ISSN (Online): 2321-3418
server-injected
Engineering and Computer Science
Open Access

Designing Scalable Software Automation Frameworks for Cybersecurity Threat Detection and Response

DOI: 10.18535/ijsrm/v13i02.ec03· Pages: 1958-1980· Vol. 13, No. 02, (2025)· Published: February 12, 2025
PDF
Views: 704 PDF downloads: 334

Abstract

Cybersecurity threats are rapidly evolving, posing significant challenges to organizations seeking to protect critical digital assets. Traditional security approaches, such as rule-based detection and manual incident response, have proven inadequate in addressing the complexity and scale of modern cyber threats, particularly those involving zero-day vulnerabilities, ransomware, and advanced persistent threats (APTs). In response, scalable software automation frameworks have emerged as a critical solution for real-time threat detection and response.

This paper presents a comprehensive study on designing scalable cybersecurity automation frameworks, integrating artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), cloud computing, and Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) systems to enhance security resilience. The study examines key architectural principles, including microservices-based security structures, cloud-native deployment models, AI-driven anomaly detection, and automated incident response mechanisms. Furthermore, the paper explores how real-time security monitoring, predictive analytics, and Zero Trust security models contribute to an adaptive cybersecurity defense strategy.

To validate the effectiveness of scalable automation frameworks, the paper presents case studies of Google Chronicle, IBM Security QRadar, and Microsoft Azure Sentinel, analyzing their efficiency in automated threat intelligence, behavioral analytics, and cloud-based security operations. Additionally, we discuss major challenges associated with scalability, performance, AI explainability, and interoperability with legacy security infrastructures.

The proposed framework offers an optimized cybersecurity automation model that enhances detection speed, minimizes false positives, and ensures seamless threat response automation. The findings indicate that integrating AI-enhanced SIEM and SOAR solutions into a cloud-native cybersecurity ecosystem significantly improves cyber threat mitigation, response times, and overall security posture. Future research should focus on advancing federated learning for distributed security intelligence, blockchain for decentralized security enforcement, and explainable AI (XAI) for more transparent cybersecurity decision-making.

This study contributes to the growing body of cybersecurity research by providing a scalable, AI-driven, and cloud-integrated framework for organizations to enhance their security resilience in an increasingly complex threat landscape.

Keywords

Scalable cybersecuritythreat detectionsecurity automationAI in cybersecuritymachine learningSOARSIEMcloud securityZero Trustthreat intelligence. 1. Introduction

References

  1. Enoch, S. Y., Huang, Z., Moon, C. Y., Lee, D., Ahn, M. K., & Kim, D. S. (2020). HARMer: Cyber-attacks automation and evaluation. IEEE Access, 8, 129397-129414.Google Scholar ↗
  2. Islam, C., Babar, M. A., Croft, R., & Janicke, H. (2022). SmartValidator: A framework for automatic identification and classification of cyber threat data. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 202, 103370.Google Scholar ↗
  3. Balasubramanian, P., Nazari, S., Kholgh, D. K., Mahmoodi, A., Seby, J., & Kostakos, P. (2024). TSTEM: A Cognitive Platform for Collecting Cyber Threat Intelligence in the Wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09973.Google Scholar ↗
  4. Puzis, R., Zilberman, P., & Elovici, Y. (2020). ATHAFI: Agile threat hunting and forensic investigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03663.Google Scholar ↗
  5. Conti, M., Dehghantanha, A., Franke, K., & Watson, S. (2018). Internet of Things security and forensics: Challenges and opportunities. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78, 544-546.Google Scholar ↗
  6. Pajouh, H. H., Javidan, R., Khayami, R., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2016). A two-layer dimension reduction and two-tier classification model for anomaly-based intrusion detection in IoT backbone networks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 7(2), 314-323.Google Scholar ↗
  7. Mozaffari, F. S., Karimipour, H., & Parizi, R. M. (2020). Learning based anomaly detection in critical cyber-physical systems. Security of Cyber-Physical Systems: Vulnerability and Impact, 107-130.Google Scholar ↗
  8. Karimipour, H., Dehghantanha, A., Parizi, R. M., Choo, K. K. R., & Leung, H. (2019). A deep and scalable unsupervised machine learning system for cyber-attack detection in large-scale smart grids. Ieee Access, 7, 80778-80788.Google Scholar ↗
  9. Yazdinejad, A., HaddadPajouh, H., Dehghantanha, A., Parizi, R. M., Srivastava, G., & Chen, M. Y. (2020). Cryptocurrency malware hunting: A deep recurrent neural network approach. Applied Soft Computing, 96, 106630.Google Scholar ↗
  10. Osanaiye, O., Cai, H., Choo, K. K. R., Dehghantanha, A., Xu, Z., & Dlodlo, M. (2016). Ensemble-based multi-filter feature selection method for DDoS detection in cloud computing. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2016, 1-10.Google Scholar ↗
  11. Taylor, P. J., Dargahi, T., Dehghantanha, A., Parizi, R. M., & Choo, K. K. R. (2020). A systematic literature review of blockchain cyber security. Digital Communications and Networks, 6(2), 147-156.Google Scholar ↗
  12. Milosevic, N., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2017). Machine learning aided Android malware classification. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 61, 266-274.Google Scholar ↗
  13. Polubaryeva, A. (2022). An Investigation of Blockchain Technology and Smart Contracts Deployment in Smart Medicine 4.0. In Principles and Practice of Blockchains (pp. 211-248). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar ↗
  14. Teing, Y. Y., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2018). CloudMe forensics: A case of big data forensic investigation. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 30(5), e4277.Google Scholar ↗
  15. Daryabar, F., Dehghantanha, A., Eterovic-Soric, B., & Choo, K. K. R. (2016). Forensic investigation of OneDrive, Box, GoogleDrive and Dropbox applications on Android and iOS devices. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(6), 615-642.Google Scholar ↗
  16. Daryabar, F., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2017). Cloud storage forensics: MEGA as a case study. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(3), 344-357.Google Scholar ↗
  17. Shariati, M., Dehghantanha, A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2016). SugarSync forensic analysis. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(1), 95-117.Google Scholar ↗
  18. Choo, K. K., & Dehghantanha, A. (2017). Contemporary digital forensics investigations of cloud and mobile applications. In Contemporary digital forensic investigations of cloud and mobile applications (pp. 1-6). Syngress.Google Scholar ↗
  19. Thakur, K., Qiu, M., Gai, K., & Ali, M. L. (2015, November). An investigation on cyber security threats and security models. In 2015 IEEE 2nd international conference on cyber security and cloud computing (pp. 307-311). IEEE.Google Scholar ↗
  20. Yungaicela-Naula, N. M., Vargas-Rosales, C., Pérez-Díaz, J. A., & Zareei, M. (2022). Towards security automation in software defined networks. Computer Communications, 183, 64-82.Google Scholar ↗
  21. Mishra, M., Das, D., Laurinavicius, A., Laurinavicius, A., & Chang, B. H. (2024). Sectorial Analysis of Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Openness on Carbon Emissions: A Threshold Regression Approach. Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy, 2550003.Google Scholar ↗
  22. Repetto, M., Striccoli, D., Piro, G., Carrega, A., Boggia, G., & Bolla, R. (2021). An autonomous cybersecurity framework for next-generation digital service chains. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 29(4), 37.Google Scholar ↗
  23. Islam, C., Babar, M. A., Croft, R., & Janicke, H. (2022). SmartValidator: A framework for automatic identification and classification of cyber threat data. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 202, 103370.Google Scholar ↗
  24. Välja, M., Heiding, F., Franke, U., & Lagerström, R. (2020). Automating threat modeling using an ontology framework: Validated with data from critical infrastructures. Cybersecurity, 3(1), 19.Google Scholar ↗
  25. Narayanan, S. N., Ganesan, A., Joshi, K., Oates, T., Joshi, A., & Finin, T. (2018, October). Early detection of cybersecurity threats using collaborative cognition. In 2018 IEEE 4th international conference on collaboration and internet computing (CIC) (pp. 354-363). IEEE.Google Scholar ↗
  26. Dokhanian, S., Sodagartojgi, A., Tehranian, K., Ahmadirad, Z., Moghaddam, P. K., & Mohsenibeigzadeh, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of supply chain integration and agility on commodity supply chain performance. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(1), 441-450.Google Scholar ↗
  27. Ahmadirad, Z. (2024). The Beneficial Role of Silicon Valley's Technological Innovations and Venture Capital in Strengthening Global Financial Markets. International journal of Modern Achievement in Science, Engineering and Technology, 1(3), 9-17.Google Scholar ↗
  28. Dokhanian, S., Sodagartojgi, A., Tehranian, K., Ahmadirad, Z., Moghaddam, P. K., & Mohsenibeigzadeh, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of supply chain integration and agility on commodity supply chain performance. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(1), 441-450.Google Scholar ↗
  29. Safitra, M. F., Lubis, M., & Fakhrurroja, H. (2023). Counterattacking cyber threats: A framework for the future of cybersecurity. Sustainability, 15(18), 13369.Google Scholar ↗
  30. Ilca, L. F., Lucian, O. P., & Balan, T. C. (2023). Enhancing cyber-resilience for small and medium-sized organizations with prescriptive malware analysis, detection and response. Sensors, 23(15), 6757.Google Scholar ↗
Author details
Bhargav Dilipkumar Jaiswal
Software Development and Testing Independent Researcher
✉ Corresponding Author
👤 View Profile →