Humans in the loop – failsafe or liability?

Among InfoSec and IT staff, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes hand wringing that users are the weakest link.   But are InfoSec staff that much stronger?

While automation is and does have a place, Dan Geer, of CIA-backed venture fund In-Q-Tel, properly notes that while ” …humans can build structures more complex” than they can operate, ” …Are humans in the loop a failsafe or a liability? Is fully automated security to be desired or to be feared?”

We’ve considered this question before at Prism, when “automated remediation” was being heavily touted as a solution for mid-market enterprises, where IT staff is not abundant. We’ve found that human intervention is not just a fail-safe, but a necessity.   The interdependencies, even in medium sized networks are far too complex to automate.   We introduced the feature a couple of years back and in reviewing the usage, concluded that such “automated remediation” does have a role to play in the modern enterprise. Use cases include changes to group membership in Active Directory, unrecognized processes, account creation where the naming convention is not followed or honeypot access. In other words, when the condition can be well defined and narrowly focused, humans in the loop will slow things down. However for every such “rule” there are hundreds more that will be obvious to a human but missed by the narrow rule.

So are humans in the loop a failsafe or a liability? It depends on the scenario.

What’s your thought?