Global cybercrime costs are projected to reach nearly $14 trillion by 2018, while the average cost of a data breach has increased to approximately $4.4 million worldwide, reflecting a 9% year-over-year rise.
When a company has continuous monitoring and response processes in place, most attacks are stopped early. Even if criminals bypass preventive defenses, security teams can quickly detect and contain their actions before they reach critical systems or cause damage. A Security Operations Center (SOC) helps companies address these challenges.
There are three main approaches to setting up cyber incident monitoring and response. Some companies rely on an external provider (MSSP), others build their own SOC, and many choose a hybrid model that splits monitoring and response tasks between the MSSP and internal teams.
This article examines key factors that influence the choice of the SOC model, outlines available options for building monitoring and response capabilities, and highlights what companies should consider when developing their own SOC.
Choosing your SOC deployment model
The choice of the SOC deployment model depends on the company's size, process maturity, and infrastructure specifics. In some cases, multiple approaches may fit, and the final decision comes down to the company's priorities and strategic goals.
Option 1: Outsourcing to a commercial SOC (MSSP)
A company can partner with an external SOC, a managed service that detects, prevents, and responds to cyber threats. The provider sets up event collection across the customer's infrastructure, and in some cases, the customer installs EDR agents to enhance visibility. All collected logs are securely transmitted to the provider's platform for analysis and threat detection.
Depending on the service plan, the external SOC may offer recommendations for handling incidents or take an active role in the response process.
This model is best suited for companies in the following situations:
-
The company lacks the resources to hire enough qualified security analysts and experts.
-
The company is not ready to invest in building a full in-house SOC but recognizes the need for continuous monitoring and incident response.
-
The company prefers a predictable, manageable cost and licensing model.
-
There is a need to rapidly deploy SOC capabilities within a few months.
-
The company has no legal, regulatory, or industry restrictions that limit outsourcing security functions.
Option 2: Hybrid model
In this model, some functions, such as forensics and threat analysis, are handled by an external SOC, while others, like active response and SOC infrastructure management, remain the company's responsibility. The SOC platform components are hosted within the customer's infrastructure and jointly operated by the provider and the company's internal team.
A hybrid model is suitable in the following situations:
-
The company has the resources to operate SOC components such as SIEM and EDR together with an MSSP. Internal specialists are capable of managing events, developing rules, and connecting data sources.
-
The company cannot fully provide 24/7 monitoring and response on its own or lacks the capacity to maintain such operations continuously.
-
Alerts and event data must stay within the company's perimeter, and SOC components must be hosted internally to meet internal policies or legal requirements.
-
Knowledge and content developed during collaboration with an MSSP, including correlation rules and indicators of compromise, should remain with the company in case of provider changes or outages.
-
The company is ready to outsource non-critical functions like detection and analysis while keeping active response and remediation under its own control.
Option 3: Running an in-house SOC
In this model, the company handles all monitoring and response functions entirely. There may be a transitional phase where the in-house SOC operates with support from an external provider. The company is fully responsible for acquiring the necessary hardware and software, as well as hiring qualified personnel.
The need to build an in-house SOC is typically determined by the following factors:
-
The company operates a federal or regional infrastructure or needs to establish centralized monitoring and response across a holding company.
-
Commercial SOCs cannot fully meet the company's requirements due to access restrictions, specialized tools, or other technical limitations.
-
Continuous and close involvement of SOC personnel in core business processes is required.
-
The company plans to expand into the MSSP market and provide monitoring and response services to other companies.
Building an internal SOC is a significant investment. Research shows that operating a fully staffed 24/7 SOC in the United States costs about $2.86 million annually, excluding technology and training. As a result, in-house SOCs are most practical for large enterprises with established cybersecurity programs and dedicated budgets.
Cybersecurity remains a supporting function of business operations. Again, the choice of the SOC model depends on the organization's goals and priorities. As business needs evolve, companies can move from one model to another. Many MSSP clients, for example, eventually transition to a hybrid setup or develop an entirely in-house SOC as they expand their internal capabilities and resources.
Key considerations for building your In-House SOC
It can happen that several months after launching their own monitoring center, some companies encounter unexpected challenges. To avoid unnecessary delays and additional costs, it is crucial to address several key factors from the very beginning.
1. Defining the SOC's scope and services
In addition to monitoring and response, SOC responsibilities may also cover asset inventory, vulnerability management, and web resource protection. When defining SOC functions, it is important to realistically assess current resources and consider future staffing levels and required competencies.
It is also important to clearly define which processes business owners are willing to fund and maintain internally, and which SOC functions should be outsourced to an external provider. For example, monitoring and response can be managed in-house, while functions such as threat analysis, incident investigation, and web resource protection may be delivered by an MSSP.
2. Defining the SOC's structure
This applies to both the physical location and the organizational structure of the SOC. A poorly chosen location may not align with the company's salary budget or access to qualified talent. According to recent data, the average cybersecurity professional in the United States earns about $128,000 per year; however, competitive pay alone is unlikely to close the growing skills gap. Location, therefore, matters. Regions without strong universities or cybersecurity training programs make it much harder to attract and retain skilled personnel. From the start, the company should ensure access to capable experts who can form the core of a strong, sustainable SOC team.
The logical structure of the SOC can be organized in two ways: local, where all employees work in the same region, or distributed across multiple locations. In the distributed model, it is important to account for time zone differences, set up proper shift schedules, and ensure that response engineers are available onsite when needed.
3. Platform ownership and legal compliance
This issue is particularly important for companies with distributed infrastructure at the federal or regional level, as well as for large holding structures. At the start of the project, it is necessary to assess the availability of virtual and hardware resources, communication channel management, and security tools that can later be used to meet SOC requirements.
An important factor is the legal framework, which determines the entity that will own the SOC platform and how interactions with other companies within the group and regulatory bodies will be managed to ensure compliance. For example, in the U.S., companies may need to adhere to frameworks such as CMMC or NIST 800-53, depending on the type of data they handle and their contractual obligations.
4. Defining SOC maturity and development roadmap
It is important to align factors such as the company's threat landscape, the value of assets to be protected, system importance, and compliance requirements with the project budget. This alignment forms the basis for the SOC concept, development roadmap, and financial justification. If these factors are overlooked, cost estimates may become unrealistic, leading to budget overruns and possible rejection of the project by leadership.
5. Tailoring defense to specific cyber threats
It is essential to identify the specific threat landscape relevant to the company. Doing so helps prioritize which event sources to connect and determine the proper monitoring and response tools to defend against real-world attacks.
This is also important when developing your own SOC content. If it does not reflect current threats, the company will be unprepared to respond effectively to them. The same issue arises with generic, vendor-supplied content that ignores the specifics of the company's infrastructure. Within a few months, these generic rules usually create alert fatigue, flooding analysts with low-value notifications and making it harder to focus on real threats and take effective action.
The two core SOC implementation models
By evaluating all aspects of monitoring and response, companies can choose the SOC implementation model that best fits their needs. Companies typically follow one of two main approaches.
Model 1: Gradual transition from managed to in-house SOC
This approach suits companies that want to start with an external managed SOC service and later bring operations in-house. During the transition period, internal teams gain hands-on experience with SOC workflows, learn what functions fall within scope, and define specific requirements for their own center.
In parallel, the company works with the provider to design the target architecture, identify event sources, and determine optimal data collection methods. This process helps the internal team understand event and alert handling, which becomes the foundation for developing the SOC's structure. The migration to a fully-internal SOC is performed in stages to maintain service quality, with employee training provided throughout the transition.
Model 2: Full in-house SOC design and implementation
This model is suited for companies that cannot use external services due to access restrictions, data residency rules, or unique operational requirements. It involves designing and implementing a SOC entirely within the company's infrastructure.
Specialists analyze existing systems, tools, and processes to create both a conceptual and technical SOC design. This includes developing a process map, defining key operational workflows, and specifying SOC functions. External experts may still provide consulting support for complex cases, content development, or cyber exercises, but the SOC itself remains wholly owned and operated by the company.
Conclusion
Effective defense against modern cyber threats is impossible without continuous monitoring and incident response. Building an in-house SOC is a complex and resource-intensive effort that typically takes 18 to 24 months. The process becomes far more manageable when done in partnership with experienced professionals who understand diverse organizational environments and can tailor the SOC design to a company's specific needs.
In this approach, the time required to launch an internal SOC can be reduced by two to three times, and overall costs are typically about 30 percent lower than those of building it entirely in-house. Continued collaboration with specialized experts allows the organization to further develop and enhance its SOC, maintaining strong infrastructure security and ensuring the stability of critical business operations.
