious.
Helps analysts write queries, understand events, and prepare summaries. Its value depends on the data and tools available to support the answer.
Select queries, retrieve evidence, and follow up on findings within an assigned task. They can prepare a case for review rather than waiting for an analyst to direct every search.
Many established SIEMs already use statistical analysis and machine learning. The useful comparison is what a particular AI feature does, how much work it completes, and what the analyst still needs to check.
An AI-powered SIEM can help before, during, and after an investigation. Evaluate each capability separately; strong query generation does not establish strong detection or investigation performance.
These functions have different outcomes. A parser makes records searchable. An anomaly model produces a lead. An investigative agent assesses the activity. A report communicates the findings. Combining them can improve operations, but success at one stage does not guarantee the quality of the next.
Natural-language search lets an analyst ask about activity without writing every query from scratch. It can make unfamiliar data sources more accessible and help experienced analysts move through routine searches faster.
The question still needs a precise meaning. “Which accounts signed in from a new country?” requires a search window, a comparison period, and a definition of new. An account first seen in the available logs is not necessarily a newly created account.
Check the generated search for:
Does it search the relevant event categories and distinguish successful activity from failed attempts?
Does it use the intended period, account identifiers, and customer boundary?
Could a row limit, aggregation, or join omit relevant records?
Does the answer describe what the returned evidence establishes, including gaps?
In this example, the useful answer connects a new cloud access key to the sign-in that preceded it and to what the key did afterward. The searches, timing, and source records make the conclusion reviewable.
In a real environment, confirm which identifiers can link records across sources. Matching a username and nearby timestamps is weaker evidence than a verified session relationship. An AI-generated explanation should make that distinction visible.
Generated searches also need sensible execution limits. Broad historical queries and repeated joins can consume substantial resources. Query budgets, time limits, and concurrency controls help keep investigations from competing unnecessarily with collection and detection.
An agentic SIEM uses agents to carry out investigative steps, rather than only suggesting what an analyst could search. The agent receives a task, queries permitted sources, evaluates the results, and decides whether further evidence is needed.
For suspected account takeover, that may mean moving from the initial sign-in into authentication changes, mailbox activity, and access to shared files. A legitimate explanation should be tested against the same evidence as the attack hypothesis.
The depth depends on access. Reading an alert is different from querying its underlying events, and querying SIEM records is different from retrieving additional evidence through another tool’s API. Ask which of these the product supports for your sources.
A useful investigation ends with findings linked to source records, a timeline, unresolved questions, and recommended next steps. Analysts should be able to verify the assessment without repeating the research.
Investigation and execution remain separate permissions. An agent may be allowed to gather evidence and prepare containment while a person approves the action. The platform should enforce that boundary regardless of the model’s recommendation.
AI can help detection engineers draft rules and identify changes worth reviewing. Completed cases provide evidence about the behavior a rule catches, the legitimate activity it repeatedly flags, and attacks that current logic does not adequately cover.
A proposal might tighten conditions, add a targeted exception, adjust repeated notifications, or introduce a detection for confirmed attacker behavior. It should explain the intended improvement and the coverage that could be affected.
Treat each suggestion as a proposed change. A corporate VPN does not make every associated sign-in benign, and a signed administration tool can still be misused. Review the actual conditions, affected systems, and relevant attack scenarios before accepting an exclusion.
Test syntax and logic against retained data, including legitimate activity and attacks the rule should continue to detect. Record the change, obtain review, and monitor the results after deployment.
Automatic closure and detection tuning solve different problems. Closing an alert reduces handling work for that occurrence. Changing the source detection can reduce its recurrence, but also changes what the SOC will see next time.
AI in SIEM depends on the quality and availability of security data. It can help analysts interpret records, but it cannot reliably reconstruct activity that no accessible source recorded.
Check the foundations behind each use case:
Are required sources connected, current, and delivering the relevant event categories?
Is the comparison period available, and can the feature search archived data when needed?
Do timestamps, actors, targets, actions, and outcomes retain their original meaning?
Are asset owners, critical systems, identity roles, and approved activities available and current?
Does the investigation identify failed searches, missing permissions, and incomplete results?
A parser that swaps source and destination addresses can misdirect an investigation even when the generated query runs successfully. A silent connector can make a search look clean. Test data quality with representative source records and known activity, not just a connection status.
AI-generated parsers and mapping suggestions need the same validation. Preserve original records or usable source references so analysts can resolve discrepancies.
No. You can enable suitable AI features in an existing SIEM or connect an AI SOC layer that investigates through your current tools. Replacing the SIEM is another option when its underlying collection, search, retention, or operating model no longer fits.
Separate the need for AI from the case for migration. A query-writing problem may be solved without moving historical data. A platform that cannot provide reliable evidence may require more than a conversational interface.
An added AI layer does not necessarily copy the entire log store. It may query data in place and retain selected findings in its case records. Confirm the actual behavior, including what is copied, what stays accessible only through the original system, and what happens if that connection fails.
For a replacement, test detection translation, historical access, integrations, and investigation continuity before retiring the existing service. For an additional layer, test whether its connectors provide enough evidence to complete the intended investigations.
An AI SIEM can involve a SIEM provider, an investigation service, and one or more model providers. The location of the log store does not establish where every part of an AI request is processed.
Map what happens when an analyst asks a question or an agent runs an investigation:
Which events, identifiers, case notes, and query results are sent? What filtering or masking occurs first?
Where do model requests, stored conversations, backups, and support access occur?
Do the applicable terms cover prompts, outputs, logs, and feedback? Check the model provider as well as the SIEM vendor.
Do searches, retrieved context, saved conversations, and exports follow the user’s role and tenant scope?
How long are AI records kept, and can they be exported or deleted alongside the case?
Can instructions embedded in logs or messages influence tool use, or are execution permissions enforced independently?
Review the configuration you will actually deploy. Provider-managed models, customer-selected models, and different AI features can have different processing arrangements. A general statement about the SIEM should not substitute for those details.
The cost of an AI-driven SIEM includes the platform and the work required to make its findings useful. An inexpensive model request may still lead to costly searches or substantial analyst review.
Compare:
Included capacity, usage charges, supported models, and what happens when limits are reached.
Collection, storage, search, archive retrieval, and transfers between services.
Maintaining connectors, validating parsers, testing detections, and adapting integrations.
Reviewing findings, correcting queries, filling evidence gaps, and completing investigations.
Test normal demand and alert surges. Establish whether excess work is queued, rejected, or left incomplete, and whether AI investigations can affect other workloads.
Calculate savings from measured reductions in effort. A shorter model runtime is useful, but the more meaningful comparison is how much work the team needs to reach a supported decision.
ThreatDefence combines SIEM, AI triage, and a 24x7 SOC on one platform. AI agents investigate every alert using evidence across endpoint, identity, network, and cloud, propose detection changes through merge request review, and answer analyst questions with the queries shown.
The same AI SOC platform supports MSPs and MSSPs across their client tenants through AI SOC for MSPs. The AI alert triage page shows how an investigation works step by step.
The platform is hosted in Australia and the United States. Each customer’s data and AI processing stay in the customer’s region, and customer data is not used for training.
A demo shows AI triage, plain-language search, and tuning proposals on a live tenant.
Explore SIEM as a Service Request a Demo
Choose a task that consumes time and has a checkable result. Examples include searching unfamiliar source data, investigating a recurring alert class, or drafting detection changes from completed cases.
Test representative activity, including confirmed attacks, legitimate behavior that looks suspicious, and incomplete data. Inspect the generated searches and evidence, compare findings with independently reviewed outcomes, and count failed or unfinished runs.
Measure quality alongside review effort, query performance, and total cost. Expand the scope when the results support it, keeping production detection changes and response actions within their approved controls.
See AI triage, plain-language search, and tuning proposals on a live tenant.
CountryAustraliaUnited StatesNew ZealandUnited KingdomCanadaSingaporeOtherI'm an MSP, MSSP, or reseller
Δ
An AI SIEM is a security information and event management platform that uses AI to support tasks such as detection, search, investigation, and reporting. Capabilities vary: one product may generate queries, while another can retrieve evidence and carry out an investigation through connected tools.
Many established SIEMs already use machine learning for behavioral analysis. Generative AI can add conversational search, explanations, and reporting, while investigative agents can select queries and follow findings. Compare those specific functions rather than relying on the product’s generation or label.
No. You can enable supported features in your current SIEM or connect an AI SOC platform to it and other security tools. Check source access, investigation depth, permissions, and evidence handling. Migration is a separate decision based on the capabilities your existing platform can provide.
It can help identify recurring benign patterns and propose tested detection changes. Better context can also reduce unnecessary escalations. Closing alerts automatically does not change the source rule, and additional analytics may generate new findings that need assessment.
Agentic SIEM generally refers to a SIEM that uses agents to choose and perform investigative steps. AI SIEM is broader and can include anomaly detection or query assistance without autonomous investigation. Neither label establishes permission to execute response actions.
Data protection depends on the deployment, access controls, model providers, and processing terms. Check which information reaches models, where it is processed, whether training use is permitted, and how records are retained. Confirm these details for each feature and model configuration you use.
What Is SIEM as a Service?
AI SOC Platform Guide
AI SOC Analyst