Overall Incident Trends

• 16,200 AI-related security incidents in 2025 (49% increase YoY)

• ~3.3 incidents per day across 3,000 U.S. companies

• Finance and healthcare: 50%+ of all incidents

• Average breach cost: $4.8M (IBM 2025)

Source: Obsidian Security AI Security Report 2025

Critical CVEs (CVSS 8.0+)

CVE-2025-53773 - GitHub Copilot Remote Code Execution

CVSS Score: 9.6 (Critical) Vendor: GitHub/Microsoft Impact: Remote code execution on 100,000+ developer machines Attack Vector: Prompt injection via code comments triggering "YOLO mode" Disclosure: January 2025

References:

• NVD Database: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53773

• Research Paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/17/1/54

• Attack Mechanism: Code comments containing malicious prompts bypass safety guidelines

Detection: Monitor for unusual Copilot process behavior, code comment patterns with system-level commands

‍

CVE-2025-32711 - Microsoft 365 Copilot (EchoLeak)

CVSS Score: Not yet scored (likely High/Critical) Vendor: Microsoft Impact: Zero-click data exfiltration via crafted email Attack Vector: Indirect prompt injection bypassing XPIA classifier Disclosure: January 2025

References:

• NVD Database: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32711

• Analysis: https://medium.com/@jcapriola/when-hacks-go-awry-the-rising-tide-of-ai-prompt-injection-attacks-78c293d1b1e4

• Attack Mechanism: Malicious prompts embedded in email body/attachments processed by Copilot

Detection: Monitor M365 Copilot API calls for unusual data access patterns, particularly after email processing

CVE-2025-68664 - LangChain Core (LangGrinch)

CVSS Score: Not yet scored Vendor: LangChain Impact: 847 million downloads affected, credential exfiltration Attack Vector: Serialization vulnerability + prompt injection Disclosure: January 2025

References:

• NVD Database: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68664

• Technical Analysis: https://cyata.ai/blog/langgrinch-langchain-core-cve-2025-68664/

• Attack Mechanism: Malicious LLM output triggers object instantiation → credential exfiltration via HTTP headers

Detection: Monitor LangChain applications for unexpected object creation, outbound connections with environment variables in headers

CVE-2024-5184 - EmailGPT Prompt Injection

CVSS Score: 8.1 (High) Vendor: EmailGPT (Gmail extension) Impact: System prompt leakage, email manipulation, API abuse Attack Vector: Prompt injection via email content Disclosure: June 2024

References:

• NVD Database: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5184

• BlackDuck Advisory: https://www.blackduck.com/blog/cyrc-advisory-prompt-injection-emailgpt.html

• Attack Mechanism: Malicious prompts in emails override system instructions

Detection: Monitor browser extension API calls, unusual email access patterns, token consumption spikes

CVE-2025-54135 - Cursor IDE (CurXecute)

CVSS Score: Not yet scored (likely High) Vendor: Cursor Technologies Impact: Unauthorized MCP server creation, remote code execution Attack Vector: Prompt injection via GitHub README files Disclosure: January 2025

References:

• Analysis: https://nsfocusglobal.com/prompt-word-injection-an-analysis-of-recent-llm-security-incidents/

• Attack Mechanism: Malicious instructions in README cause Cursor to create .cursor/mcp.json with reverse shell commands

Detection: Monitor .cursor/mcp.json creation, file system changes in project directories, GitHub repository access patterns

‍

CVE-2025-54136 - Cursor IDE (MCPoison)

CVSS Score: Not yet scored (likely High) Vendor: Cursor Technologies Impact: Persistent backdoor via MCP trust abuse Attack Vector: One-time trust mechanism exploitation Disclosure: January 2025

References:

• Analysis: https://nsfocusglobal.com/prompt-word-injection-an-analysis-of-recent-llm-security-incidents/

• Attack Mechanism: After initial approval, malicious updates to approved MCP configs bypass review

Detection: Monitor approved MCP server config changes, diff analysis of mcp.json modifications

‍

OpenClaw / Clawbot / Moltbot (2024-2026)

Category: Open-source personal AI assistant Impact: Subject of multiple CVEs including CVE-2025-53773 (CVSS 9.6) Installations: 100,000+ when major vulnerabilities disclosed

What is OpenClaw? OpenClaw (originally named Clawbot, later Moltbot before settling on OpenClaw) is an open-source, self-hosted personal AI assistant agent that runs locally on user machines. It can:

• Execute tasks on user's behalf (book flights, make reservations)

• Interface with popular messaging apps (WhatsApp, iMessage)

• Store persistent memory across sessions

• Run shell commands and scripts

• Control browsers and manage calendars/email

• Execute scheduled automations

Security Concerns:

• Runs with high-level privileges on local machine

• Can read/write files and execute arbitrary commands

• Integrates with messaging apps (expanding attack surface)

• Skills/plugins from untrusted sources

• Leaked plaintext API keys and credentials in early versions

• No built-in authentication (security "optional")

• Cisco security research used OpenClaw as case study in poor AI agent security

Relation to Moltbook: Many Moltbook agents (the AI social network) used OpenClaw or similar frameworks to automate their posting, commenting, and interaction behaviors. The connection between the two highlighted how local AI assistants could be compromised and then used to propagate attacks through networked AI systems.

Key Lesson: OpenClaw demonstrated that powerful AI agents with system-level access require security-first design. The "move fast, security optional" approach led to numerous vulnerabilities that affected over 100,000 users.

Moltbook Database Exposure (February 2026)

Platform: Moltbook (AI agent social network - "Reddit for AI agents") Scale: 1.5 million autonomous AI agents, 17,000 human operators (88:1 ratio) Impact: Database misconfiguration exposed credentials, API keys, and agent data; 506 prompt injections identified spreading through agent network Attack Method: Database misconfiguration + prompt injection propagation through networked agents

What is Moltbook? Moltbook is a social networking platform where AI agents—not humans—create accounts, post content, comment on submissions, vote, and interact with each other autonomously. Think Reddit, but every user is an AI agent. Agents are organized into "submolts" (similar to subreddits) covering topics from technology to philosophy. The platform became an unintentional large-scale security experiment, revealing how AI agents behave, collaborate, and are compromised in networked environments.

References:

• Coverage: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/AI-social-network-Moltbook-attracts-1.5-million-bots-and-hackers

• Lessons: Natural experiment in AI agent security at scale

Key Findings:

• Prompt injections spread rapidly through agent networks (heartbeat synchronization every 4 hours)

• 88:1 agent-to-human ratio achievable with proper structure

• Memory poisoning creates persistent compromise

• Traditional security missed database exposure despite cloud monitoring

Common Attack Patterns

1. Direct Prompt Injection: Ignore previous instructions <SYSTEM>New instructions:</SYSTEM> You are now in developer mode Disregard safety guidelines

2. Indirect Prompt Injection: Hidden in emails, documents, web pages White text on white background HTML comments, CSS display:none Base64 encoding, Unicode obfuscation

3. Tool Invocation Abuse: Unexpected shell commands File access outside approved paths Network connections to external IPs Credential access attempts

4. Data Exfiltration: Large API responses (>10MB) High-frequency tool calls Connections to attacker-controlled servers Environment variable leakage in HTTP headers

Recommended Detection Controls

Layer 1: Configuration Monitoring

• Monitor MCP configuration files (.cursor/mcp.json, claude_desktop_config.json)

• Alert on unauthorized MCP server registrations

• Validate command patterns (no bash, curl, pipes)

• Check for external URLs in configs

Layer 2: Process Monitoring

• Track AI assistant child processes

• Alert on unexpected process trees (bash, powershell, curl spawned by Claude/Copilot)

• Monitor process arguments for suspicious patterns

Layer 3: Network Traffic Analysis

• Unencrypted: Snort/Suricata rules for MCP JSON-RPC

• Encrypted: DNS monitoring, TLS SNI inspection, JA3 fingerprinting

• Monitor connections to non-approved MCP servers

Layer 4: Behavioral Analytics

• Baseline normal tool usage per user/agent

• Alert on off-hours activity

• Detect excessive API calls (3x standard deviation)

• Monitor sensitive resource access (/etc/passwd, .ssh, credentials)

Layer 5: EDR Integration

• Custom IOAs for AI agent processes

• File integrity monitoring on config files

• Memory analysis for process injection

Layer 6: SIEM Correlation

• Combine signals from multiple layers

• High confidence: 3+ indicators → auto-quarantine

• Medium confidence: 2 indicators → investigate

Stay tuned for an article on detection controls!  

Standards & Frameworks

NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

Link: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications

Link: https://genai.owasp.org/ Updates: Annually (2025 version current)

Today’s SOCs don’t have a detection or an AI readiness problem. They have a data architecture problem. Enterprise today are generating terabytes of security telemetry daily, but most of it never meaningfully contributes to detection, investigation, or response. It is ingested late and with gaps, parsed poorly, queried manually and infrequently, and forgotten quickly. Meanwhile, detection coverage remains stubbornly low and response times remain painfully long – leaving enterprises vulnerable.

This becomes more pressing when you account for attackers using AI to find and leverage vulnerabilities. 41% of incidents now involve stolen credentials (Sophos, 2025), and once access is obtained, lateral movement can begin in as little as two minutes. Today’s security teams are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to respond to this challenge.

The industry’s response? Add AI. But most AI SOC initiatives are cosmetic. A conversational layer over the same ingestion-heavy and unreliable pipeline. Data is not structured or optimized for AI deployments. What SOCs need today is an architectural shift that restructures telemetry, reasoning, and action around enabling security teams to treat AI as the operating system and ensure that their output is designed to enable the human SOC teams to improve their security posture.

The Myth Most Teams Are Buying

Most “AI SOC” initiatives follow a similar pattern. New intelligence is introduced at the surface of the system, while the underlying architecture remains intact. Sometimes this takes the form of conversational interfaces. Other times it shows up as automated triage, enrichment engines, or agent-based workflows layered onto existing SIEM infrastructure.

This ‘bolted-on’ AI interface only incrementally impacts the use, not the outcomes. What has not changed is the execution model. Detection is still constrained by the same indexes, the same static correlation logic, and the same alert-first workflows. Context is still assembled late, per incident, and largely by humans. Reasoning still begins after an alert has fired, not continuously as data flows through the environment.

This distinction matters because modern attacks do not unfold as isolated alerts. They span identity, cloud, SaaS, and endpoint domains, unfold over time, and exploit relationships that traditional SOC architectures do not model explicitly. When execution remains alert-driven and post-hoc, AI improvements only accelerate what happens after something is already detected.

In practice, this means the SOC gets better explanations of the same alerts, not better detection. Coverage gaps persist. Blind spots remain. The system is still optimized for investigation, not for identifying attack paths as they emerge.

That gap between perception and reality looks like this:

Each gap above traces back to the same root cause: intelligence added at the surface, while telemetry, correlation, and reasoning remain constrained by legacy SOC architecture.

Why Most AI SOC Initiatives Fail

Across environments, the same failure modes appear repeatedly.

1. Data chaos collapses detection before it starts
Enterprises generate terabytes of telemetry daily, but cost and normalization complexity force selective ingestion. Cloud, SaaS, and identity logs are often sampled or excluded entirely. When attackers operate primarily in these planes, detection gaps are baked in by design. Downstream AI cannot recover coverage that was never ingested.

2. Single-mode retrieval cannot surface modern attack paths
Traditional SIEMs rely on exact-match queries over indexed fields. This model cannot detect behavioral anomalies, privilege escalation chains, or multi-stage attacks spanning identity, cloud, and SaaS systems. Effective detection requires sparse search, semantic similarity, and relationship traversal. Most SOC architectures support only one.

3. Autonomous agents without governance introduce new risk
Agents capable of querying systems and triggering actions will eventually make incorrect inferences. Without evidence grounding, confidence thresholds, scoped tool access, and auditability, autonomy becomes operational risk. Governance is not optional infrastructure; it is required for safe automation.

4. Identity remains a blind spot in cloud-first environments
Despite being the primary attack surface, identity telemetry is often treated as enrichment rather than a first-class signal. OAuth abuse, service principals, MFA bypass, and cross-tenant privilege escalation rarely trigger traditional endpoint or network detections. Without identity-specific analysis, modern attacks blend in as legitimate access.

5. Detection engineering does not scale manually
Most environments already process enough telemetry to support far higher ATT&CK coverage than they achieve today. The constraint is human effort. Writing, testing, and maintaining thousands of rules across hundreds of log types does not scale in dynamic cloud environments. Coverage gaps persist because the workload exceeds human capacity.

The Six Layers That Actually Work

A functional AI-native SOC is not assembled from features. It is built as an integrated system with clear dependency ordering.

Layer 1: Unified telemetry pipeline
Telemetry from cloud, SaaS, identity, endpoint, and network sources is collected once, normalized using open schemas, enriched with context, and governed in flight. Volume reduction and entity resolution happen before storage or analysis. This layer determines what the SOC can ever see.

Layer 2: Hybrid retrieval architecture
The system supports three retrieval modes simultaneously: sparse indexes for deterministic queries, vector search for behavioral similarity, and graph traversal for relationship analysis. This enables detection of patterns that exact-match search alone cannot surface.

Layer 3: AI reasoning fabric
Reasoning applies temporal analysis, evidence grounding, and confidence scoring to retrieved data. Every conclusion is traceable to specific telemetry. This constrains hallucination and makes AI output operationally usable.

Layer 4: Multi-agent system
Domain-specialized agents operate across identity, cloud, SaaS, endpoint, detection engineering, incident response, and threat intelligence. Each agent investigates within its domain while sharing context across the system. Analysis occurs in parallel rather than through sequential handoffs.

Layer 5: Unified case memory
Context persists across investigations. Signals detected hours or days apart are automatically linked. Multi-stage attacks no longer rely on analysts remembering prior activity across tools and shifts.

Layer 6: Zero-trust governance
Policies constrain data access, reasoning scope, and permitted actions. Autonomous decisions are logged, auditable, and subject to approval based on impact. Autonomy exists, but never without control.

Miss any layer, or implement them out of order, and the system degrades quickly.

Outcomes When the Architecture Is Correct

When the six layers operate together, the impact is structural rather than cosmetic:

• Faster time to detection
  Detection shifts from alert-triggered investigation to continuous, machine-speed reasoning across telemetry streams. This is the only way to contend with adversaries operating on minute-level timelines.

• Improved analyst automation
  L1 and L2 workflows can be substantially automated, as agents handle triage, enrichment, correlation, and evidence gathering. Analysts spend more time validating conclusions and shaping detection logic, less time stitching data together.

• Broader and more consistent ATT&CK coverage
  Detection engineering moves from manual rule authoring to agent-assisted mapping of telemetry against ATT&CK techniques, highlighting gaps and proposing new detections as environments change.

• Lower false-positive burden
  Evidence grounding, confidence scoring, and cross-domain correlation reduce alert volume without suppressing signal, improving analyst trust in what reaches them.

The shift from reactive triage to proactive threat discovery becomes possible only when architectural bottlenecks like fragmented data, late context, and human-paced correlation, are removed from the system.

Stop Retrofitting AI Onto Broken Architecture

Most teams approach AI SOC transformation backward. They layer new intelligence onto existing SIEM workflows and expect better outcomes, without changing the architecture that constrains how detection, correlation, and response actually function.

The dependency chain is unforgiving. Without unified telemetry, detection operates on partial visibility. Without cross-domain correlation, attack paths remain fragmented. Without continuous reasoning, analysis begins only after alerts fire. And without governance, autonomy introduces risk rather than reducing it.

Agentic SOC architectures are expected to standardize across enterprises within the next one to two years (Omdia, 2025). The question is not whether SOCs become AI-native, but whether teams build deliberately from the foundation up — or spend the next three years patching broken architecture while attackers continue to exploit the same coverage gaps and response delays.

The AI isn't broken. The data feeding it is.

The $4.8 Million Question

When identity breaches cost an average of $4.8 million and 84% of organizations report direct business impact from credential attacks, you'd expect AI-powered security tools to be the answer.

Instead, security leaders are discovering that their shiny new AI copilots:

• Miss obvious attack chains because user IDs don't match across systems

• Generate confident-sounding analysis based on incomplete information

• Can't answer simple questions like "show me everything this user touched in the last 24 hours"

The problem isn't artificial intelligence. It's artificial data quality.

Watch an Attack Disappear in Your Data

Here's a scenario that plays out daily in enterprise SOCs:

1. Attacker compromises credentials via phishing

2. Logs into cloud console → CloudTrail records arn:aws:iam::123456:user/jsmith

3. Pivots to SaaS app → Salesforce logs jsmith@company.com

4. Accesses sensitive data → Microsoft 365 logs John Smith (john.smith@company.onmicrosoft.com)

5. Exfiltrates via collaboration tool → Slack logs U04ABCD1234

Five steps. One attacker. One victim.

Your SIEM sees five unrelated events. Your AI sees five unrelated events. Your analysts see five separate tickets. The attacker sees one smooth path to your data.

This is the identity stitching problem—and it's why your AI can't trace attack paths that a human adversary navigates effortlessly.

Why Your Security Data Is Working Against You

Modern enterprises run on 30+ security tools. Here's the brutal math:

• Enterprise SIEMs process an average of 24,000 unique log sources

• Those same SIEMs have detection coverage for just 21% of MITRE ATT&CK techniques

• Organizations ingest less than 15% of available security telemetry due to cost

More data. Less coverage. Higher costs.

This isn't a vendor problem. It's an architecture problem—and throwing more budget at it makes it worse.

Why Traditional Approaches Keep Failing

Approach 1: "We'll normalize it in the SIEM"

Reality: You're paying detection-tier pricing to do data engineering work. Custom parsers break when vendors change formats. Schema drift creates silent failures. Your analysts become parser maintenance engineers instead of threat hunters.

Approach 2: "We'll enrich at query time"

Reality: Queries become complex, slow, and expensive. Real-time detection suffers because correlation happens after the fact. Historical investigations become archaeology projects where analysts spend 60% of their time just finding relevant data.

Approach 3: "We'll train the AI on our data patterns"

Reality: You're training the AI to work around your data problems instead of fixing them. Every new data source requires retraining. The AI learns your inconsistencies and confidently reproduces them. Garbage in, articulate garbage out.

None of these approaches solve the root cause: your data is fragmented before it ever reaches your analytics.

The Foundation That Makes Everything Else Work

The organizations seeing real results from AI security investments share one thing: they fixed the data layer first.

Not by adding more tools. By adding a unification layer between their sources and their analytics—a security data pipeline that:

1. Collects everything once Cloud logs, identity events, SaaS activity, endpoint telemetry—without custom integration work for each source. Pull-based for APIs, push-based for streaming, snapshot-based for inventories. Built-in resilience handles the reliability nightmares so your team doesn't.

2. Translates to a common language So jsmith in Active Directory, jsmith@company.com in Azure, John Smith in Salesforce, and U04ABCD1234 in Slack all resolve to the same verified identity—automatically, at ingestion, not at query time.

3. Routes by value, not by volume High-fidelity security signals go to real-time detection. Compliance logs go to cost-effective storage. Noise gets filtered before it costs you money. Your SIEM becomes a detection engine, not an expensive data warehouse.

4. Preserves context for investigation The relationships between who, what, when, and where that investigations actually need—maintained from source to analyst to AI.

What This Looks Like in Practice

The 70% reduction in SIEM-bound data isn't about losing visibility—it's about not paying detection-tier pricing for compliance-tier logs.

More importantly: when your AI says "this user accessed these resources from this location," you can trust it—because every data point resolves to the same verified identity.

The Strategic Question for Security Leaders

Every organization will eventually build AI into their security operations. The question is whether that AI will be working with unified, trustworthy data—or fighting the same fragmentation that's already limiting your human analysts.

The SOC of the future isn't defined by which AI you choose. It's defined by whether your data architecture can support any AI you choose.

Questions to Ask Before Your Next Security Investment

Before you sign another security contract, ask these questions:

For your current stack:

• "Can we trace a single identity across cloud, SaaS, and endpoint in under 60 seconds?"

• "What percentage of our security telemetry actually reaches our detection systems?"

• "How long does it take to onboard a new log source end-to-end?"

For prospective vendors:

• "Do you normalize to open standards like OCSF, or proprietary schemas?"

• "How do you handle entity resolution across identity providers?"

• "What routing flexibility do we have for cost optimization?"

• "Does this add to our data fragmentation, or help resolve it?"

If your team hesitates on the first set, or vendors look confused by the second—you've found your actual problem.

The foundation comes first. Everything else follows.

Stay tuned to the next article on recommendations for architecture of the AI-enabled SOC

What's your experience? Are your AI security tools delivering on their promise, or hitting data quality walls? I'd love to hear what's working (or not) in the comments.

The managed security services market isn’t struggling with demand. Quite the opposite. As attack surfaces sprawl across cloud, SaaS, endpoints, identities, and operational systems, businesses are leaning more heavily than ever on MSSPs to deliver security outcomes they can’t realistically build in-house.

But that demand brings a different kind of pressure – customers aren’t buying coverage anymore. They’re looking to pay for confidence and reassurance: full visibility, consistent control, and the operational maturity to handle complexity, detect attacks, and find gaps to avoid unpleasant surprises. For MSSP leaders, trust has become the real product.

That trust isn’t easy to deliver. MSSPs today are running on deeply manual, repetitive workflows: onboarding new customers source by source, building pipelines and normalizing telemetry tool by tool, and expending precious engineering bandwidth on moving and managing security data that doesn’t meaningfully differentiate the service. Too much of their expertise is consumed in mechanics that are critical, but not meaningful.

The result is a barrier to scale. Not because MSSPs lack customers or talent, but because their operating model forces highly skilled teams to solve the same data problems over and over again. And that constraint shows up early. The first impression of an MSSP for a customer is overshadowed by the onboarding experience, when their services and professionalism are tested in tangible ways beyond pitches and promises. The speed and confidence with which an MSSP can move to complete, production-grade security visibility becomes the most lasting measure of their quality and effectiveness.

Industry analysis from firms such as D3 Security points to an inevitable consolidation in the MSSP market. Not every provider will scale successfully. The MSSPs that do will be those that expand efficiently, turning operational discipline into a competitive advantage. Efficiency is no longer a back-office metric; it’s a market differentiator.

That reality shows up early in the customer lifecycle most visibly, during onboarding. Long before detection accuracy or response workflows are evaluated, a more basic question is answered. How quickly can an MSSP move from a signed contract to reliable, production-grade security telemetry? Increasingly, the answer determines customer confidence, margin structure, and long-term competitiveness.

The Structural Mismatch: Multi-Customer Services and Manual Onboarding

MSSPs operate as professional services organizations, delivering security operations across many customer environments simultaneously. Each environment must remain strictly isolated, with clear boundaries around data access, routing, and policy enforcement. At the same time, MSSP teams require centralized visibility and control to operate efficiently.

In practice, many MSSPs still onboard each new customer as a largely independent effort. Much of the same data engineering and configuration work is repeated across customers, with small but critical variations. Common tasks include:

• Manual configuration of data sources and collectors

• Custom parsing and normalization of customer telemetry

• Customer-specific routing and policy setup

• Iterative tuning and validation before data is considered usable

This creates a structural mismatch. The same sources appear again and again, but the way those sources must be governed, enriched, and analyzed differs for each customer. As customer counts grow, repeated investment of engineering time becomes a significant efficiency bottleneck.

Senior engineers are often pulled into onboarding work that combines familiar pipeline mechanics with customer-specific policies and downstream requirements. Over time, this leads to longer deployment cycles, greater reliance on scarce expertise, and increasing operational drag.

This is not a failure of tools or talent. Skilled engineers and capable platforms can solve individual onboarding problems. The issue lies in the onboarding model itself. When knowledge exists primarily in ad-hoc engineering work, scripts, and tribal knowledge, it cannot be reused effectively at scale.  

Why Onboarding Has Become a Bottleneck

At small scales, the inefficiency is tolerable. As MSSPs aim to scale, it becomes a growth constraint.

As MSSPs grow, onboarding must balance two competing demands:

1. Consistency, to ensure operational reliability across multiple customers; and

2. Customization, to respect each customer’s unique telemetry, data governance, and security posture.

Treating every environment identically introduces risk and compliance gaps. But customizing every pipeline manually introduces inefficiency and drag. This trade-off is what now defines the onboarding challenge for MSSPs.

Consider two customers using similar toolsets. One may require granular visibility into transactional data for fraud detection; the other may prioritize OT telemetry to monitor industrial systems. The mechanics of ingesting and moving data are similar, yet the way that data is treated — its routing, enrichment, retention, and analysis — differs significantly. Traditional onboarding models rebuild these pipelines repeatedly from scratch, multiplying engineering effort without creating reusable value.

The bottleneck is not the customization itself but the manual delivery of that customization. Scaling onboarding efficiently requires separating what must remain bespoke from what can be standardized and reused.

From Custom Setup to Systemized Onboarding

Incremental optimizations help only at the margins. Adding engineers, improving runbooks, or standardizing steps does not change the underlying dynamic. The same contextual work is still repeated for each customer.

The reason is that onboarding combines two fundamentally different kinds of work.

First, there is data movement. This includes setting up agents or collectors, establishing secure connections, and ensuring telemetry flows reliably. Across customers, much of this work is familiar and repeatable.

Second, there is data treatment. This includes policies, routing, enrichment, and detection logic. This is where differentiation and customer value are created.

When these two layers are handled together, MSSPs repeatedly rebuild similar pipelines for each customer. When handled separately, the model becomes scalable. The “data movement” layer becomes a standardized, automated process, while “customization” becomes a policy layer that can be defined, validated, and applied through governed configuration.

This approach allows MSSPs to maintain isolation and compliance while drastically reducing repetitive engineering work. It shifts human expertise upstream—toward defining intent and validating outcomes rather than executing low-level setup tasks.

In other words, systemized onboarding transforms onboarding from an engineering exercise into an operational discipline.

Applying AI to Onboarding Without Losing Control

Once onboarding is reframed in this way, AI can be applied effectively and responsibly.

AI-driven configuration observes incoming telemetry, identifies source characteristics, and recognizes familiar ingestion patterns. Based on this analysis, it generates configuration templates that define how pipelines should be set up for a given source type. These templates cover deployment, parsing, normalization, and baseline governance.

Importantly, this approach does not eliminate human oversight. Engineers review and approve configuration intent before it is executed. Automation handles execution consistently, while human expertise focuses on defining and validating how data should be treated.

Platforms such as Databahn support a modular pipeline model. Telemetry is ingested, parsed, and normalized once. Downstream treatment varies by destination and use case. The same data stream can be routed to a SIEM with security-focused enrichment and to analytics platforms with different schemas or retention policies, without standing up entirely new pipelines.

This modularity preserves customer-specific outcomes while reducing repetitive engineering work.

Reducing Onboarding Time by 90%

When onboarding is systemized and supported by AI-driven configuration, the reduction in time is structural rather than incremental.

AI-generated templates eliminate the need to start from a blank configuration for each customer. Parsing logic, routing rules, enrichment paths, and isolation policies no longer need to be recreated repeatedly. MSSPs begin onboarding with a validated baseline that reflects how similar data sources have already been deployed.

Automated configuration compresses execution time further. Once intent is approved, pipelines can be deployed through controlled actions rather than step-by-step manual processes. Validation and monitoring are integrated into the workflow, reducing handoffs and troubleshooting cycles.

In practice, this approach has resulted in onboarding time reductions of up to 90 percent for common data sources. What once required weeks of coordinated effort can be reduced to minutes or hours, without sacrificing oversight, security, or compliance.

What This Unlocks for MSSPs

Faster onboarding is only one outcome. The broader advantage lies in how AI-driven configuration reshapes MSSP operations:

• Reduced time-to-value: Security telemetry flows earlier, strengthening customer confidence and accelerating value realization.

• Parallel onboarding: Multiple customers can be onboarded simultaneously without overextending engineering teams.

• Knowledge capture and reuse: Institutional expertise becomes encoded in templates rather than isolated in individuals.

• Predictable margins: Consistent onboarding effort allows costs to scale more efficiently with revenue.

• Simplified expansion: Adding new telemetry types or destinations no longer creates operational variability.

Collectively, these benefits transform onboarding from an operational bottleneck into a competitive differentiator. MSSPs can scale with control, predictability, and confidence — qualities that increasingly define success in a consolidating market.

Onboarding as the Foundation for MSSP Scale

As the MSSP market matures, efficient scale has become as critical as detection quality or response capability. Expanding telemetry, diverse customer environments, and cost pressure require providers to rethink how their operations are structured.

In Databahn’s model, multi-customer support is achieved through a beacon architecture. Each customer operates in an isolated data plane, governed through centralized visibility and control. This model enables scale only when onboarding is predictable and consistent.

Manual, bespoke onboarding introduces friction and drift. Systemized, AI-driven onboarding turns the same multi-customer model into an advantage. New customers can be brought online quickly, policies can be enforced consistently, and isolation can be preserved without slowing operations.

By encoding operational knowledge into templates, applying it through governed automation, and maintaining centralized oversight, MSSPs can scale securely without sacrificing customization. The shift is not merely about speed — it’s about transforming onboarding into a strategic enabler of growth.

Conclusion

The MSSP market is evolving toward consolidation and maturity, where efficiency defines competitiveness as much as capability. The challenge is clear: onboarding new customers must become faster, more consistent, and less dependent on manual engineering effort.

AI-driven configuration provides the structural change required to meet that challenge. By separating repeatable data movement from customer-specific customization, and by automating the configuration of the former through intelligent templates, MSSPs can achieve both speed and precision at scale.

In this model, onboarding is no longer a friction point; it becomes the operational foundation that supports growth, consistency, and resilience in an increasingly demanding security landscape.

For most CIOs and SRE leaders, observability has grown into one of the most strategic layers of the technology stack. Cloud-native architectures depend on it, distributed systems demand it, and modern performance engineering is impossible without it. And yet, even as enterprises invest heavily in their platforms, pipelines, dashboards, and agents, the experience of achieving true observability feels harder than it should be.

Telemetry and observability systems have become harder to track and manage than ever before. Data flows, sources, and volumes shift and scale unpredictably. Different cloud containers and applications straddle different regions and systems, introducing new layers of complexity and chaos that enterprises never built these systems for.

In this environment, the traditional assumptions underpinning observability begin to break down. The tools are more capable than ever, but the architecture that feeds them has not kept pace. The result is a widening gap between what organizations expect observability to deliver and what their systems are actually capable of supporting.

Observability is no longer a tooling problem. It is a challenge to create future-forward infrastructure for observability.

The New Observability Mandate

The expectations for observability systems today are much higher than when those systems were first created. Modern organizations require observability solutions that are fast, adaptable, consistent across different environments, and increasingly enhanced by machine learning and automation. This change is not optional; it is the natural result of how software has developed.

Distributed systems produce distributed telemetry. Every service, node, pod, function, and proxy contributes its own signals: traces, logs, metrics, events, and metadata form overlapping but incomplete views of the truth. Observability platforms strive to provide teams with a unified view, but they often inherit data that is inconsistent or poorly structured. The responsibility to interpret the data shifts downstream, and the platform becomes the place where confusion builds up.

Meanwhile, telemetry volume is increasing rapidly. Most organizations collect data much faster than they can analyze it. Costs rise with data ingestion and storage, not with gaining insights. Usually, only a small part of the collected telemetry is used for investigations or analytics, even though teams feel the need to keep collecting it. What was meant to improve visibility now overwhelms the very clarity it aimed to provide.

Finally, observability must advance from basic instrumentation to something smarter. Modern systems are too complex for human operators to interpret manually. Teams need observability that helps answer not just “what happened,” but “why it happened” and “what matters right now.” That transition requires a deeper understanding of telemetry at the data level, not just more dashboards or alerts.

These pressures lead to a clear conclusion. Observability requires a new architectural foundation that considers data as the primary product, not just a byproduct.

Why Observability Architectures are Cracking

When you step back and examine how observability stacks developed, a clear pattern emerges. Most organizations did not intentionally design observability systems; they built them up over time. Different teams adopted tools for tracing, metrics, logging, and infrastructure monitoring. Gradually, these tools were linked together through pipelines, collectors, sidecars, and exporters. However, the architectural principles guiding these integrations often received less attention than the tools themselves.

This piecemeal evolution leads to fragmentation. Each tool has its own schema, enrichment model, and assumptions about what “normal” looks like. Logs tell one story, metrics tell another, and traces tell a third. Combining these views requires deep expertise and significant operational effort. In practice, the more tools an organization adds, the harder it becomes to maintain a clear picture of the system.

Silos are a natural result of this fragmentation, leading to many downstream issues. Visibility becomes inconsistent across teams, investigations slow down, and it becomes harder to identify, track, and understand correlations across different data types. Data engineers must manually translate and piece together telemetry contexts to gain deeper insights, which creates technical debt and causes friction for the modern enterprise observability team.

Cost becomes the next challenge. Telemetry volume increases predictably in cloud-native environments. Scaling generates more signals. More signals lead to increased data ingestion. Higher data ingestion results in higher costs. Without a structured approach to parsing, normalizing, and filtering data early in its lifecycle, organizations end up paying for unnecessary data processing and can't make effective use of the data they collect.

Complexity adds another layer. Traditional ingest pipelines weren't built for constantly changing schemas, high-cardinality workloads, or flexible infrastructure. Collectors struggle during burst periods. Parsers fail when fields change. Dashboards become unreliable. Teams rush to fix telemetry before they can fix the systems the telemetry is meant to monitor.

Even the architecture itself works against teams. Observability stacks were initially built for stable environments. They assume predictable data formats, slow-moving schemas, and a manageable number of sources. Modern environments break each of these assumptions.

And beneath it all lies a deeper issue: telemetry is often gathered before it is fully understood. Downstream tools receive raw, inconsistent, and noisy data, and are expected to interpret it afterward. This leads to a growing insight gap. Organizations collect more information than ever, but insights do not keep up at the same rate.

The Architectural Root Cause

Observability systems were built around tools rather than a unified data model. The architecture expanded through incremental additions instead of being designed from first principles. The growing number of tools, along with the increased complexity and scale of telemetry, created systemic challenges. Engineers now spend more time tracking, maintaining, and repairing data pipelines than developing systems to enhance observability. The unexpected surge in complexity and volume overwhelmed existing systems, which had been improved gradually. Today, Data Engineers inherit legacy systems with fragmented and complex tools and pipelines, requiring more time to manage and maintain, leaving less time to improve observability and more on fixing it. 

A modern observability system must be designed to overcome these brittle foundations. To achieve adaptive, cost-efficient observability that supports AI-driven analysis, organizations need to treat telemetry as a structured, governed, high-integrity layer. Not as a byproduct that downstream tools must interpret and repair.

The Shift Upstream: Intelligence in the Pipeline

Observability needs to begin earlier in the data lifecycle. Instead of pushing raw telemetry downstream, teams should reshape, enrich, normalize, and optimize data while it is still in motion. This single shift resolves many of the systemic issues that plague observability systems today.  

AI-powered parsing and normalization ensure telemetry is consistent before reaching a tool. Automated mapping reduces the operational effort of maintaining thousands of fields across numerous sources. If schemas change, AI detects the update and adjusts accordingly. What used to cause issues becomes something AI can automatically resolve.

The analogy is straightforward: tracking, counting, analyzing, and understanding data in pipelines while it is streaming is easier than doing so when it is stationary. Volumes and patterns can be identified and monitored more effortlessly within the pipeline itself as the data enters the system, providing the data stack with a better opportunity to comprehend them and direct them to the appropriate destination. 

Data engineering automation enhances stability. Instead of manually built transformations that fail silently or decline in quality over time, the pipeline becomes flexible. It can adapt to new event types, formats, and service boundaries. The platform grows with the environment rather than being disrupted by it.

Upstream visibility adds an extra layer of resilience. Observability should reveal not only how the system behaves but also the health of the telemetry that describes it. If collectors fail, sources become noisy, fields drift, or events spike unexpectedly, teams need to know at the source. Troubleshooting starts before downstream tools are impacted.

Intelligent data tiering is only possible when data is understood early. Not every signal warrants the same storage cost or retention period. By assessing data based on relevance rather than just time, organizations can significantly reduce costs while maintaining high-signal visibility.

All of this contributes to a fundamentally different view of observability. It is no longer something that happens in dashboards. It occurs in the pipeline.

By managing telemetry as a governed, intelligent foundation, organizations achieve clearer visibility, enhanced control, and a stronger base for AI-driven operations.

How Databahn Supports this Architectural Future

In the context of these structural issues shaping the future of observability, it is essential to note that AI-powered pipelines can be the right platform for enterprises to build this next-generation foundation – today, and not as part of an aspirational future.

Databahn provides the upstream intelligence described above by offering AI-powered parsing, normalization, and enrichment that prepare telemetry before it reaches downstream systems. The platform automates data engineering workflows, adjusts to schema drift, offers detailed visibility into source telemetry, and supports intelligent data tiering based on value, not volume. The result is an AI-ready telemetry fabric that enhances the entire observability stack, regardless of the tools an organization uses.

Instead of adding yet another system to an already crowded ecosystem, Databahn helps organizations modernize the architecture layer underneath their existing tools. This results in a more cohesive, resilient, and cost-effective observability foundation.

The Path Forward: AI-Ready Telemetry Infrastructure

The future of observability won't be shaped by more dashboards or agents. Instead, it depends on whether organizations can create a stable, adaptable, and intelligent foundation beneath their tools.

That foundation starts with telemetry. It needs structure, consistency, relevance, and context. It demands automation that adapts as systems change. It also requires data that is prepared for AI reasoning.

Observability should move from being tool-focused to data-focused. Only then can teams gain the clarity, predictability, and intelligence needed in modern, distributed environments.

This architectural shift isn't a future goal; it's already happening. Teams that adopt it will have a clear edge in cost, resilience, and speed.  

Every industry goes through moments of clarity, moments when someone steps back far enough to see not just the technologies taking shape, but the forces shaping them. The Software Analyst Cybersecurity Research (SACR) team’s latest report on Security Data Pipeline Platforms (SDPP) is one of those moments. It is rare for research to capture both the energy and the tension inside a rapidly evolving space, and to do so with enough depth that vendors, customers, and analysts all feel seen. Their work does precisely that.

Themes from the Report

Several themes stood out to us at Databahn because they reflect what we hear from customers every day. One of those themes is the growing role of AI in security operations. SACR is correct in noting that AI is no longer just an accessory. It is becoming essential to how analysts triage, how detections are created, and how enterprises assess risk. For AI to work effectively, it needs consistent, governed, high-quality data, and the pipeline is the only place where that foundation can be maintained.

Another theme is the importance of visibility and monitoring throughout the pipeline. As telemetry expands across cloud, identity, OT, applications, and infrastructure, the pipeline has become a dynamic system rather than just a simple conduit. SOC teams can no longer afford blind spots in how their data flows, what is breaking upstream, or how schema changes ripple downstream. SACR’s recognition of this shift reflects what we have observed in many large-scale deployments.

Resilience is also a key theme in the report. Modern security architecture is multi-cloud, multi-SIEM, multi-lake, and multi-tool. It is distributed, dynamic, and often unpredictable. Pipelines that cannot handle drift, bursts, outages, or upstream failures simply cannot serve the SOC. Infrastructure must be able to gracefully degrade and reliably recover. This is not just a feature; it is an expectation.

Finally, SACR recognizes something that is becoming harder for vendors to admit: the importance of vendor neutrality. Neutrality is more than just an architectural choice; it’s the foundation that enables enterprises to choose the right SIEM for their needs, the right lake for their scale, the right detection strategy for their teams, and the right AI platforms for their maturity. A control plane that isn’t neutral eventually becomes a bottleneck. SACR’s acknowledgment of this risk demonstrates both insight and courage.

The future of the SOC has room for AI, requires deep visibility, depends on resilience, and can only remain healthy if neutrality is preserved. Another trend that SACR’s report tracked was the addition of adjacent functions, bucketed as ‘SDP Plus’, which covered a variety of features – adding storage options, driving some detections in the pipeline directly, and observability, among others. The report has cited Databahn for their ‘pipeline-centric’ strategy and our neutral positioning.  

As the report captures what the market is doing, it invites each of us to think more deeply about why the market is doing it and whether that direction serves the long-term interests of the SOC.

The SDP Plus Drift

Pipelines that started with clear purpose have expanded outward. They added storage. They added lightweight detection. They added analytics. They built dashboards. They released thin AI layers that sat beside, rather than inside, the data. In most cases, these were not responses to customer requests. They were responses to a deeper tension, which is that pipelines, by their nature, are quiet. A well-built pipeline disappears into the background. When a category is young, vendors fear that silence. They fear being misunderstood. And so they begin to decorate the pipeline with features to make it feel more visible, more marketable, more platform-like.

It is easy to understand why this happens. It is also easy to see why it is a problem.

A data pipeline has one essential purpose. It moves and transforms data so that every system around it becomes better. That is the backbone of its value. When a pipeline begins offering storage, it creates a new gravity center inside the enterprise. When it begins offering detection, it creates a new rule engine that the SOC must tune and maintain. When it adds analytics, it introduces a new interpretation layer that can conflict with existing sources of truth. None of these actions are neutral. Each shifts the role of the pipeline from connector to competitor.

This shift matters because it undermines the very trust that pipelines rely on. It is similar to choosing a surgeon. You choose them for their precision, their judgment, their mastery of a single craft. If they try to win you over by offering chocolates after the surgery, you might appreciate the gesture, but you will also question the focus. Not because chocolates are bad, but because that is not why you walked into the operating room.  

Pipelines must not become distracted. Their value comes from the depth of their craft, not the breadth of their menu. This is why it is helpful to think about security data pipelines as infrastructure. Infrastructure succeeds when it operates with clarity. Kubernetes did not attempt to become an observability tool. Snowflake did not attempt to become a CRM. Okta did not attempt to become a SIEM. What made them foundational was their refusal to drift. They became exceptional by narrowing their scope, not widening it. Infrastructure is at its strongest when it is uncompromising in its purpose.

Security data pipelines require the same discipline. They are not just tools; they are the foundation. They are not designed to interpret data; they are meant to enhance the systems that do. They are not intended to detect threats; they are meant to ensure those threats can be identified downstream with accuracy. They do not own the data; they are responsible for safeguarding, normalizing, enriching, and delivering that data with integrity, consistency, and trust.

The Value of SDPP Neutrality

Neutrality becomes essential in this situation. A pipeline that starts to shift toward analytics, storage, or detection will eventually face a choice between what's best for the customer and what's best for its own growing platform. This isn't just a theoretical issue; it's a natural outcome of economic forces. Once you sell a storage layer, you're motivated to route more data into it. Once you sell a detection layer, you're motivated to optimize the pipeline to support your detections. Neutrality doesn't vanish with a single decision; it gradually erodes through small compromises.

At Databahn, neutrality isn't optional; it's the core of our architecture. We don’t compete with the SIEM, data lake, detection systems, or analytics platforms. Instead, our role is to support them. Our goal is to provide every downstream system with the cleanest, most consistent, most reliable, and most AI-ready data possible. Our guiding principle has always been straightforward: if we are infrastructure, then we owe our customers our best effort, not our broadest offerings.

This is why we built Cruz as an agentic AI within the pipeline, because AI that understands lineage, context, and schema drift is far more powerful than AI that sits on top of inconsistent data. This is why we built Reef as an insight layer, not as an analytics engine, because the value lies in illuminating the data, not in competing with the tools that interpret it. Every decision has stemmed from a belief that infrastructure should deepen, not widen, its expertise.

We are entering an era in cybersecurity where clarity matters more than ever. AI is accelerating the complexity of the SOC. Enterprises are capturing more telemetry than at any point in history. The risk landscape is shifting constantly. In moments like these, it is tempting to expand in every direction at once. But the future will not be built by those who try to be everything. It will be built by those who know exactly what they are, and who focus their energy on becoming exceptional at that role.

Closing thoughts

The SACR report highlights how far the category has advanced. I hope it also serves as a reminder of what still needs attention. If pipelines are the control plane of the SOC, then they must stay pure. If they are infrastructure, they must be built with discipline. If they are neutral, they must remain so. And if they are as vital to the future of AI-driven security as we believe, they must form the foundation, not just be a feature.

At Databahn, we believe the most effective pipeline stays true to its purpose. It is intelligent, reliable, neutral, and deeply focused. It does not compete with surrounding systems but elevates them. It remains committed to its craft and doubles down on it. By building with this focus, the future SOC will finally have an infrastructure layer worthy of the intelligence it supports.

Picture this: it’s a sold-out Saturday. The mobile app is pushing seat upgrades, concessions are running tap-to-pay, and the venue’s “smart” cameras are adjusting staffing in real time. Then, within minutes, queues freeze. Kiosks time out. Fans can’t load tickets. A firmware change on a handful of access points creates packet loss that never gets flagged because telemetry from edge devices isn’t normalized or prioritized. The network team is staring at graphs, the app team is chasing a “payments API” ghost, and operations is on a walkie-talkie trying to reroute lines like it’s 1999.

Nothing actually “broke” – but the system behaved like it did. The signal existed in the data, just not in one coherent place, at the right time, in a format anyone could trust.

That’s where the state of observability really is today: tons of data, not enough clarity – especially close to the source, where small anomalies compound into big customer moments.

Why this is getting harder, not easier

Every enterprise now runs on an expanding mix of cloud services, third-party APIs, and edge devices. Tooling has sprawled for good reasons – teams solve local problems fast – but the sprawl works against global understanding. Nearly half of organizations still juggle five or more tools for observability, and four in ten plan to consolidate because the cost of stitching signals after the fact is simply too high.

More sobering: high-impact outages remain expensive and frequent. A majority report that these incidents cost $1M+ per hour; median annual downtime still sits at roughly three days; and engineers burn about a third of their week on disruptions. None of these are “tool problems” – they’re integration, governance, and focus problems. The data is there. It just isn’t aligned.

What good looks like; and why we aren’t there yet

The pattern is consistent: teams that unify telemetry and move toward full-stack observability outperform. They see radically less downtime, lower hourly outage costs, and faster mean-time-to-detect/resolve (MTTD/MTTR). In fact, organizations with full-stack observability experience roughly 79% less downtime per year than those without – an enormous swing that shows what’s possible when data isn’t trapped in silos.

But if the winning patterns is so clear, why aren’t more teams there already?

Three reasons keep coming up in practitioner and leadership conversations:

1. Heterogeneous sources, shifting formats. New sensors, services, and platforms arrive with their own schemas, naming, and semantics. Without upstream normalization, every dashboard and alert “speaks a slightly different dialect.” Governance becomes wishful thinking.

2. Point fixes vs. systemic upgrades. It’s hard to lift governance out of individual tools when the daily firehose keeps you reactive. You get localized wins, but the overall signal quality doesn’t climb.

3. Manual glue. Humans are still doing context assembly – joining business data with MELT, correlating across tools, re-authoring similar rules per system. That’s slow and brittle.

Zooming out: what the data actually says

Let’s connect the dots in plain English:

• Tool sprawl is real. 45% of orgs use five or more observability tools. Most use multiple, and only a small minority use one. It’s trending down, and 41% plan to consolidate – but today’s reality remains multi-tool.

• Unified telemetry pays off. Teams with more unified data experience ~78% less downtime vs. those with siloed data. Said another way: the act of getting logs, metrics, traces, and events into a consistent, shared view delivers real business outcomes.

• The value is undeniable. Median annual downtime across impact levels clocks in at ~77 hours; for high-impact incidents, 62% say the hourly cost is at least $1M. When teams reach full-stack observability, hourly outage costs drop by nearly half.

• We’re still spending time on toil. Engineers report around 30% of their time spent addressing disruptions. That’s innovation time sacrificed to “finding and fixing” instead of “learning and improving.”

• Leaders want governance, not chaos. There’s a clear preference for platforms that are more capable at correlating telemetry with business outcomes and generating visibility without spiking manual effort and management costs.

The edge is where observability’s future lies

Back to our almost-dark stadium. The fix isn’t “another dashboard.” It’s moving control closer to where telemetry is born and ensuring the data becomes coherent as it moves, not after it lands.

That looks like:

• Upstream normalization and policy: standardizing fields, units, PII handling, and tenancy before data fans out to tools.

• Schema evolution without drama: recognizing new formats at collection time, mapping them to shared models, and automatically versioning changes.

• Context attached early: enriching events with asset identity, environment, service boundaries, and – crucially – business context (what this affects, who owns it, what “good” looks like), so investigators don’t have to hunt for meaning later.

• Fan-out by design, not duplication: once the signal is clean, you can deliver the same truth to APM, logs, security analytics, and data lakes without re-authoring rules per tool.

When teams do this, the graphs start agreeing with each other. And when the graphs agree, decisions accelerate. Every upstream improvement makes all of your downstream tools and workflows smarter. Compliance is easier and more governed; data is better structured; its routing is more streamlined. Audits are easier and are much less likely to surface annoying meta-needs but are more likely to generate real business value.

The AI inflection: less stitching, more steering

The best news? We finally have the toolsto automate the boring parts and amplify the smart parts.

• AIOps that isn’t just noise. With cleaner, standardized inputs, AI has less “garbage” to learn from and can detect meaningful patterns (e.g., “this exact firmware + crowd density + POS jitter has preceded incidents five times in twelve months”).

• Agentic workflows. Instead of static playbooks, agentic AI can learn and adapt: validate payloads, suggest missing context, test routing changes, or automatically revert a bad config on a subset of edge devices – then explain what it did in human terms.

• Human-in-the-loop escalation. Operators set guardrails; AI proposes actions, runs safe-to-fail experiments, and asks for approval on higher-risk steps. Over time, the playbook improves itself.

This isn’t sci-fi. In the same industry dataset, organizations leaning into AI monitoring and related capabilities report higher overall value from their observability investments – and leaders list adoption of AI tech as a top driver for modernizing observability itself.

Leaders are moving – are you?

Many of our customers are finding our AI-powered pipelines – with agentic governance at the edge through the data path – as the most reliable way to harness the edge-first future of observability. They’re not replacing every tool; they’re elevating the control plane over the tools so that managing what data gets to each tool is optimized for cost, quality, and usefulness. This is the shift that is helping our Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 customers convert flight data, OT telemetry, and annoying logs into their data crown jewels.

If you want the full framework and the eight principles we use when designing modern observability, grab the whitepaper, Principles of Intelligent Observability, and share it with your team. If you’d like to explore how AI-powered pipelines can make this real in your environment, request a demo and learn more about how our existing customers are using our platform to solve security and observability challenges while accelerating their transition into AI.

Enterprise security teams have been under growing pressure for years. Telemetry volumes have increased across cloud platforms, identity systems, applications, and distributed infrastructure. As data grows, - SIEM and storage costs rise faster than budgets. Pipeline failures - happen more often during peak times. Teams lose visibility precisely when they need it most. Data engineers are overwhelmed by the range of formats, sources, and fragile integrations across a stack that was never meant to scale this quickly. What was once a manageable operational workflow has become a source of increasing technical debt and operational risk.

These challenges have elevated the pipeline from a mere implementation detail to a strategic component within the enterprise. Organizations now understand that how telemetry is collected, normalized, enriched, and routed influences not only cost but also resilience, visibility, and the effectiveness of modern analytics and AI tools. CISOs are realizing that they cannot build a future-ready SOC without controlling the data plane that supplies it. As this shift speeds up, a clear trend has emerged among the Fortune 500 and Global 2000 companies - Security leaders are opting for independent, vendor-neutral pipelines that simplify complexity, restore ownership, and deliver consistent, predictable value from their telemetry.

Why Neutrality Matters More than Ever

Independent, vendor-neutral pipelines provide a fundamentally different operating model. They shift control from the downstream tool to the enterprise itself. This offers several benefits that align with the long-term priorities of CISOs.

Flexibility to choose best-of-breed tools

A vendor-neutral pipeline enables organizations to choose the best SIEM, XDR, SOAR, storage system, or analytics platform without fretting over how tooling changes will impact ingestion. The pipeline serves as a stable architectural foundation that supports any mix of tools the SOC needs now or might adopt in the future.

Compared to SIEM-operated pipelines, vendor-neutral solutions offer seamless interoperability across platforms, reduce the cost and effort of managing multiple best-in-breed tools, and deliver stronger outcomes without adding setup or operational overhead. This flexibility also supports dual-tool SOCs, multi-cloud environments, and evaluation scenarios where organizations want the freedom to test or migrate without disruptions.

Unified Data Ops across Security, IT, and Observability

Independent pipelines support open schemas and standardized models like OCSF, CIM, and ECS. They enable telemetry from cloud services, applications, infrastructure, OT systems, and identity providers to be transmitted into consistent and transparent formats. This facilitates unified investigations, correlated analytics, and shared visibility across security, IT operations, and engineering teams.

Interoperability becomes even more essential as organizations undertake cloud transformation initiatives, use security data lakes, or incorporate specialized investigative tools. When the pipeline is neutral, data flows smoothly and consistently across platforms without structural obstacles. Intelligent, AI-driven data pipelines can handle various use cases, streamline telemetry collection architecture, reduce agent sprawl, and provide a unified telemetry view. This is not feasible or suitable for pipelines managed by MDRs, as their systems and architecture are not designed to address observability and IT use cases. 

Modularity that Matches Modern Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture has become modular, distributed, and cloud native. Pipelines tied to a single analytics tool or managed service provider - act as a challenge today for how modern organizations operate. Independent pipelines support modular design principles by enabling each part of the security stack to evolve separately.

A new SIEM should not require rebuilding ingestion processes from scratch. Adopting a data lake should not require reengineering normalization logic.and adding an investigation tool should not trigger complex migration events. Independence ensures that the pipeline remains stable while the surrounding technology ecosystem continues to evolve. It allows enterprises to choose architectures that fit their specific needs and are not constrained by their SIEM’s integrations or their MDR’s business priorities.

Cost Governance through Intelligent Routing

Vendor-neutral pipelines allow organizations to control data routing based on business value, risk tolerance, and budget. High-value or compliance-critical telemetry can be directed to the SIEM. Lower-value logs can be sent to cost-effective storage or cloud analytics services.  

This prevents the cost inflation that happens when all data is force-routed into a single analytics platform. It enhances the CISO’s ability to control SIEM spending, manage storage growth, and ensure reliable retention policies without losing visibility.

Governance, Transparency, and Control

Independent pipelines enforce transparent logic around parsing, normalization, enrichment, and filtering. They maintain consistent lineage for every transformation and provide clear observability across the data path.

This level of transparency is important because data governance has become a key enterprise requirement. Vendor-neutral pipelines make compliance audits easier, speed up investigations, and give security leaders confidence that their visibility is accurate and comprehensive. Most importantly, they keep control within the enterprise rather than embedding it into the operating model of a downstream vendor, the format of a SIEM, or the operational choices of an MDR vendor.

AI Readiness Through High-Quality, Consistent Data

AI systems need reliable, well-organized data. Proprietary ingestion pipelines restrict this because transformations are designed for a single platform, not for multi-tool AI workflows.

Neutral pipelines deliver:

• consistent schemas across destinations
• enriched and context-ready data
• transparency into transformation logic
• adaptability for new data types and workloads

This provides the clean and interoperable data layer that future AI initiatives rely on. It supports AI-driven investigation assistants, automated detection engineering, multi-silo reasoning, and quicker incident analysis.

The Long-Term Impact of Independence

Think about an organization planning its next security upgrade. The plan involves cutting down SIEM costs, expanding cloud logging, implementing a security data lake, adding a hunting and investigation platform, enhancing detection engineering, and introducing AI-powered workflows.

If the pipeline belongs to a SIEM or MDR provider, each step of this plan depends on vendor capabilities, schemas, and routing logic. Every change requires adaptation or negotiation. The plan is limited by what the vendor can support and - how they decide to support it.

When the pipeline is part of the enterprise, the roadmap progresses more smoothly. New tools can be incorporated by updating routing rules. Storage strategies can be refined without dependency issues. AI models can run on consistent schemas. SIEM migration becomes a simpler decision rather than a lengthy engineering project. Independence offers more options, and that flexibility grows over time.

Why Independent Pipelines are Winning

Independent pipelines have gained momentum across the Fortune 500 and Global 2000 because they offer the architectural freedom and governance that modern SOCs need. Organizations want to use top-tier tools, manage costs predictably, adopt AI on their own schedule, and retain ownership of the data that defines their security posture. Early adopters embraced SDPs because they sat between systems, providing architectural control, flexibility, and cost savings without locking customers into a single platform. As SIEM, MDR, and data infrastructure players have acquired or are offering their own pipelines, the market risks returning to the very vendor dependency that SIEMs were meant to eliminate. In a practitioner’s words from SACR’s recent report, “we’re just going to end up back where we started, everything re-bundled under one large platform.”

According to Francis Odum, a leading cybersecurity analyst, “ … the core role of a security data pipeline solution is really to be that neutral party that’s able to ingest no matter whatever different data sources. You never want to have any favorites, as you want a third-party that’s meant to filter.” When enterprise security leaders choose their data pipelines, they want independence and flexibility. An independent, vendor-neutral pipeline is the foundation of architectures that keep control with the enterprise.

Databahn has become a popular choice during this transition because it shows what an enterprise-grade independent pipeline can achieve in practice. Many CISOs worldwide have selected our AI-powered data pipeline platform due to its flexibility and ease of use, decoupling telemetry ingestion from SIEM, lowering SIEM costs, automating data engineering tasks, and providing consistent AI-ready data structures across various tools, storage systems, and analytics engines.

The Takeaway for CISOs

The pipeline is no longer an operational layer. It is a strategic asset that determines how adaptable, cost-efficient, and AI-ready the modern enterprise can be. Vendor-neutral pipelines offer the flexibility, interoperability, modularity, and governance that CISOs need to build resilient and forward-looking security programs.

This is why independent pipelines are becoming the standard for organizations that want to reduce complexity, maintain freedom of choice and unlock greater value from their telemetry. In a world where tools evolve quickly, where data volumes rise constantly and where AI depends on clean and consistent information, the enterprises that own their pipelines will own their future.

Modern enterprises depend on a complex mesh of SaaS tools, observability agents, and data pipelines. Each integration, whether a cloud analytics SDK, IoT telemetry feed, or on–prem collector, can become a hidden entry point for attackers. In fact, recent incidents show that breaches often begin outside core systems. For example, OpenAI’s November 2025 disclosure revealed that a breach of their third party analytics vendor Mixpanel exposed customers’ names, emails and metadata. This incident wasn’t due to a flaw in OpenAI’s code at all, but to the telemetry infrastructure around it. In an age of hyperconnected services, traditional security perimeters don’t account for these “data backdoors.” The alarm bells are loud, and we urgently need to rethink supply chain security from the data layer outwards.

Why Traditional Vendor Risk Management Falls Short

Most organizations still rely on point-in-time vendor assessments and checklists. But this static approach can’t keep up with a fluid, interconnected stack. In fact, SecurityScorecard found that 88% of CISOs are concerned about supply chain cyber risk, yet many still depend on passive compliance questionnaires. As GAN Integrity notes, “historically, vendor security reviews have taken the form of long form questionnaires, manually reviewed and updated once per year.” By the time those reports are in hand, the digital environment has already shifted. Attackers exploit this lag: while defenders secure every connection, attackers “need only exploit a single vulnerability to gain access”.

Moreover, vendor programs often miss entire classes of risk. A logging agent or monitoring script installed in production seldom gets the same scrutiny as a software update, yet it has deep network access. Legacy vendor risk tools rarely monitor live data flows or telemetry health. They assume trusted integrations remain benign. This gap is dangerous: data pipelines often traverse cloud environments and cross organizational boundaries unseen. In practice, this means today’s “vendor ecosystem” is a dynamic attack surface that traditional methods simply weren’t designed to cover.

Supply Chain Breaches: Stats and Incidents

The scale of the problem is now clear. Industry data show supply chain attacks are becoming common, not rare. The 2025 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report found that nearly 30% of breaches involved a third party, up sharply from the prior year. In a SecurityScorecard survey, over 70% of organizations reported at least one third party cybersecurity incident in the past year  and 5% saw ten or more such incidents. In other words, it’s now normal for a large enterprise to deal with multiple vendor-related breaches per year.

Highprofile cases make the point vividly. Classic examples like the 2013 Target breach (via an HVAC vendor) and 2020 SolarWinds attack demonstrate how a single compromised partner can unleash devastation. More recently, attackers trojanized a trusted desktop app in 2023: a rogue update to the 3CX telecommunications software silently delivered malware to thousands of companies. In parallel, the MOVEit Transfer breach of 2023 exploited a zero-day in a file transfer service, exposing data at over 2,500 organizations worldwide. Even web analytics are not safe: 2023’s Magecart attacks injected malicious scripts into ecommerce payment flows, skimming card data from sites like Ticketmaster and British Airways. These incidents show that trusted data pipelines and integrations are attractive targets, and that compromises can cascade through many organizations.

Taken together, the data and stories tell us: supply chain breaches are systemic. A small number of shared platforms underpin thousands of companies. When those are breached, the fallout is widespread and rapid. Static vendor reviews and checklists clearly aren’t enough.

Telemetry Pipelines as an Attack Surface

The modern enterprise is drowning in telemetry: logs, metrics, traces, and events flowing continuously from servers, cloud services, IoT devices and business apps. This “data exhaust” is meant for monitoring and analysis, but its complexity and volume make it hard to control. Telemetry streams are typically high volume, heterogeneous, and loosely governed. Importantly, they often carry sensitive material: API keys, session tokens, user IDs and even plaintext passwords can slip into logs. Because of this, a compromised observability agent or analytics SDK can give attackers unintended visibility or access into the network.

Without strict segmentation, these pipelines become free-for-all highways. Each new integration (such as installing a SaaS logging agent or opening a firewall for an APM tool)  expands the attack surface. As SecurityScorecard puts it, every vendor relationship “expands the potential attack surface”. Attackers exploit this asymmetry: defending hundreds of telemetry connectors is hard, but an attacker needs only one weak link. If a cloud logging service is misconfigured or a certificate is expired, an adversary could feed malicious data or exfiltrate sensitive logs unnoticed. Even worse, an infiltrated telemetry node can act as a beachhead: from a log agent living on a server, an attacker might move laterally into the production network if there are no micro-segmentation controls.

In short, modern telemetry pipelines can greatly amplify risk if not tightly governed. They are essentially hidden corridors through which attackers can slip. Security teams often treat telemetry as “noise,” but adversaries know it contains a wealth of context and credentials. The moment a telemetry link goes unchecked, it may become a conduit for data breaches.

Securing Telemetry with a Security Data Fabric

To counter these risks, organizations are turning to the concept of a security data fabric. Rather than an adhoc tangle of streams, a data fabric treats telemetry collection and distribution as a controlled, policy-driven network. In practice, this means inserting intelligence and governance at the edges and in - flight, rather than only at final destinations. A well implemented security data fabric can reduce supply chain risk in several ways:

• Visibility into third - party data flows. The fabric provides full data lineage, showing exactly which events come from which sources. Every log or metric is tagged and tracked from its origin (e.g. “AWS CloudTrail from Account A”) to its destination (e.g. “SIEM”), so nothing is blind. In fact, leading security data fabrics offer full lifecycle visibility, with “silent device” alerts when an expected source stops sending data. This means you’ll immediately notice if a trusted telemetry feed goes dark (possibly due to an attacker disabling it) or if an unknown source appears.

• Policy - driven segmentation of telemetry pipelines. Instead of a flat network where all logs mix together, a fabric enforces routing rules at the collection layer. For example, telemetry from Vendor X’s devices can be automatically isolated to a dedicated stream. DataBahn’s architecture, for instance, allows “policy-driven routing” so teams can choose that data goes only to approved sinks. This micro-segmentation ensures that even if one channel is compromised, it cannot leak data into unrelated systems. In effect, each integration is boxed to its own lane unless explicitly allowed, breaking the flat trust model.

• Real-time masking and filtering at collection. Because the fabric processes data at the edge, it can scrub or redact sensitive content before it spreads. Inline filtering rules can drop credentials, anonymize PII, or suppress noisy events in real time. The goal is to “collect smarter” by shedding high risk data as early as possible. For instance, a context-aware policy might drop repetitive health - check pings while still preserving anomaly signals. Similarly, built -in “sensitive data detection” can tag and redact fields like account IDs or tokens on the fly. By the time data reaches the central tools, it’s already compliance safe, meaning a breach of the pipeline itself exposes far less.

• Alerting on silent or anomalous telemetry. The fabric continuously monitors its own health and pipelines. If a particular log source stops reporting (a “silent integration”), or if volumes suddenly spike, security teams are alerted immediately. Capabilities like schema drift tracking and real-time health metrics detect when an expected data source is missing or behaving oddly. This matters because attackers will sometimes try to exfiltrate data by quietly rerouting streams; a security data fabric won’t miss that. By treating telemetry streams as security assets to be monitored, the fabric effectively adds an extra layer of detection.

Together, these capabilities transform telemetry from a liability into a defense asset. By making data flows transparent and enforceable, a security data fabric closes many of the gaps that attackers have exploited in recent breaches. Crucially, all these measures are invisible to developers: services send their telemetry as usual, but the fabric ensures it is tagged, filtered and routed correctly behind the scenes.

Actionable Takeaways: Locking Down Telemetry

In a hyperconnected architecture, securing data supply chains requires both visibility and control over every byte in motion. Here are key steps for organizations:

• Inventory your telemetry. Map out every logging and monitoring integration, including cloud services, SaaS tools, IoT streams, etc. Know which teams and vendors publish data into your systems, and where that data goes.

• Segment and policy-enforce every flow. Use firewalls, VPC rules or pipeline policies to isolate telemetry channels. Apply the principle of least privilege: e.g., only allow the marketing analytics service to send logs to its own analytics tool, not into the corporate data lake.

• Filter and redact early. Wherever data is collected (at agents or brokers), enforce masking rules. Drop unnecessary fields or PII at the source. This minimizes what an attacker can steal from a compromised pipeline.

• Monitor pipeline health continuously. Implement tooling or services that alert on anomalies in data collection (silence, surges, schema changes). Treat each data integration as a critical component in your security posture.

The rise in supply chain incidents shows that defenders must treat telemetry as a first-class security domain, not just an operational convenience. By adopting a fabric mindset, one that embeds security, governance and observability into the data infrastructure, enterprises can dramatically shrink the attack surface of their connected environment. In other words, the next time you build a new data pipeline, design it as a zero-trust corridor: assume nothing and verify everything. This shift turns sprawling telemetry into a well-guarded supply chain, rather than leaving it an open backdoor.

Modern organizations generate vast quantities of data – on the order of ~400 million terabytes per day (≈147 zettabytes per year) – yet most of this raw data ends up unused or undervalued. This “data deluge” spans web traffic, IoT sensors, cloud services and more (IoT devices alone exceeds 21 billion by 2025), overwhelming traditional analytics pipelines. At the same time, surveys show a data trust gap: 76% of companies say data-driven decisions are a top priority, but 67% admit they don’t fully trust their data. In short, while data volumes and demand for insights grow exponentially, poor quality, hidden lineage, and siloed access make data slow to use and hard to trust.

In this context, treating data as a product offers a strategic remedy. Rather than hoarding raw feeds, organizations package key datasets as managed “products” – complete with owners, documentation, interfaces and quality guarantees. Each data product is designed with its end-users (analysts, apps or ML models) in mind, just like a software product. The goal is to make data discoverable, reliable and reusable, so it delivers consistent business value over time. Below we explain this paradigm, its benefits, and the technical practices (and tools like Databahn’s Smart Edge and Data Fabric) that make it work.

What Does “Data as a Product” Mean?

Treating data as a product means applying product-management principles to data assets. Each dataset or analytic output is developed, maintained and measured as if it were a standalone product offering. This involves explicit ownership, thorough documentation, defined SLAs (quality/reliability guarantees), and intuitive access. In practice:

· Clear Ownership and Accountability: Every data product has a designated owner (or team) responsible for its accuracy, availability and usability. This prevents the “everyone and no one” problem. Owners ensure the data remains correct, resolves issues quickly, and drives continuous improvements.

· Thoughtful Design & Documentation: Data products are well-structured and user-friendly. Schema design follows conventions, fields are clearly defined, and usage guidelines are documented. Like good software, data products provide metadata (glossaries, lineage, usage examples) so consumers understand what the data represents and how to use it.

· Discoverability: A data product must be easy to find. Rather than hidden in raw tables, it’s cataloged and searchable by business terms. Teams invest in data catalogs or marketplaces so users can locate products by use case or domain (not just technical name). Semantic search, business glossaries, and lineage links help ensure relevant products surface for the right users.

· Reusability & Interoperability: Data products are packaged to be consumed by multiple teams and tools (BI dashboards, ML models, apps, etc.). They adhere to standard formats and APIs, and include provenance/lineage so they can be reliably integrated across pipelines. In other words, data products are “API-friendly” and designed for broad reuse rather than one-off scripts or spreadsheets.

· Quality and Reliability Guarantees: A true data product comes with service-level commitments: guarantees on freshness, completeness and accuracy. It includes built-in validation tests, monitoring and alerting. If data falls outside accepted ranges or pipelines break, the system raises alarms immediately. This ensures the product is dependable – “correct, up-to-date and consistent”. By treating data quality as a core feature, teams build trust: users know they can rely on the product and won’t be surprised by stale or skewed values.

Together these traits align to make data truly “productized” – discoverable, documented, owned and trusted. For example, IBM notes that in a Data-as-a-Product model each dataset should be easy to find, well-documented, interoperable with other data products and secure.

Benefits of the Data-as-a-Product Model

Shifting to this product mindset yields measurable business and operational benefits. Key gains include:

· Faster Time to Insight: When data is packaged and ready-to-use, analytics teams spend less time wrangling raw data. In fact, companies adopting data-product practices have seen use cases delivered up to 90% faster. By pre-cleaning, tagging and curating data streams, teams eliminate manual ETL work and speed delivery of reports and models. For example, mature data-product ecosystems let new analytics projects spin up in days rather than weeks because the underlying data products (sales tables, customer 360 views, device metrics, etc.) are already vetted and documented. Faster insights translate directly into agility – marketing can target trends more rapidly, fraud can be detected in real time, and product teams can A/B test features without waiting on fresh data.

· Improved Data Trust: As noted, a common problem is lack of trust. Treating data as a product instills confidence: well-governed, monitored data products reduce errors and surprises. When business users know who “owns” a dataset, and see clear documentation and lineage, they’re far more likely to rely on it for decision-making. Gartner and others have found that only a fraction of data meets quality standards, but strong data governance and observability closes that gap. Building products with documented quality checks directly addresses this issue: if an issue arises, the owner is responsible for fixing it. Over time this increases overall data trust.

· Cost Reduction: A unified data-product approach can significantly cut infrastructure and operational costs. By filtering and curating at the source, organizations avoid storing and processing redundant or low-value data. McKinsey research showing that using data products can reduce data ownership costs by around 30%. In security use cases, Data Fabric implementations have slashed event volumes by 40–70% by discarding irrelevant logs. This means smaller data warehouses, lower cloud bills, and leaner analytics pipelines. In addition, automation of data quality checks and monitoring means fewer human hours spent on firefighting – instead engineers focus on innovation.

· Cross-Team Enablement and Alignment: When data is productized, it becomes a shared asset across the business. Analysts, data scientists, operations and line-of-business teams can all consume the same trusted products, rather than building siloed copies. This promotes consistency and prevents duplicated effort. Domain-oriented ownership (akin to data mesh) means each business unit manages its own data products, but within a federated governance model, which aligns IT controls with domain agility. In practice, teams can “rent” each other’s data products: for example, a logistics team might use a sales data product to prioritize shipments, or a marketing team could use an IoT-derived telemetry product to refine targeting.

· New Revenue and Monetization Opportunities: Finally, viewing data as a product can enable monetization. Trusted, well-packaged data products can be sold or shared with partners and customers. For instance, a retail company might monetize its clean location-history product or a telecom could offer an anonymized usage dataset to advertisers. Even internally, departments can chargeback usage of premium data services. While external data sales is a complex topic, having a “product” approach to

data makes it possible in principle – one already has the “catalog, owner, license and quality” components needed for data exchanges.

In summary, the product mindset moves organizations from “find it and hope it works” to “publish it and know it works”. Insights emerge more quickly, trust in data grows, and teams can leverage shared data assets efficiently. As one industry analysis notes, productizing data leads to faster insights, stronger governance, and better alignment between data teams and business goals.

Key Implementation Practices

Building a data-product ecosystem requires disciplined processes, tooling, and culture. Below are technical pillars and best practices to implement this model:

· Data Governance & Policies: Governance is not a one-time task but continuous control over data products. This includes access controls (who can read/write each product), compliance rules (e.g. masking PII, GDPR retention policies) and stewardship workflows. Governance should be embedded in the pipeline: for example, only authorized users can subscribe to certain data products, and policies are enforced in-flight. Many organizations adopt federated governance: central data teams set standards and guardrails (for metadata management, cataloging, quality SLAs), while domain teams enforce them on their products. A modern data catalog plays a central role here, storing schemas, SLA definitions, and lineage info for every product. Automating metadata capture is key – tools should ingest schemas, lineage and usage metrics into the catalog, ensuring governance information stays up-to-date.

· Pipeline and Architecture Design: Robust pipeline architecture underpins data products. Best practices include:

• Medallion (Layered) Architecture: Organize pipelines into Bronze/Silver/Gold layers. Raw data is ingested into a “Bronze” zone, then cleaned/standardized into “Silver”, and finally refined into high-quality “Gold” data products. This modular approach simplifies lineage (each step records transformations) and allows incremental validation at each stage. For example, IoT sensor logs (Bronze) are enriched with asset info and validated in Silver, then aggregated into a polished “device health product” in Gold.
  ‍
• Streaming & Real-Time Pipelines: Many use cases (fraud detection, monitoring, recommendation engines) demand real-time data products. Adopt streaming platforms (Kafka, Kinesis, etc.) and processing (Flink, Spark Streaming) to transform and deliver data with low latency. These in-flight pipelines should also apply schema validation and data quality checks on the fly – rejecting or quarantining bad data before it contaminates the product.

• Decoupled, Microservice Architecture (Data Mesh): Apply data-mesh principles by decentralizing pipelines. Each domain builds and serves its own data products (with APIs or event streams), but they interoperate via common standards. Standardized APIs and schemas (data contracts) let different teams publish and subscribe to data products without tight coupling. Domain teams use a common pipeline framework (or Data Fabric layer) to plug into a unified data bus, while retaining autonomy over their product’s quality and ownership.
  ‍
• Observability & Orchestration: Use modern workflow engines (Apache Airflow, Prefect, Dagster) that provide strong observability features. These tools give you DAG-based orchestration, retry logic and real-time monitoring of jobs. They can emit metrics and logs to alerting systems when tasks fail or data lags. In addition, instrument every data product with monitoring: dashboards show data freshness, record counts, and anomalies. This “pipeline observability” ensures teams quickly detect any interruption. For example, Databahn’s Smart Edge includes built-in telemetry health monitoring and fault detection so engineers always know where data is and if it’s healthy.

· Lineage Tracking and Metadata: Centralize full data lineage for every product. Lineage captures each data product’s origin and transformations (e.g. tables joined, code versions, filters applied). This enables impact analysis (“which products use this table?”), audit trails, and debugging. For instance, if a business metric is suddenly off, lineage lets you trace back to which upstream data change caused it. Leading tools automatically capture lineage metadata during ETL jobs and streaming, and feed it into the catalog or governance plane. As IBM notes, data lineage is essential so teams “no longer wonder if a rule failed because the source data is missing or because nothing happened”.

· Data Quality & Observability: Embed quality checks throughout the pipeline. This means validating schema, detecting anomalies (e.g. volume spikes, null rates) and enforcing SLAs at ingestion time, not just at the end. Automated tests (using frameworks like Great Expectations or built-in checks) should run whenever data moves between layers. When issues arise, alert the owner via dashboards or notifications. Observability tools track data quality metrics; when thresholds are breached, pipelines can auto-correct or quarantine the output. Databahn’s approach exemplifies this: its Smart Edge runs real-time health checks on telemetry streams, guaranteeing “zero data loss or gaps” even under spikes.

· Security & Compliance: Treat security as part of the product. Encrypt sensitive data, apply masking or tokenization, and use role-based access to restrict who can consume each product. Data policies (e.g. for GDPR, HIPAA) should be enforced in transit. For example, Databahn’s platform can identify and quarantine sensitive fields in flight before data reaches a data lake. In a product mindset, compliance controls (audit logs, masking, consent flags) are packaged with the product – users see a governance tag and know its privacy level upfront.

· Continuous Improvement and Lifecycle Management: Finally, a data product is not “set and forget.” It should have a lifecycle: owners gather user feedback, add features (new fields, higher performance), and retire the product when it no longer adds value. Built-in metrics help decide when a product should evolve or be sunset. This prevents “data debt” where stale tables linger unused.

These implementation practices ensure data products are high-quality and maintainable. They also mirror practices from modern DevOps and data-mesh teams – only with data itself treated as the first-class entity.

Conclusion

Adopting a “data as a product” model is a strategic shift. It requires cultural change (breaking down silos, instilling accountability) and investment in the right processes and tools. But the payoffs are significant: drastically faster analytics, higher trust in data, lower costs, and the ability to scale data-driven innovation across teams.