Food for thought
Content Manager
Every day, security teams face a flood of alerts, from phishing attempts and endpoint detections to lateral movement and privilege abuse. In high-volume environments like SOCs, CERTs, CSIRTs and MSSPs, it’s a real challenge to decide which threats matter most right now—not just identifying them.
That’s where security incident prioritization comes in.
At its core, incident prioritization is the process of evaluating incoming alerts and assigning response urgency based on threat severity, asset context and business impact, so analysts focus their attention where it matters most, rather than working through a queue in order of arrival.
When done well, it helps teams focus their attention, preserve resources and reduce risk exposure. When it’s missing or inconsistent, it tends to slow response, drain analyst energy and quietly raise operational risk.
Let’s walk through how teams can make prioritization more actionable, consistent and collaborative.
As environments grow more complex, alerts multiply. Security tools flag everything that looks suspicious, but in practice, a significant portion turns out to be noise. Analysts know this. And when the volume is high enough, alert fatigue sets in—prioritization stops being a workflow choice and starts being a survival mechanism.
Many teams are still making these calls manually, relying on institutional knowledge, gut instinct or outdated scoring models. For example, a study by Omdia, commissioned by Microsoft, found that 42% of alerts go uninvestigated simply due to capacity constraints. This can create an invisible bottleneck in what happens between detection and response.
A couple of example scenarios that come up again and again:
Here are the most adopted approaches security teams use today. Each brings more structure to decision-making, and most work best in combination.
Assigning severity levels based on technical characteristics, such as malware, privilege escalation or anomalous login, gives teams a fast and repeatable baseline.
On its own, severity scoring can be too generic: what’s critical in one environment might be low-risk in another. But when combined with asset and context data, it becomes a much more reliable signal.
A good starting point could be aligning severity tiers (low/medium/high/critical) across tools and linking them directly to downstream response workflows, so an alert’s severity level actually triggers the right action and not just a label. Where the alert sits in the attack chain matters, too: a suspicious email is far less urgent than a command-and-control alert, which may mean an attacker is already inside the machine.
A brute-force attempt against a test VM is a very different situation from the same attempt against a domain controller. Asset value, based on criticality, sensitivity or business role, changes the meaning of an alert entirely.
During triage, analysts often don’t have immediate visibility into which systems are customer-facing, which support critical business functions or which are already under active monitoring for other reasons. They’re either relying on memory or spending time they don’t have hunting through wikis.
When asset metadata lives directly inside the case alongside the alert, that context is there at the moment of decision, not after it.
Threat intelligence feeds add an important layer: is this indicator tied to a known malware family? Has this IP been part of recent campaigns? MITRE ATT&CK mappings and threat actor profiles can significantly boost analyst confidence.
Feeds that aren’t tuned to the environment can add noise rather than reduce it. Integrating lightweight enrichment directly into the triage layer, rather than keeping TI siloed in a separate tool, tends to make this more usable in practice.
Incidents rarely happen in isolation. A user who triggered a similar alert two weeks ago, an IP that appeared in a related case last month—these patterns matter, and they’re easy to miss when cases live in separate silos.
Historical correlation can elevate events that look minor on their own but are part of a broader trend. Cross-case visibility and correlation rules that surface linked observables automatically are what make this work at speed.
In TheHive, analysts can link cases, share observables across investigations and build a picture of an emerging pattern without switching tools, which is especially valuable when teams are working in parallel on what might turn out to be the same threat.
Thales CERT built this directly into their workflow: when a new alert arrives, TheHive automatically checks whether it’s connected to any past cases and either merges it with an existing one or opens a new case for the team to investigate. See how the team does it →
For MSSPs especially, not all incidents are created equal, and not all clients have the same expectations. A 15-minute response window for one client’s production environment is not the same as an 8-hour window for another client’s testing environment.
When SLA context isn’t baked into the triage workflow, it has to be carried mentally, which is a recipe for inconsistency under pressure. Tagging alerts by service type or client SLA at ingestion means they enter the right queue automatically, without someone having to make that call each time.
One pattern worth recognizing: prioritization isn’t a one-time event at alert ingestion. New evidence can shift a case’s severity. Fresh threat intel can change how something that looked routine yesterday appears today.
What makes this manageable is having a way to adjust prioritization as the case evolves and a clear record of why decisions were made at each step. When a shift handover happens mid-incident, that audit trail is what keeps the next analyst from starting from scratch.
TheHive supports this directly: severity and priority fields can be updated at any point in the case lifecycle, and every change is logged with context, including comments that analysts can leave for their teammates. This way, an incoming analyst sees not just the current state of a case, but the reasoning behind it.
Teams that handle prioritization well tend to share one thing: they’re not juggling context across tools. When alerts, asset data, threat intel and case history live in the same place, decisions are faster and more consistent, because analysts aren’t reconstructing the picture from memory or from scattered sources.
Centralized case management gives analysts space to enrich, correlate and document as the picture develops, and it grants team leads visibility into how decisions are being made across the queue.
When coupled with automation, these decisions happen faster and more consistently. Many SOCs use automated triage rules to define alert severity, and tools like Cortex can help automatically assess whether an observable is a real threat or a false alarm, so analysts can act on facts rather than assumptions.
A quick diagnostic worth trying: if the on-call analyst hands off a live incident at 2 AM, can the incoming person understand in two minutes why this case has the priority it has and what’s been decided so far? If the answer is uncertain, there’s usually an opportunity to make prioritization more structured.
A German IT service provider made this a core part of how they train their team: they regularly simulate mid-incident handovers where analysts can only rely on what’s documented in TheHive to get up to speed. Read their story →
Security teams need clarity about which alerts matter and a clear path to act on them.
Smarter prioritization reduces noise, and beyond that it reduces the cognitive load that burns analysts out, shortens the gap between detection and action and makes it easier to have consistent, defensible conversations with stakeholders about response.
When prioritization is built into workflows from the start, with the right structure, the right context and a clear record of reasoning, it stops being something teams react to under pressure and starts being something that just happens.
TheHive is built around exactly this idea: a single place where alerts are enriched, cases are correlated, priorities are set and updated as evidence evolves, and every decision is documented for the next person on shift. Whether you’re running a SOC, a CERT or a multi-client MSSP operation, that foundation makes prioritization consistent by default rather than by effort.
Share it
Content Manager
