Traces scattered across systems
Records split across WAF, load balancers, web servers, databases and the OS must be gathered and read as one flow of the same incident.
GIIP AI Security Operations
The traces of an attack.
What comes next?
When security alerts keep pouring in, what you really need is judgment and action. GIIP connects it all into a single operational flow — from cross-investigating scattered logs, to the report, to post-approval response.
From detection to response
Carried out based on your connected infrastructure and the permissions you grant.
01 / DETECTDetectConfirm attack traces
02 / INVESTIGATEInvestigateVerify original logs
03 / REPORTReportSeparate fact from inference
04 / RESPONDRespondExecute after approval
01 / THE PROBLEMThe alert arrived.
The alert arrived.
But have you confirmed the damage?
A trace of an attack in your WAF alone can't confirm an actual intrusion or data breach. You need to connect the original evidence — how far the request reached, and what was actually executed.
Time lost to cross-checking
While you manually reconcile original logs and execution results after an alert, the initial response falls behind.
The burden of investigation and response
You need an operational flow that reduces repeated investigations outsourced to external experts, so judgment and response can happen in-house.
02 / WORKFLOW
Investigation starts from an AI instruction sheet.
After connecting GIIP to your infrastructure, events found in Security Monitor are carried over into an investigation by the AI on the collection-agent side.
Confirm the attack traces.
Check the detection event and its assessment in Security Monitor.
Click "Copy AI instruction sheet".
Copy a sheet that captures the event context and the information needed for the investigation.
Hand it to the collection-agent AI.
Pass the copied sheet to the AI, which investigates and cross-checks the original logs within the permissions granted to the agent.
Review the report, then decide the response.
Review confirmed facts, inferences, items needing further checks, and the proposed response. Any change assumes administrator approval and the execution permissions granted.
03 / CROSS-ANALYSIS
Separate attempted attacks from actual damage.
Detection probability is only the starting point. We match original logs, response sizes, status codes and execution traces to confirm the real impact.
WAFLBWeb serverDB audit logQuery StoreOS
EVIDENCE FIRST
Match detection results against original evidence
We confirm the execution result of the request in sources such as the DB audit log, and verify the possibility of data access or exfiltration based on response size and status codes.
The scope of investigation depends on the connected logs, their retention period and the agent's access permissions.
Q1
Who sent what?
We connect time, IP, request and detection pattern to trace the flow of the attack.
Q2
What was executed?
We check status codes, response sizes, and traces of writes, file operations and privilege changes.
Q3
How far does the real impact reach?
We investigate traces of data access and extraction, and lay out the impact scope and unconfirmed items.
04 / INTELLIGENCE REPORT
We report confirmed facts and inferences separately.
We organize the original evidence so administrators can judge, and leave anything not yet verified as items for further investigation.
VERIFIED FACTS
Confirmed facts
- Events and timestamps confirmed in the original logs
- Execution results, response information and related evidence
- System impact that can be confirmed by evidence
ASSESSMENT & NEXT ACTION
Inference and proposed response
- The likelihood of an attack and the basis for the judgment
- Unconfirmed items and the additional evidence needed
- Response options to consider, such as blocking or configuration changes
An example of the report structure. This is not a screen showing the results of an actual incident investigation.
05 / CONTROLLED RESPONSEReview the report,
Review the report,
execute within the permitted scope.
After the administrator reviews the report and the proposed response, they direct the AI to execute. Response proceeds within the permitted actions and permission scope of the target environment, such as AWS or Azure.
Administrator review and approval
Review the investigation results and the impact scope of the proposed response, then approve the necessary actions.
Confirm agent permissions
What is possible is determined by how far the agent can read logs and how far it can change infrastructure.
Blocking and configuration changes
Following what was approved, the necessary infrastructure blocking or configuration changes are executed within the granted permissions.
Copying the instruction sheet is the start of an investigation request. Changing infrastructure assumes administrator approval and the execution permissions granted to the agent.
06 / OPERATIONAL VALUEReduce the burden of repeated investigation,
Reduce the burden of repeated investigation,
focus on judgment and response.
From gathering scattered records to bridging investigation and execution, the goal is to reduce the repetitive work of security operations.
| Area | Manual response | GIIP AI Security Operations |
|---|---|---|
| Starting investigation | The operator prepares log queries and analysis procedures | Request an investigation with an AI instruction sheet that carries the event information |
| Scope of analysis | Query and reconcile each system's records individually | Cross-investigate multiple accessible logs |
| Basis for judgment | The operator organizes the collected evidence into a report | A report that separates confirmed facts from inference |
| Executing the response | The operator changes settings in each environment | After approval, executed within the agent's permission scope |
The time and cost savings vary with the connected environment, the scale of the logs and the complexity of the incident.
07 / FAQ
What to check before adopting
Once I connect GIIP, what can I do first?
The source material introduces a flow where, after connecting your infrastructure, you confirm attack traces in Security Monitor and pass an AI instruction sheet to the collection-agent AI for investigation. The actual investigation targets are determined by log connections and access permissions.
Does the AI change infrastructure automatically?
The response flow introduced follows this order: administrator review and approval of the report, delegation of permissions to the agent, then infrastructure blocking and configuration changes. The actions it can perform are limited to the permissions granted in advance.
Do you confirm a breach from attack probability alone?
Based on the detection results, we confirm the original logs and execution results. Whether actual damage occurred is judged after verifying evidence, and we report confirmed facts and inferences separately.
Take back control of your security.
From the moment you spot an attack trace, all the way to real investigation and response.
See how the GIIP Security Monitor flow works.
Reconstructed as web content from the Korean "GIIP AI Security Operations" source material.