High Effort, Low Impact? Rethinking Security Response

We’re not talking about commitment, talent, motivation, ability, or passion. Your team brings all of that, in abundance - and you see it every day. Alerts get reviewed, malicious domains get blocked, compromised systems get restored, and incidents get documented end to end. Your operation is active, coordinated, well-managed and deliberate.

Still, the same attacks keep coming back in different forms, built on new servers, domains, and delivery paths. The same threat actors keep finding their way back in. There’s a widening gap between effort and outcome, and, as security leaders, we’re all being forced to account for it.

Here’s the good news: it’s not your team or how you operate. It’s how the threat timeline has changed in relation to everyone’s response timeline. Today, by the time an alert fires, critical stages of the attack have already played out. That shapes the entire trajectory of your response – and its efficacy.

In this blog, we’ll walk through what changes when your defensive action starts much further upstream in the attack lifecycle.

Execution: The Wrong Defensive Starting Point

Most of your team’s response activity begins after attacker infrastructure is already operational. Domains are blocked after users engage. Malware is removed after execution. Credentials are reset after misuse is confirmed in logs. These actions are necessary, and your team executes them well. The problem is that they occur downstream from the decision points that shape the attack.

Adversaries know this. Their infrastructure is built to function through disruption. They stage clusters of domains, distribute payloads across fallback servers, and prepare alternate paths before anything is deployed. When one component is taken down, another takes its place. This isn’t a flaw in their design – it is the design.

That leaves your team addressing the visible symptoms, not the structure behind it. From inside the organization, it may look like containment. From the adversary’s perspective, it’s just a routine delay.

Why Later Means More Work

When attacker infrastructure stays live, the demands on your team increase. Once the attack is executed, detection efforts kick into high gear. The investigation spreads across systems. Ownership fragments as issues escalate: analysts alert IT, identity teams rotate credentials, and business units work to restore access and continuity. Legal, compliance, and executive teams step in to manage fallout and reporting. Remediation pulls in multiple teams, and recovery extends across departments.

What begins as a technical response becomes a resource-heavy operation spanning the entire organization. And the cost of that work rises sharply the longer adversarial infrastructure remains active. According to IBM, organizations that contain breaches within 200 days spend nearly $4 million per breach on average. Those that take longer spend over $5 million. Other research shows that earlier action shortens breach timelines by 80 days and reduces impact by nearly $2 million.

Responding earlier limits that chain reaction. It manages the response by controlling the narrative. It shortens the timeline and reduces how far risk spreads through systems, roles, and resources.

The New Benchmark: Capability Removed

If most of our effort today goes into containing threats already in motion, then the next phase of response must begin earlier - before infrastructure becomes active.

The question we need to be asking is no longer how quickly can my team shut down an incident, it’s did the threat have to reach that stage in the first place? That distinction reframes what response means. It moves the benchmark from incident response speed to preemptive disruption - from reacting well to acting soon enough to prevent the need to react.

Read our eBook: Claiming the First Move Advantage in Cyber Readiness

This is a new model of defense. During the setup phase, adversaries prepare infrastructure - domains, certificates, ports, and payloads - all configured to reach your environment. Each component is an attack enabler. When your team can identify and remove those assets before use, you're not responding to an attack. You're eliminating the conditions that make one possible.

That shift reduces the amount of work downstream. It clears out repeat incidents, lowers response volume, and moves risk reduction into a phase where it costs less and achieves more.

What It Takes to Act Earlier

Most tooling in the enterprise security stack is still built to detect and respond after compromising. SIEMs, EDRs, and XDR platforms monitor internal activity. They flag what’s already in motion.

Acting earlier requires a different layer - one that operates during attacker setup, before payloads launch or systems are reached. That means scanning infrastructure at an internet scale, matching signals to your environment, and enforcing policy as soon as risk is confirmed. It’s all about disrupting adversarial capability before it can be used.

Malanta was purpose-built for that role. Our platform monitors setup-phase activity across domains, certificates, ports, and behavior patterns - then links those signals to real exposures inside your environment. Once attacker's intent is validated, Malanta applies policy-based suppression, either automatically or through controlled review. Every action is traceable. Every decision is tied to risk removed - and every takedown shortens Mean Time to Preempt (MTTP), the metric that captures how quickly infrastructure is eliminated after it’s detected.

The Bottom Line

You’ve already built the processes. Your team knows how to respond. The problem is that response begins after the attacker has already advanced. By then, even a fast reaction means managing consequences that didn’t need to happen.

Early action resets that pattern. When you disrupt threat infrastructure during attack setup, there’s no incident to contain, no fallback path to chase, no cycle to repeat - and no escalation into the kind of multi-team, high-cost response that strains budgets as much as workflows.

This shift changes how risk is perceived. It moves your team’s efforts closer to the source of the threat, where each decision has more leverage and fewer dependencies. This is how we move from high effort, low impact to a more durable outcome: lower effort, higher return, and a response model designed to break the cycle before it begins.

You can experience Malanta in your environment: Get platform access and detect threats targeting your assets today.

‍