I investigated OT alerts with both the security signal and the operating environment in view. For Claroty and OT Sentinel activity, an alert needed enough identity, endpoint and operational context to support a conclusion and a response the responsible team could carry out.
I reviewed five incidents against earlier investigations and known backup behaviour. The comparison supported expected activity, and I recorded the basis for closing those incidents as false positives. That conclusion came from corroborating the traffic with its operational context.
I also contributed to OT monitoring architecture, coverage material and runbook discussions. This included defining the on-premises identity and endpoint context an investigation would need, and clarifying the responsibilities of SOC, MDR and OT teams for investigation, impact assessment and response.
Closer to the work
Backup activity and OT context
I treated backup activity as an explanation to verify against the observed OT traffic and previous investigations. The aim was to determine whether the activity matched an understood operational process and to retain the supporting evidence in the incident record.
Open this detail ↗Corroborating the traffic
I compared five incidents with earlier cases and known backup behaviour, documented the evidence and closed them as false positives. The result applies to those investigated cases. The investigation combined security-monitoring context with knowledge of how the OT environment was expected to operate.
Open this detail ↗Response ownership and telemetry
I helped define responsibilities around Claroty alerts and OT Sentinel events, including who investigates, validates operational impact and carries out response. The wider monitoring discussions addressed identity and endpoint telemetry from the on-premises environment, evidence requirements and usable runbooks.
Open this detail ↗Skills established through this work