EDR gaps: what SOC and DFIR teams still miss in investigations

TL;DR: EDRs detect attacks quickly but leave three investigation gaps: evasion is widespread, telemetry is not the same as DFIR collection, and detection tools are not tuned for post-alert analysis, according to Cyber Triage. The result is a blind spot between alerting and evidence handling that SOC and DFIR teams must close.

Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Cyber Triage: “SOC Forensics: 3 DFIR Gaps All EDRs Have”.

Key questions

Q: What breaks when organisations rely on EDR alone for investigations?

A: The investigation usually breaks at evidence depth.

Q: Why do attackers target EDR visibility during ransomware incidents?

A: Because detection is the first barrier to containment.

Q: How can security teams tell whether SOC investigations are keeping up?

A: Look for full cross-domain coverage, consistent reasoning across cases, and evidence that medium and low severity alerts are actually investigated.

Practitioner guidance

• Separate detection and DFIR workflows Define alert triage as a fast screening process and reserve a distinct investigation path for evidence preservation, reconstruction, and reporting.
• Add a DFIR collection path Capture endpoint state, historical artifacts, and application evidence that EDR streams do not preserve, especially after containment starts.
• Test for EDR evasion blind spots Run controlled assessments that assume attackers will use LOLBin abuse, BYOVD, and sensor interference, then check what evidence remains.

Bottom line: EDR creates useful alerts, but investigations fail when teams confuse telemetry with forensic evidence.

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →  |  Our Services →  |  Read the full analysis →