Your customer’s digital experience should never be compromised when under a DDoS attack.
When discussing security solutions with Chief Security Officers (CSOs), one of the most frequent concerns is the false positives rate. A false positive is a mislabeled security alert indicating a threat in the absence of one. Regardless of the benefits security solutions bring to businesses, false positives remain a significant concern that affects your chances of closing a deal or making a sale.
CSOs, IT managers, or security operators are highly concerned about this issue. Every false positive means a legitimate consumer’s access rights to a service or application are denied, causing consumer churn and overhead to the IT staff—every single case must be investigated and cleared, which takes time.
Why Blocking Legitimate Users Used to be Acceptable
Surprisingly many CSO and IT managers find no wrong in the practice of blocking legitimate users when their application or data centers are under attack. Traditionally when a business is under attack, the false-positives concern was waived.
When did blocking legitimate user traffic when under attack become acceptable? The answer is simple since user’s dependency on technology became more rampant. Security vendors, for the longest, have taught enterprises that when under attack, we cannot determine between attack traffic versus legitimate traffic, which made it acceptable to block users. However, with the right technology, we can.
How to Stay Protected When Under Attack
If you have concerns about false positives in peace-time, you should have the same concern when under a DDoS attack. Your consumers do not have visibility into your IT operations, nor do they care if you are under attack or not. They want the best service, and they want it all the time, every time. There is no reason for enterprises and businesses to compromise their digital experience because security vendors lack the right technology to protect them.
When meeting with your security provider, the first question should be about their false-positives rate, and the follow-up should be, “What is your false-positives rate when under attack?” If they cannot address this question correctly, your consumers will pay the price.