In recent years, AI-based anomaly detection has become a cornerstone of network security marketing. Vendors tout their machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence as revolutionary approaches that can automatically detect any threat by identifying behavior that deviates from the norm.
While behavioral anomaly detection certainly has its place in a comprehensive security strategy, organizations relying primarily or exclusively on anomaly-based NDR solutions are discovering significant hidden costs and limitations that impact both their security posture and their bottom line.
It's easy to understand why anomaly detection has captured the imagination of security teams. The promise is compelling: deploy a solution that learns what's "normal" for your network, then automatically flags anything unusual as potentially malicious. In theory, this approach can catch novel threats that systems based on other detection mechanisms might miss.
This promise is particularly attractive given today's cybersecurity challenges:
However, as organizations gain operational experience with anomaly-only detection systems, they're discovering that reality falls short of the marketing promise—often at considerable cost.
The first hidden cost becomes apparent immediately after deployment: anomaly detection systems require extensive baseline periods before becoming effective.
Most anomaly-based NDR solutions need anywhere from 2-8 weeks to establish their understanding of "normal" network behavior. During this training period, the solution provides limited security value while consuming both infrastructure resources and administrative attention.
This training period tax has several components:
During the baseline period, the anomaly detection system is essentially learning rather than protecting. This creates an extended window of vulnerability where new threats may go undetected. Organizations often don't fully account for this gap in protection when planning their security strategy.
Tuning an anomaly detection system during its baseline period requires significant administrative attention. Security teams must carefully review the system's learning process, provide feedback on false detections, and ensure it's properly categorizing network behaviors.
While paying full price from day one, organizations receive diminished value during the training period. This delayed ROI isn't typically factored into TCO calculations during the procurement process.
Once past the training period, organizations face the next hidden cost: managing alert quality. Anomaly-based systems face fundamental challenges in distinguishing between benign anomalies and genuine threats.
Networks aren't static—they evolve constantly. Every time an organization deploys new applications, updates systems, or changes network configurations, anomaly-based systems tend to generate alert storms. Each change creates a new "abnormal" pattern that triggers detection.
The real-world impact of these alert quality issues creates what we might call a "false positive economy"—an ongoing operational tax that drains security team resources and effectiveness:
Anomaly detection systems force organizations into a difficult trade-off between sensitivity and usability. Increase sensitivity to catch more potential threats, and you drown in false positives. Decrease sensitivity to reduce false positives, and you risk missing actual attacks.
Perhaps the most significant hidden cost of anomaly-only detection systems is what we might call the "explanation deficit"—the lack of clear evidence and context that accompanies alerts.
When an anomaly-based system flags activity as suspicious, it typically provides limited explanation beyond "this behavior deviates from the baseline." This explanation deficit creates several downstream costs:
Without clear explanations of why an alert triggered, security analysts must conduct extensive investigations to determine:
These investigations consume valuable analyst time and extend response times.
Interpreting anomaly-based alerts often requires deep expertise in both security and the specific anomaly detection system. This expertise requirement:
The explanation deficit creates particular challenges for organizations with strict compliance requirements. Security teams often struggle to:
Another hidden cost emerges when organizations attempt to integrate anomaly-only detection systems into their broader security ecosystem.
Because anomaly-based alerts often lack context, security teams must manually correlate them with data from other systems, including:
This manual correlation creates ongoing operational costs.
The limited context provided by anomaly-based alerts also creates challenges for security automation:
Many anomaly-based systems detect potential issues but provide minimal details for export to other systems. This forces organizations to:
Case Study: A retail organization calculated that their anomaly-based NDR solution required an additional 15 hours of integration work per week compared to detection systems that provided richer context and evidence.
Given these hidden costs, organizations are increasingly recognizing that anomaly detection works best as one component of a multi-layered detection strategy. This approach combines:
When evaluating NDR solutions, organizations should consider these hidden costs alongside the obvious licensing and infrastructure expenses. A comprehensive TCO model should include:
Cost Category |
Factors to Consider |
Deployment Costs |
|
Training Period Costs |
|
Operational Costs |
|
Expertise Costs |
|
Opportunity Costs |
|
Anomaly detection remains a valuable component of network security when applied appropriately. However, organizations should approach vendors' claims with healthy skepticism, particularly those suggesting that anomaly detection alone is sufficient.
The most effective NDR solutions today provide:
By understanding the hidden costs of anomaly-only detection systems, security leaders can make more informed decisions about their NDR strategy—potentially saving millions in direct and indirect costs while improving their security posture.
If you would like to see how Clear NDR stacks up against another solution - an anomaly-focused threat detection system from Darktrace - which we believe is at the opposite end of the clarity spectrum, we created a technical brief document with a side-by-side comparison of Clear NDR and the Darktrace NDR.
Click the button below to access this document.
About Stamus Networks: Stamus Networks offers Clear NDR, a multi-layered network detection and response solution that provides immediate value, transparent detections, and rich supporting evidence.
Want to see if Clear NDR is right for your security team? Request a demo at https://www.stamus-networks.com/demo or request custom pricing using our quote generator at https://www.stamus-networks.com/pricing-quote-generator