Which practice best helps limit the chance of incomplete oversight when using an automated tool to classify security events in a production environment?
Conduct scheduled manual reviews of the tool’s output and verify event risk levels with separate data sources
Turn off supplementary monitoring tools after significant testing shows reliable results
Rely on regular vendor updates to inform classification accuracy
Grant the tool authority to classify events while maintaining external oversight
Performing scheduled reviews by skilled teams helps confirm whether automated outputs are trustworthy. A dependable AI system benefits from additional verification steps, which adds a layer of protection to operational security. Relying on a single source restricts needed feedback, while failing to update or monitor introduces overlooked risks. Granting the tool authority or turning off additional monitoring removes important safeguards against classification errors, and trusting vendor updates alone may not ensure thorough risk coverage.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why is it necessary to perform scheduled manual reviews for automated security tools?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some examples of 'separate data sources' used to verify event risk levels?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What risks arise from granting full authority to an automated security tool without external oversight?