Welcome to the Google Cloud Security Forums! Your ultimate security conversation spot. Collaborate with peers and experts to solve challenges, together.
Recently active
Hey folks,As you know, managing credentials in Google SecOps can be quite tedious. To address this, we released a new integration called “Secret Manager”. The purpose of this integration is to allow you to automatically manage all of the credentials associated with Response Integrations, Connectors and Jobs from 1 place. How it works?Inside the integration, there is a job called “Sync Integration Credential Job”. This job is responsible for the synchronization of credentials.As part of the job, you will need to provide a configuration JSON that will map the Google SecOps content to Secret Manager entries.AuthenticationJust like all other Google Cloud integrations, this integration supports authentication via Workload Identity and Service Account key. You will need to assign “Secret Manager Secret Accessor” Role.Note: for situations, where you have identity created in Project A, but your Secret Manager credentials are located in Project B, you should use parameter Project ID, which wil
I wanted to share the workflow we’ve been using to connect Chronicle detection rules with SOAR (Gemini) playbooks, specifically focusing on how rule design directly drives playbook effectiveness.The key idea is:The rule is not just a trigger — it is responsible for providing all the context the playbook needs to make a decision.1. Rule as the Context EngineInstead of relying on the playbook to “figure things out,” we push as much structure and meaning as possible into the rule itself.Each rule is responsible for:Identifying the behavior Normalizing key fields Providing investigation-ready context via the outcome sectionBy the time the alert reaches the playbook, it should already answer:What happened? Who did it? On what system? Why is it suspicious?2. Outcome Section as the ContractThe outcome section acts as a contract between the detection rule and the playbook.We standardize outcomes across rules so every playbook receives consistent inputs.Core pattern we use:$outcomeUserIsTechnic
Hey folks, As Microsoft is deprecating the Microsoft Sentinel portal and transitions into Unified XDR platform by March 30th 2027, we want to proactively announce that some of the connectors will be considered deprecated on the same date.Additionally, we reviewed existing connectors and observed that there are multiple connectors that are solving the same use case. As part of this initiative, we want to consolidate and also deprecate redundant connectors to offer better supportability. The following connectors will be considered deprecated on March 30th 2027:Microsoft Azure Sentinel Incident Connector v2 (Microsoft Sentinel) Microsoft Sentinel Incident Tracking Connector (Microsoft Sentinel) Microsoft Defender ATP Connector V2 (Microsoft Defender for Endpoint) Microsoft Defender ATP Connector (Microsoft Defender for Endpoint) Microsoft Graph Security Connector (Microsoft Graph Security) Microsoft Graph Office 365 Security and Compliance Connector (Microsoft Graph Security)What is
Financial institutions face an ongoing battle against card fraud and credential leaks. A common challenge for security teams is identifying when Bank Identification Numbers (BINs) are leaked across underground channels. To address this, Google Threat Intelligence (GTI) provides advanced, real-time dark web search capabilities to gain direct visibility into illicit communication networks.This article details how to leverage GTI’s advanced dark web search capabilities to automate BIN leak monitoring, transitioning from manual searching to a scalable, automated pipeline. Harnessing Modern Dark Web Search Capabilities Google Threat Intelligence indexes underground communication platforms dynamically, allowing security teams to query massive volumes of raw dark web data using precise, granular filters. For a deeper understanding of these capabilities, you can review the Google Threat Intelligence Dark Web Guide.By interacting with these capabilities via the API, analysts can continuously sc
📣 New Feature Alert: Generate Threat Profile Recommendations directly from Splunk Events! 📣 With our latest release, you can now seamlessly map threat associations from IOC matches in Splunk directly into your Google Threat Intelligence (GTI) Threat Profiles! What’s New?By leveraging the Google Threat Intelligence for Splunk app, your administrators can automatically synchronize observed threats—straight from your Splunk Adversary Intelligence dashboard into your chosen GTI Threat Profile.Key Highlights: 🎯 Accurate & Noise-Free: The integration only sends automatically correlated data. Manual SPL query investigations are excluded to ensure your Threat Profile remains highly relevant and actionable. 🛡️ Comprehensive Coverage: Automatically sync specific threat association types including Threat Actors, Malware Families, Software Toolkits, and Campaigns. 🏷️ Clear Visualization & Filtering: Synchronized collections automatically populate in Google TI with "Observed" and "
Building true operational resilience requires moving faster than the threats you face. That starts with understanding exactly how adversaries are finding success, so you can use that intelligence to stop them.Today, we are proud to announce the release of the M-Trends 2026 report! Distilling insights from over 500k hours of incident investigations executed by Mandiant in 2025, and supporting Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) research, this year’s edition reveals the critical shifts defining today's threat landscape. This post provides a quick preview of the themes from this year's report. Download the M-Trends 2026 report now for a comprehensive dive into our frontline data, and review the supporting resources below for more. The collapse of the "hand-off" window One of the most notable trends identified in Mandiant investigations is the increased specialization within the cybercrime ecosystem. In 2022, the median time between an initial access event and the hand-off to a seconda
Hello Everyone,As we realized, the impact of the React Vulnerability is very critical among your workloads. The React vulnerability, CVE-2025-55182, has a CVSS score of 10 and is being actively exploited. Customers need to be aware if their organization is impacted with this CVE. Google has created a pre-defined security graph rule for SCC Enterprise and Premium customers that will generate an "Issue" if your GKE workloads or Compute instances are externally exposed and vulnerable. You can view these alerts in the "Issues" queue within your environment.A sample representation of how this Issue appears in your SCC console is shown below, with the associated Findings for the vulnerability displayed within the Issue.If you are an SCC Premium or Enterprise customer, you can use Graph Search to check if your organization is impacted with this vulnerability. You can also use reachability context in Graph Search to prioritize remediation among impacted workloads with the CVE and focus on tho
We ingest high-volume GCP Cloud DNS query logs into Google SecOps through Cloud Logging direct ingestion. We want to reduce ingestion volume without randomly sampling security events.Is there a supported native way in Cloud Logging, Log Router or Google SecOps to aggregate repeated events, for example: key = vmProjectId + queryName + responseCode + queryType window = 5 minutes output = one event with count, firstSeen and lastSeenWe would keep NXDOMAIN, SERVFAIL, first-seen domains, unknown domains and security-sensitive destinations at 100%.If this is not supported natively, what architecture does Google recommend: Pub/Sub/Dataflow, Bindplane, or another collector? Can the aggregated records still be parsed as GCP DNS events in Google SecOps?
We host a number of servers for customers, sharing a public IP range. We have been having intermittent problems with customers receiving ReCAPTCHA challenges in a loop. They are presented with an endless stream of images and therefore can't reach the website they need. This problem is particularly frequent when using a particular piece of software which uses the CefSharp framework as an integrated web browser. We believe that our IP range has a poor reputation with ReCAPTCHA, perhaps due to the high volume of users sharing the IP range. Is there anything we can do about this?
Hi all,As far as I know, it is possible to use Chronicle SIEM in multi-tenant environments, and using labels you can "separate" the information for each client. I would like to ask some doubts about this approach:Since several clients use the same Chronicle instance, how is the information for each client separated? We understand that it is not a physical separation, but a logical one. Are there any details on this?Do you recommend using the "environment" field for this separation of clients or does it have another function?Also, since the rules are executed for "all events" matched in the rule, what would be the good practice to delimit/not mix the analysis between clients? Is it done automatically based on some field? Should this logic be added to each rule? We have not seen any documentation on this but we understand that the logic of the rules must contemplate this multi-tenancy, it does not seem to be something internal.Thanks for your help.Regards.M.
Hello All ,Issue - reCAPTCHA Enterprise Policy-Based Challenge consistently returns BROWSER_ERROR for some usersWe are using reCAPTCHA Enterprise Policy-Based Challenge on an ASP.NET Web Forms application.Site key integration type: Policy-Based ChallengeAction: confirmThreshold: 0.3For some production users, grecaptcha.enterprise.execute() returns a token successfully, but when we create the server-side assessment at backend code , Google returns:TokenProperties.Valid = falseInvalidReason = BROWSER_ERROROther fields are:Score = 0Challenge = UNSPECIFIEDOne affected user received the same result repeatedly over several hours rather than just once.Questions:What exactly causes BROWSER_ERROR for Policy-Based Challenge? We did see that its not only for Policy-Based but also for a Score based also we do get some times. If execute() returns a token but the subsequent assessment returns BROWSER_ERROR, what browser/network communication is failing? Is there a recommended list of Google endpoint
Hi everyone,We are currently evaluating the Triage and Investigation Agent (TIN) in Google SecOps, but we haven't had the opportunity to test it in our environment yet.We would mainly like to understand how well it works overall in a real SOC environment, and also how it performs with third-party security products such as Cortex XDR, CrowdStrike, Fortinet, etc.For those already using it: Overall, how has your experience with TIN been so far? Does it genuinely help with triage and investigation, or is it still fairly limited? How well does it investigate alerts coming from third-party products? Does it understand and correlate the context properly once those logs are ingested into SecOps? Have you tested it with Cortex XDR or similar EDR solutions? Is the TP/FP verdict generally reliable, or do analysts still need to redo most of the investigation manually? Does it work well with custom detections/YARA-L rules built on top of third-party data? Are there any important limit
There’s a variety of endpoints listed in the Chronicle API documentation that still have “legacy” in the name. @SoarAndy in a post about five months mentioned that this just reflects the API call not being the Google structure yet. However, I am concerned that these endpoints are only usable using the v1alpha version, which Google documentation warns is not suitable for production as it could be changed unpredictably. With the migration deadline so close, I am concerned about being forced to switch existing use cases to use these unstable endpoints while knowing I have no choice. Does the use of the v1alpha with these legacy endpoints truly mean that they are unstable and not fit for production?
"In our Google SecOps SOAR tenant, we want to build a custom Python integration/action (to pull data from an external Excel file into a case). We don't see 'Use the IDE' / 'Develop custom capabilities' under Build and integrate, and there's no custom-integration option visible in our Marketplace. Is custom Python scripting (the IDE feature) gated behind a specific license tier or role permission? If so, which role/permission or SKU do we need enabled, and who in our org (or at Google) can turn it on?"
Overview: Breaking the One-Way Intelligence Trap In modern Security Operations Centers (SOCs), threat intelligence integrations typically operate as a one-way funnel. External indicators and intelligence feeds are ingested into SIEM and SOAR platforms to enrich telemetry, score alerts, and provide context during triage.However, during active investigations, Tier 2 and Tier 3 analysts uncover novel, high-fidelity attacker infrastructure—such as zero-day command-and-control (C2) IPs, adversary staging domains, and customized malware payloads. In most organizations, these verified indicators remain trapped in the resolution notes of a closed incident ticket.This guide demonstrates how to establish an automated, bidirectional intelligence feedback loop between Google Security Operations (SecOps SOAR) and Google Threat Intelligence (GTI Enterprise+ / VirusTotal API v3). When an investigation is confirmed as a true positive, SecOps automatically pushes sanitized indicators to a dedicated, pr