UEBA vs. Traditional Threat Detection for PHI
Post Summary
Healthcare organizations face increasing risks as cyber threats evolve. Protecting sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI) requires effective detection strategies. Two main approaches dominate: traditional threat detection and User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA). Here's the key difference:
- Traditional Detection: Relies on predefined rules and known threat signatures to identify risks. It's effective against common malware but struggles with advanced or unknown threats like insider attacks and zero-day exploits.
- UEBA: Uses machine learning to establish behavioral baselines for users and systems, detecting anomalies that suggest potential breaches. This makes it better suited for identifying insider risks, compromised credentials, and sophisticated attacks.
Key Takeaways:
- Traditional tools are rule-based, reactive, and focus on known threats.
- UEBA provides deeper insights by analyzing behavior patterns and context, reducing false positives and addressing modern threats like ransomware with proven prevention steps.
For optimal PHI protection, combining both methods ensures broader coverage and faster detection of both known and emerging risks.
UEBA Uncovered How AI Detects Cyber Threats Before They Strike - Short
sbb-itb-535baee
What is Traditional Threat Detection for PHI?
Traditional threat detection is all about identifying threats by comparing observed data to known threat signatures. These systems depend on signature-based engines that search for exact matches, like file hashes, byte sequences, or network indicators, stored in a threat database [5]. This method has long been a cornerstone of healthcare cybersecurity, particularly for defending against common malware and well-documented exploits.
Signature-Based Detection Systems
Healthcare organizations often rely on three key technologies to safeguard PHI using traditional methods:
- Security Information and Event Management (SIEM): SIEM systems gather and analyze event logs from various sources, such as network devices, firewalls, and applications. They provide real-time alerts for threats and help maintain compliance with HIPAA regulations [6].
- Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS): These monitor network traffic for patterns matching known threat signatures, flagging any suspicious behavior as it moves across the network [5].
- Data Loss Prevention (DLP): DLP tools focus on preventing unauthorized transfers of sensitive data, like PHI, by enforcing predefined rules and policies [3].
These tools use pattern-based techniques - like YARA rules and string matching - to detect malicious activity across networks and endpoints. However, to stay effective, their databases, which can reach gigabyte sizes, require constant updates [5]. While they perform well against known threats, they often fall short when dealing with new or sophisticated attacks.
Benefits and Drawbacks of Traditional Methods
Traditional threat detection has its strengths: it delivers fast responses and minimizes false positives for known threats [5]. SentinelOne highlights this advantage:
"Signature-based detection excels at quickly blocking threats you've seen before" [5].
SIEM systems, in particular, provide detailed, time-stamped logs of PHI access, which are crucial for HIPAA audits [5][6].
But these systems are far from perfect. They depend on frequent updates to counter new malware strains and struggle with advanced threats like polymorphic malware, zero-day exploits, and insider attacks. They also face challenges with "living off the land" techniques, where attackers use legitimate cloud services to navigate systems undetected [5][7].
The limitations of these reactive systems have driven many organizations to rethink their approach. In fact, 98% of security leaders are either consolidating or planning to consolidate their security tools, signaling that traditional methods alone can no longer keep up [6].
As noted by Ishva Jitendrakumar Kanani, Raghavendra Sridhar, and Rashi Nimesh Kumar Dhenia:
"Traditional rule-based systems fail to scale in dynamic, distributed environments where threats evolve rapidly and telemetry volume is immense" [7].
These challenges highlight the growing need for proactive solutions like UEBA to address the gaps left by traditional methods.
What is UEBA for PHI Protection?
User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) takes a different approach to threat detection compared to traditional methods. Instead of relying on known threat signatures, UEBA uses machine learning and deep learning to define what "normal" behavior looks like for every user and entity within a healthcare environment [1]. Entities can include IoT medical devices, cloud-based applications, servers, or even network routers - each playing a vital role in securing Protected Health Information (PHI) [6].
By creating behavioral baselines for users and devices, UEBA can track patterns like when a nurse typically accesses electronic health records (EHR), how much data they usually interact with, and whether the patient records accessed align with their department. The system assigns a numerical risk score (often ranging from 0–10) to anomalies it detects [4]. This scoring helps security teams focus on high-risk events, such as large-scale data exfiltration, while deprioritizing minor issues like a forgotten password. It also compares individual behavior to peer groups - like other nurses in the same department - to uncover potential insider threats or compromised accounts [1][4]. As Fortra explains:
"Because while a perpetrator can easily steal an employee's username and password, it's much harder to imitate that person's normal behavior on the network" [3].
This concept lays the groundwork for understanding how UEBA operates in practice.
How UEBA Works
UEBA continuously analyzes data to establish behavioral baselines. It monitors not just users but also entities like medical devices, cloud applications, and servers. It learns patterns such as typical login times, usual data access volumes, and even geographic locations. When something deviates - for example, a user downloads gigabytes of PHI instead of their usual megabytes, logs in from two distant locations at the same time (an "impossible travel" scenario), or a medical device connects to an unfamiliar external IP address - the system flags it as an anomaly [3][12].
One of UEBA's standout features in healthcare is its ability to understand context. Instead of just analyzing EHR audit logs, it integrates data from HR records, patient appointments, medication orders, and more. This allows it to determine whether an access event was legitimate or unauthorized [1]. As Imprivata highlights:
"UEBA systems should analyze additional data sources (e.g. HR, medications, orders, labs, appointments, and ICD9/10 codes) to understand the context of an access" [1].
Modern UEBA platforms also employ algorithms like TF-IDF to rank a user's top 1–20 peers, helping to normalize behavior patterns across similar roles [4]. These advanced capabilities make UEBA a powerful tool for addressing enterprise risks in PHI security.
UEBA Applications in PHI Security
UEBA is especially effective at identifying threats that traditional methods might miss. Insider threats are a key example - if a healthcare employee accesses patient records outside their department or during odd hours, UEBA can flag this behavior by comparing it to their historical activity and that of their peers [6].
The technology also excels at spotting advanced persistent threats (APTs) and sophisticated external attacks. In cloud environments housing PHI, UEBA monitors for unusual activities like mass access events in AWS, large data transfers to unauthorized cloud services, or employees uploading sensitive data to unapproved third-party AI tools [6][9][10]. It can even detect early signs of ransomware attacks, such as when a user account starts deleting large amounts of PHI and replacing files with encrypted versions [3].
Additionally, UEBA examines cloud discovery logs against more than 90 risk factors to identify suspicious application behavior [12]. This capability is becoming increasingly important as healthcare organizations adopt hybrid environments. SentinelOne emphasizes the regulatory benefits:
"UEBA is particularly useful to businesses in meeting [GDPR and HIPAA] because of its functionality to prevent and detect suspicious activities and protect sensitive information at any given time" [6].
The growing importance of UEBA is reflected in its projected growth rate, with estimates suggesting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40.5% from 2024 to 2031 [6].
UEBA vs. Traditional Threat Detection: Key Differences
UEBA vs Traditional Threat Detection for PHI: Key Differences Comparison
Expanding on earlier discussions about detection methods for PHI, let’s dive into the distinct differences between traditional systems and UEBA.
Traditional threat detection relies heavily on static signatures and predefined rules. On the other hand, UEBA leverages machine learning to establish what constitutes "normal" behavior for users and systems [2][6]. While traditional tools focus on analyzing logs to document events, UEBA goes further by incorporating contextual data such as HR information, appointment schedules, and clinical workflows. For instance, a traditional system might flag a user for accessing an unusually high number of patient records in a short time. In contrast, UEBA examines whether this activity aligns with the user’s typical responsibilities and behavior [1].
This difference becomes even more important in cloud environments, where maintaining consistent visibility is a challenge. Traditional tools often struggle with fragmented cloud logs, while UEBA provides seamless monitoring across platforms like Azure, AWS, GCP, and SaaS. It can follow a single identity’s activity across hybrid setups, from an on-premises login to an AWS CloudTrail event [13].
Another major distinction lies in alert management. Traditional rule-based systems generate a flood of alerts every time a condition is met, often overwhelming analysts with "alert fatigue." UEBA addresses this by assigning a 0–10 risk score to anomalies, prioritizing only the most severe threats. This allows security teams to focus on real dangers instead of wasting time on false positives [2][6]. As Michal Shechter from Microsoft points out:
"UEBA has already helped SOCs uncover insider threats, detect compromised accounts, and reveal subtle attack signals that traditional rule-based methods often miss" [13].
Here’s a quick comparison of key features:
Comparison Table: Detection Approaches
| Feature | Traditional Threat Detection | UEBA |
|---|---|---|
| Detection Method | Static rules, signatures, and event correlation [2][6] | Machine learning, AI, and behavioral baselining [2][6] |
| Threat Coverage | Known threats, malware, and point-in-time breaches [6] | Insider threats, compromised accounts, zero-day exploits, and APTs [2][6] |
| False Positives | High; often leads to "alert fatigue" [2][6] | Low; uses risk scoring and peer group analysis to filter noise [13][6] |
| Cloud Visibility | Often fragmented; relies on specific log triggers [13] | Unified; correlates activity across Azure, AWS, GCP, and SaaS [13] |
| Response Speed | Reactive; depends on manual investigation of alerts [6] | Proactive; often includes automated remediation (e.g., account lockout) [6] |
| Data Context | Limited to system/network logs [1] | Enriched with HR, clinical context, and peer group behavior [1][13] |
Advantages of UEBA Over Traditional Methods
Early Detection of Unknown Threats
UEBA (User and Entity Behavior Analytics) excels at identifying threats that traditional, signature-based systems often miss. These older tools rely on recognizing known patterns - like matching a fingerprint to a database. If an attack uses new methods or legitimate credentials, it can bypass these systems entirely. UEBA takes a different approach by learning what "normal" behavior looks like for each user and entity, flagging deviations from this baseline [1][8][11].
This capability is crucial for detecting insider threats and compromised accounts. For instance, if a clinician's credentials are stolen, the attacker’s behavior will likely differ from the actual user’s habits. UEBA identifies these subtle changes by turning raw logs into structured behavior patterns [10]. It creates a clear narrative from seemingly random actions, like spotting a sudden spike in record access combined with an unusual login - potential signs of a breach.
In healthcare, UEBA goes a step further by correlating Electronic Health Record (EHR) audit logs with HR data, medication orders, lab results, and appointment schedules. This allows it to detect improper access to Protected Health Information (PHI) that static rule-based systems would overlook [1]. It also uses peer group analysis to distinguish between one individual acting suspiciously and legitimate workflow changes affecting an entire department [1][13]. By analyzing historical data - spanning anywhere from 10 days to six months - UEBA can identify unusual or "first-time" activities that might indicate a compromised account [13].
Fewer False Alarms
One of the biggest challenges with traditional systems is the overwhelming number of alerts they generate, many of which turn out to be false positives. UEBA addresses this issue by consolidating related anomalies into more meaningful, high-priority alerts. As Exabeam puts it:
"One slightly abnormal event on its own will not result in a security alert. The system requires multiple signs of abnormal behavior to create an alert, reducing the number of false positives and saving time for analysts" [14].
By assigning scores to behavioral anomalies and leveraging peer analysis, UEBA minimizes false positives while isolating genuine threats. It also "stitches" together related events from different platforms into a single timeline, avoiding the confusion caused by multiple alerts for what is actually one continuous incident. This streamlined approach has proven effective - organizations using behavioral analytics report 44% fewer insider threat incidents compared to those relying solely on traditional methods [15]. In fact, 79% of cyber detections in 2024 involved malware-free attacks, such as the use of legitimate tools or stolen credentials, which signature-based systems often fail to detect [15].
Better Cloud Environment Visibility
Beyond its advanced detection and alert capabilities, UEBA significantly improves visibility across cloud environments - an area where traditional tools often fall short. Protecting PHI across multiple platforms is critical, and UEBA provides a unified view that simplifies this task. It monitors activities across Azure, AWS, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and SaaS platforms, tracking a single identity’s actions from an on-premises login to an AWS CloudTrail event [13]. Additionally, it keeps an eye on non-human identities, such as service principals and managed identities, which are common targets for token theft in cloud automation [13].
Instead of overwhelming analysts with raw logs, UEBA converts these high-volume data streams into clear behavior records, explaining "who did what to whom" without requiring deep technical expertise [10]. For example, it evaluates cloud discovery logs against a catalog of applications ranked on over 90 risk factors, helping identify data exfiltration to unauthorized apps not managed by the organization [12]. As Michal Shechter from Microsoft explains:
"UEBA enables feature-rich investigation and the capability to correlate across data sources, cross platform identities or devices insights, anomalies, and more" [13].
This enhanced visibility extends to privileged user actions within cloud consoles, spotting unauthorized permission changes or privilege escalations that could expose PHI [2][12]. By aligning cloud access with HR data and clinical context, UEBA determines whether a user's access to PHI is appropriate for their role - something traditional log monitoring cannot achieve [1].
Why UEBA Works Best Alongside Traditional Detection
Combining Behavioral and Signature-Based Detection
UEBA (User and Entity Behavior Analytics) and traditional detection methods work best when used together. Each approach has its strengths: traditional systems excel at identifying known threats, while UEBA focuses on spotting unusual behaviors that might indicate new or unknown attacks.
"Signature matching gives you efficiency and near‑zero noise on commodity threats, while behavioral analytics exposes zero‑days, polymorphic malware, and insider misuse." – SentinelOne [5]
By layering these methods, organizations can leverage their combined capabilities. For example, in healthcare, EHR (Electronic Health Record) audit logs can be enriched by correlating them with HR records, medication orders, and patient appointments. This added context helps determine whether access to protected health information (PHI) is clinically appropriate [1][10]. Additionally, UEBA strengthens SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) platforms by offering behavioral insights and risk scoring, which help prioritize alerts and reduce false positives. Together, these tools create a more comprehensive defense strategy for protecting sensitive data.
Building a Layered PHI Security Strategy
A strong approach to PHI security starts with traditional detection as the foundation and uses UEBA as an advanced layer for deeper visibility. To further enhance this framework, organizations should implement measures like multi-factor authentication (MFA), regular patching, and least-privilege access controls. These steps minimize the attack surface, allowing behavioral systems to focus on genuinely suspicious activities [5].
Integrating diverse data sources - such as VPN logs, firewall events, endpoint telemetry, and cloud application activity - helps create a complete picture of how users interact with PHI. Automating responses, like locking accounts or isolating devices, can also reduce the time it takes to address potential threats [1][6]. Starting with a specific use case, like monitoring access to high-profile patient records or detecting data exfiltration, allows organizations to establish behavioral baselines. Over time, these baselines can expand as the system matures [1].
The growing reliance on this layered strategy is reflected in market trends. UEBA adoption is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40.5% between 2024 and 2031 [6]. By combining the precision of signature-based detection with the contextual insights of behavioral analytics, healthcare organizations can protect patient data from both immediate and long-term threats.
Conclusion: Choosing the Right Approach for PHI Security
Protecting cloud-based PHI (Protected Health Information) requires a mix of traditional detection methods and User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) to create a well-rounded defense. Traditional methods are effective at identifying known threats with fewer false positives, while UEBA focuses on modern, stealthy attacks - 79% of which now involve malware-free techniques using stolen credentials and legitimate tools [15]. With attackers moving quickly within networks, relying on traditional signatures alone is no longer enough.
A layered defense strategy is the way forward. It’s not about picking one method over the other but combining both for maximum protection. Traditional detection lays the groundwork by addressing known threats, while UEBA adds a crucial layer of behavioral analysis to detect insider risks, compromised credentials, and zero-day attacks that signature-based systems might overlook. This dual approach is especially important as 64% of cybersecurity professionals now consider insider threats a bigger concern than external attacks [14].
Implementing UEBA takes careful planning. Start by focusing on high-risk groups during a 60–90 day baseline period before expanding the system organization-wide. This approach ensures robust protection across all PHI repositories by integrating data from identity systems, cloud APIs, and network traffic to build a complete picture of potential threats [15][14]. The result is a seamless combination of fast, signature-based detection with the deeper, proactive insights offered by UEBA.
Speed is critical. With the average data breach costing $4.45 million [16], healthcare organizations must act quickly to establish baselines and catch what traditional methods might miss. Organizations that combine behavioral analytics with traditional detection - and automate their responses to high-risk anomalies - are reducing breach lifecycles by an average of 80 days [15]. Tools like Censinet RiskOps™ help unify these detection methods, dramatically cutting response times. For those entrusted with patient data, this speed can make the difference between containing an incident and experiencing a devastating breach.
FAQs
How long does UEBA need to learn “normal” behavior?
UEBA systems need a few months to learn what "normal" behavior looks like. The exact timeframe can vary based on how the system is built and the amount of data it processes. This initial learning phase is crucial for spotting unusual activities and improving how well the system can identify potential threats.
What data sources should UEBA ingest to protect PHI?
To safeguard Protected Health Information (PHI) effectively, User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) needs to pull data from a variety of sources. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of both user and entity behaviors. Some essential data sources include:
- Sign-in logs and audit logs for tracking user activities and system changes.
- Identity signals from platforms like third-party identity providers.
- Cloud platform data from services such as Azure, AWS, and GCP.
- Security logs and network activity to monitor potential threats.
- Application usage patterns and peer group data to establish behavioral norms.
These inputs work together to create baselines, spot unusual activities, and flag potential risks to PHI security.
How do you integrate UEBA with SIEM, DLP, and IDS?
Integrating UEBA (User and Entity Behavior Analytics) with tools like SIEM (Security Information and Event Management), DLP (Data Loss Prevention), and IDS (Intrusion Detection Systems) significantly improves threat detection capabilities. UEBA works by analyzing logs, user activities, and entity behaviors to identify unusual patterns that could signal potential threats or breaches.
When these insights are incorporated into SIEM platforms, they enhance the system's ability to correlate behavioral data with alerts from DLP and IDS. This combination allows for better threat prioritization and provides a more detailed and complete understanding of security events.
