This post is about preparing evidence for an ISO 27001 audit after an incident. It started, as most of our posts do, with an incident that did not go the way we expected.
What actually happens during a flood
The first thing to fail during a layer 7 flood is almost never bandwidth. It is connection slots, worker processes or database connections on the origin — resources measured in hundreds or thousands, not gigabits. An attacker who can make each request expensive only needs a few thousand requests per second.
That is why we score requests before they are proxied. By the time a request reaches your origin, it has been attributed to a client, compared against that client’s history and weighed against the current load on the route it targets.
Latency budget
Our budget for the whole filtering pipeline is one millisecond at the 99th percentile. Anything that cannot be decided within that budget runs asynchronously and influences the next request from the same client, not the current one.
That constraint shapes everything: data structures, where state lives and which signals we are willing to compute inline.
Observability first
Every mitigation decision is logged with its reasons, and every log line can be traced to the rule and score components that produced it. When a customer asks why a request was challenged, the answer is a link, not a guess.
Logs stream to the customer’s SIEM within seconds, which also means their security team sees attacks in the same tools they use for everything else.
The numbers
Across the last quarter, 71% of challenged clients never attempted a solution, 24% solved one challenge and then behaved normally, and 5% solved challenges repeatedly while continuing to attack — the last group is where analysts spend their time.
Median added latency for legitimate visitors that were challenged was 280 ms on desktop and 410 ms on mid-range Android devices.
Measuring success
We track three numbers for every incident: time to mitigation, the share of attack traffic that reached the origin, and the share of legitimate traffic that was challenged. The first should be under a second, the second under 0.1% and the third under 1%.
Those numbers go into every incident report, and they are the same numbers we are measured against in our SLA.
What we got wrong
Our first version challenged too eagerly on mobile networks, where thousands of real users share a handful of carrier-grade NAT addresses. Reputation that is shared is reputation that is noisy.
We now weight fingerprint consistency and session behaviour far more heavily than IP reputation for traffic from known mobile carrier ranges.
Compliance is a side effect
Regulators increasingly ask for evidence of resilience, not just promises. An incident timeline with start, peak, vectors and impact is exactly the evidence DORA and NIS2 ask for — and it falls out of good observability for free.
We export incident reports in formats auditors can file without anyone rewriting them.
The full incident data behind this post is available to customers in the dashboard under Reports.
Interesting that most attacks are under ten minutes. Our experience is similar.
Interesting that most attacks are under ten minutes. Our experience is similar.
We had the exact false-positive issue with CGNAT carriers. The weighting change makes sense.