Skip to content

Busywork Generators and Cybersecurity Anti-Patterns

Published: at 10:00 PMSuggest Changes

Scenario

You’re part of an AppSec team rolling out a new security scanner. You expect better coverage, but instead you get resistance from developers, alert fatigue in your triage team, and a growing backlog of unresolved findings. The root issue? You’ve deployed a busywork generator.

What Busywork Generators Do

PatternAlert-heavy, outcome-light tools
ProblemFalse positives, manual triage, unresolved alerts
ImpactBurnout, friction, wasted time

Security tools that push alerts without fixing the root issue often end up creating more work than value. You’re just moving the problem downstream.

“Just raise a ticket” ≠ Fix.

Symptoms of Busywork Generators

Dig Deeper — Ask “Why?”

Instead of patching symptoms, trace the root cause using the 5 Whys approach:

Most root issues stem from:

Shortridge’s Ice Cream Cone Model

Visualize your detection layers as an ice cream cone:

Busywork generators focus on the bottom layer. Shift up.

“Get Clean” vs “Stay Clean”

GoalFocus
Get CleanFix immediate issues
Stay CleanPrevent issues long-term via guardrails

Don’t aim for perfect cleanup. Just fix what matters and build mechanisms to stay clean.

Case Study – GitHub Actions Incident

An attacker compromised the popular tj-actions GitHub Action due to unpinned tags.

Root issue: No default enforcement for SHA-pinning.

Real fix:

Fix the System, Not Just the Symptoms

Avoid “NagOps” (constant reminders, trainings, ticket spam).

Instead, build mechanisms:

Final Thoughts

Busywork looks productive but creates burnout. Real security outcomes come from systemic, embedded solutions.

Don’t just ship alerts. Ship architecture.

Reference

Cybersecurity Antipatterns – Busywork Generators by Spaceraccoon


Next Post
Access secrets via s3 bucket versioning