My old boss had one iron clad rule when reporting on an alert or incident. Don't think, know. What he meant by this is the need in any investigation to be sure. He ran security at a very large financial organization before joining the institution where he and I met. He had to face breach notices, legal summons, and visits from at least one three letter agency. And in all these dealings, he understood the difference between 0% and 99% understanding was minuscule compared to the difference between 99% and 100% sure.
100% sure is obvious. There is proof. There is evidence. There are logs. All of these combine to paint a complete picture. They leave no doubt, much less reasonable doubt.
99% sure is where the problems occur. Your odds are so overwhelming that you have virtual certainty you are correct. 1% is a rounding error, or a margin of error.
The truth is that 1% is an error. Employees being termed, adversaries being arrested, even APTs live and die off that one tiny percent. Believe me, when the lawyers get involved, that 1% can save someone from legal action or keep them out of jail. A majority of the time that 99% will bury far more than 99% of your adversaries. The ones who can navigate that 1% are the ones you should really be worried about.
Enter 'Don't Think, Know.'
We see a system beaconing out to an IP listed in a threat intel report as being part of APT 29's infrastructure, ergo the Russians hacked us. What process spawned the call? What spawned the process? Is the IP a compromised public server the APT used to piggyback as a watering hole attack, and the system is making a normal call to the box? Was an engineer playing with a sample and triggered the call? Has the alert been verified with the source? How recent is the intel? Did EDR flag on anything? Did EPP block the rest of the process? Did the firewall stop the dropper's download? Sweeping declaratory statements are made at the end of an investigative process, not the beginning. In threat intel, an indicator by itself is a starting point at best. The behavior and the chain of events that spawn from that indicator's investigation determine fact. The desire to be right, to fight the good fight and take down the bad guys can cloud the search for fact. One can think they are right. If one isn't 100% sure, they may not clearly see that difference between 1% and 99%.
Some times it's easy. Someone leaves a digital footprint that only they could leave. Someone makes a blatantly sexist or racist remark in a print medium. Don't assume this is common. And, most important of all, do not project your bias onto it. This leads one to disregard evidence that can contradict their thesis.
Accusations have a human cost. People so easily point fingers. This is due to our thirst for answers, and the need for closure to an event. And our desire for retribution. Just look at any twitter mob. If you follow a large enough chunk of Infosec twitter you will see these far too often and they will include people who are incident responders and investigators who should know better.
An accusation is an indicator. Investigators need to take every accusation seriously. But an accusation isn't fact, it's a starting point. When an accusation is leveled that someone has committed fraud, embezzlement, theft, or worse, that accusation needs to be taken seriously. The voice making the accusation can lend a great degree of credibility to it, but by itself is not indisputable proof of wrongdoing.
Less common in Infosec (I hope) but prevalent in the real world (too often) is the ending of an incomplete investigation with a declaratory statement claiming nothing was wrong. No malfeasance happened. At some point in an investigation, it will get hard. An investigator will have to dig in deep and wade through logs. This isn't a quick process. It shouldn't be rushed. Conclusions shouldn't be rushed. Behavior needs to be analyzed. The blank spaces have to be filled in.
When you don't know, look for a way to find out. If it is impossible to find out (e.g. logs rotate) an investigator needs to state where the holes in that part of the investigation are. The investigator needs to find a way to corroborate the behavior, not let assumption become fact and move on. When that is not possible, take a queue from Colin Powell.
What do you know?
What don't you know?
What do you think?
These questions answered as honestly and completely as possible, are what it takes to shrink down that 1% to as small a number as possible.
Any ethical investigator needs to be mindful of the human cost of their work. To do that, they need to be as thorough as possible. Their behavior comes down to one simple credo.
Don't think, know.