SOC Analyst
Decide, quickly, which of today’s thousand alerts is the one that matters.
This is genuinely reachable as a first role in IT.
What you actually do
- Work an alert queue and decide what is real, what is noise, and what needs waking someone up
- Pull the surrounding evidence — logs, process trees, network connections — to test a hypothesis
- Escalate with a written narrative that lets the next person act immediately
- Isolate a compromised machine before the problem spreads
- Feed back into detection rules so the same false positive does not return tomorrow
- Track what an attacker did in order, from first access onward
Technologies you may touch
Nobody uses all of these. Which ones depends entirely on the employer.
-
Splunk
Collects logs from everything in one place and lets you search across all of it at once. -
Microsoft Sentinel / Elastic
Cloud-native log and detection platforms — the same job as Splunk, priced and queried differently. -
EDR platforms
Agents on every machine that record behaviour and can isolate a device the moment it looks compromised. -
Wireshark
Records and displays the actual conversation between two machines, packet by packet. -
NetFlow / Flow data
A summary of who talked to whom, for how long, and how much — without recording the contents. -
Suricata / Zeek
Open-source sensors that watch network traffic and record or alert on what they see. -
Active Directory
The Microsoft system that holds every user, group and computer account in most organisations, and decides what each can open. -
Nmap
Scans a network to find what is there and which services each host is offering.
Concepts you will learn
These transfer between employers and outlast any particular product.
- Indicators of compromise
- The kill chain
- Alert triage and severity
- True and false positives
-
Lateral movement
lateral movement — An attacker who is already inside moving from the first machine to more valuable ones. - Containment
Where this work happens
You may enjoy this if…
- You like the feeling of catching something nobody else spotted
- You are comfortable making a call on incomplete information
- You enjoy reconstructing a sequence of events from fragments
- You want a security job that is genuinely reachable early
The honest downside
Most alerts are nothing, and the volume is relentless. Shift work including nights is common, and alert fatigue is a real occupational hazard. It is one of the few genuinely entry-accessible security roles — but "entry-level" listings still routinely ask for two years.
What it pays
Pay is the thing people most often get misled about, so here is where every number comes from — including the ones that are not really numbers.
Official occupation
Median for the occupation
$124,910
Information Security Analysts (15-1212)
What you actually start on
~$55,000–$75,000 to start (SOC analyst I)
Where it leads
Senior analyst and incident response work moves toward and past the median
Outlook
+29% — much faster than average, but heavily experience-gated at the entry end
This role maps cleanly onto a published government occupation, so the median below is a real statistic you can go and check.
Maps to Information Security Analysts (15-1212). Be aware the median covers the whole occupation including senior engineers and architects; a tier-one SOC seat starts well below it. This is one of the few genuinely entry-accessible security roles, and the pay reflects that.
A median is the midpoint of everyone employed in that occupation, including people decades into their careers — so starting pay runs materially lower. Verify against the live BLS page before making a decision.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics · BLS OES, May 2024 release · figures are national and United States–specific; pay varies substantially by region and employer. Nothing here is adjusted for cost of living.
CertBlueprint earns affiliate commission on some study resources. It earns nothing from SOC Analyst salaries, and no role is ranked, recommended or presented more favourably because of what it pays.
Where this leads
IT careers are a graph, not a ladder. These are the moves people actually make from here — each one reuses most of what you already know.
See where SOC Analyst sits on the whole map →
Incident Responder
The escalation you hand to today becomes your job tomorrow.
Detection Engineer
If you keep wanting to fix the rule rather than work the alert.
Threat Hunter
If you would rather go looking than wait for the queue.
Network Security Engineer
If the network half of every investigation is what interests you.
Often confused with
Titles overlap heavily in IT and tell you very little. Each of these puts SOC Analyst beside another role on the same dimensions, with the practical differences underneath.
Try it this weekend, before you spend anything
Reading about work and doing it are different. Each of these is free, runs on the machine you already have, and takes under an hour and a half. Finding out you dislike it is a genuinely useful result — and far cheaper here than after an exam voucher.
Try the work · 45–70 minutes
Follow a packet
Free Find out where your own traffic actually goes on its way out of the building — and what it looks like when it stops arriving.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 45–70 minutes
Follow a packet
Before you start
Everything here runs against your own machine and connections you already make. Do not trace, scan or probe networks you do not own or have written permission to test — in many countries that is a criminal offence, not a grey area.
Built-in commands only. Nothing to install, no account, nothing to sign up for.
- 1
Watch a name turn into an address
Every connection starts by looking up a name. Run this against a site you use daily, then against a site in another country. Notice you get different addresses — sometimes several.
Windowsnslookup bbc.co.uk
macOSdig bbc.co.uk +short
Linuxdig bbc.co.uk +short
- 2
Trace the path out
This lists every router your traffic passes through to reach that address. Read the hostnames down the left — you can usually see it leave your house, reach your provider, and cross into a backbone network.
Windowstracert bbc.co.uk
macOStraceroute bbc.co.uk
Linuxtraceroute bbc.co.uk
- 3
Find where the time goes
Look at the millisecond figures. Somewhere there is a jump — 8ms to 90ms between two hops. That jump is usually the moment your traffic goes long-distance. Now trace somewhere far away and compare where the jump happens.
- 4
Break it on purpose, then put it back
Add a line to your hosts file pointing a site you use at 127.0.0.1, and try to load it. Watch how the failure looks from the browser — the error will not tell you what you just did. Then delete the line. This is the single most useful thing on this list: you have now seen a name-resolution fault from the user's side, which is what half of all "the internet is down" tickets actually are.
Windowsnotepad C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts (run as Administrator)
macOSsudo nano /etc/hosts
Linuxsudo nano /etc/hosts
- 5
Optional — watch the actual conversation
If you want to go further, install Wireshark, capture for ten seconds while loading one page, and filter for "http" or "dns". You will see the individual messages between your machine and the server. This is the one step that needs an install, which is why it is last.
This suits you if…
- You kept going past step three without being told to
- The latency jump made you want to know exactly where that hop was
- You found the deliberate breakage satisfying rather than pointless
- You wanted to know why a hop showed asterisks instead of a time
If you disliked it
If this felt like tedious bookkeeping, take that seriously. Networking and network security roles involve a great deal of exactly this — patient, methodical narrowing down, often at 2am. Finding it dull here is genuinely useful information, and it is much cheaper to learn it now than after a CCNA.
Try the work · 45–60 minutes
Read your own logs
Free Reconstruct what your computer did last night, from the record it kept without anyone asking it to.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 45–60 minutes
Read your own logs
Before you start
Your own personal machine only. Do not do this on an employer's systems, or any system you do not personally own, without written authorisation — reading logs you are not authorised to read is a disciplinary matter at best and an offence at worst. That rule does not relax because you are curious or well-intentioned.
Uses the log viewer already built into your operating system. Nothing to install.
- 1
Open the record
Your machine has been writing down what it does, continuously, for as long as you have owned it. Most people never look.
Windowseventvwr.msc → Windows Logs → System
macOSConsole.app → select your Mac under Devices
Linuxjournalctl -b --no-pager | less
- 2
Find yourself in it
Locate the moment you logged in this morning. Note the exact timestamp and the event id. You have just done the core move of every investigation: anchoring to one known event so everything else can be measured against it.
WindowsSecurity log → filter Event ID 4624 (successful logon)
Linuxjournalctl -b | grep -i "session opened"
- 3
Establish what normal looks like
Scroll a full day. Find three things that happen every single day at roughly the same time — an update check, a backup, a scheduled task. Write them down. This is baselining, and it is the skill that separates people who spot a real intrusion from people who chase noise for a year.
- 4
Find the one that only happened once
Now look for something that appears exactly once in the last week. A driver failure, an unexpected shutdown, a service that crashed. Read the surrounding twenty entries either side. Can you tell a story about what happened, and what happened next as a consequence?
- 5
Write the timeline
Pick five events, put them in order with timestamps, and write three sentences explaining what occurred. Show it to someone non-technical. If they understand it, you have just done the part of security work that most people are worst at — the writing, which is what actually gets acted on.
This suits you if…
- You lost more time to it than you meant to
- Finding the once-only event felt like a small win
- You wanted to search for one identifier across the whole log to see where else it appeared
- Writing the timeline felt satisfying rather than like homework
If you disliked it
If the volume felt overwhelming and the payoff too thin, that is worth knowing before committing to security operations. A SOC analyst does this all day, mostly finding nothing, and the tolerance for that is either there or it is not. It is a completely reasonable thing not to have.
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Make the computer do it
Free Do a genuinely boring task by hand, then arrange never to do it by hand again.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Make the computer do it
Before you start
Work on a COPY of a folder, never your only copy of anything. Every step below dry-runs first and shows you what would happen before anything changes. If a step ever refuses to show you a dry run, that is the step to be suspicious of.
PowerShell ships with Windows; bash ships with macOS and Linux. You already have everything you need.
- 1
Pick a real chore
Not a toy problem — something that genuinely annoys you. Sorting a Downloads folder full of four hundred files. Renaming photos to a consistent format. Finding every file over 500MB. It has to be real, or the payoff at the end will not land.
- 2
Do it by hand once, and time it
Actually time it. Write the number down. This is the figure you are going to beat, and it is also how you will one day justify automation work to a manager who wants to know why it is worth your afternoon.
- 3
Make a copy to work on
Duplicate the folder. Everything from here runs against the copy. This is not caution for beginners — it is what people do professionally, because the cost of being wrong is asymmetric.
WindowsCopy-Item -Path .\Downloads -Destination .\Downloads-copy -Recurse
macOScp -R ~/Downloads ~/Downloads-copy
Linuxcp -R ~/Downloads ~/Downloads-copy
- 4
Ask what it WOULD do, before it does anything
Run the operation in preview mode first. Nothing changes; it just tells you what it intends. Read that output properly. This habit is the single biggest difference between someone safe to give automation to and someone who is not.
WindowsGet-ChildItem .\Downloads-copy -File | Group-Object Extension | Format-Table Name, Count
macOSfind ~/Downloads-copy -type f | sed "s/.*\.//" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
Linuxfind ~/Downloads-copy -type f | sed "s/.*\.//" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
- 5
Now let it run
Sort every file into a folder named after its extension. Five lines or so. It will not work first time — read the error, change one thing, run it again. That loop, repeated, is the actual job.
WindowsGet-ChildItem .\Downloads-copy -File | ForEach-Object { $d = ".\Downloads-copy\" + $_.Extension.TrimStart("."); New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force -Path $d | Out-Null; Move-Item $_.FullName $d }macOScd ~/Downloads-copy && for f in *.*; do d="${f##*.}"; mkdir -p "$d"; mv "$f" "$d"/; doneLinuxcd ~/Downloads-copy && for f in *.*; do d="${f##*.}"; mkdir -p "$d"; mv "$f" "$d"/; done - 6
Compare it to your number
You wrote down how long it took by hand. It now takes under a second, and it will take under a second every time from now on. Sit with that for a moment — that gap, multiplied across an organisation, is the entire economic argument for automation as a career.
This suits you if…
- The moment it worked felt genuinely good
- You immediately thought of a second chore to do this to
- Fighting the syntax felt like a puzzle rather than an obstacle
- You wanted to make it handle the awkward edge cases properly
If you disliked it
If twenty minutes of wrestling with quoting and syntax was pure frustration with no compensating satisfaction, that is a real signal. Automation, DevOps and platform roles are that experience repeatedly, and enjoying the puzzle is most of what makes them bearable. Plenty of excellent infrastructure people are not wired for it — they go deep on architecture or operations instead.
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Ask data a question
Free Take a messy public dataset nobody prepared for you, find one true thing in it, and say that thing plainly — including what it does not prove.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Ask data a question
Before you start
Use openly published data, and check the licence — most public portals permit reuse with attribution, some do not. Avoid datasets containing personal information about identifiable people; if you use your own records instead, such as a bank export, keep them local and do not paste them into an online tool to "quickly clean them up". Handling data carefully when nobody is watching is the actual professional standard here, not a formality.
A spreadsheet is enough — Excel, Numbers, or free LibreOffice. There is an optional SQL path at the end if you want it. No account needed.
- 1
Get something real and unhelpful
Download a CSV from a public data portal — data.gov.uk, data.gov, or your national statistics office. Pick a subject you actually care about: crime near you, rainfall, energy prices, hospital waiting times. Deliberately do not pick a tutorial dataset. Real data is messy, and the mess is the job.
- 2
Write your question down before you look
One sentence, on paper, before you open the file. "Has burglary in my area gone up or down over five years?" Doing this first is what stops you finding whatever the data happens to show and calling it a finding afterwards.
- 3
Meet the mess
Open it. Find the problems: blank cells, dates in three formats, a total row hiding at the bottom that will corrupt every average you take, categories renamed halfway through the period. Write a list of every defect you find before you fix any of them.
- 4
Clean it, and keep a record of what you changed
Fix the defects — but write down each decision as you go. "Dropped 214 rows with no date." "Treated blank as zero." Those decisions change the answer, and being unable to say what you did to the data is the difference between analysis and guessing.
- 5
Answer the question
Pivot table, chart, or a formula. Get to a number. Then do the part almost everyone skips: try to disprove it. Is the trend just one anomalous year? Did the collection method change? Would a different but equally reasonable cleaning decision have flipped the result?
AnyOptional SQL path — sqlite3 ships with macOS and Linux: sqlite3 data.db .mode csv .import yourfile.csv t SELECT year, COUNT(*) FROM t GROUP BY year ORDER BY year;
- 6
Say it in three sentences
What you found, how confident you are, and what it does not tell you. Show it to someone who has not seen the data. If they ask a question you cannot answer, that is not a failure — that is you discovering the limit of your own finding, which is the most valuable output of the whole exercise.
This suits you if…
- The cleaning was satisfying rather than infuriating
- You tried to disprove your own finding without being told to
- You wanted a second dataset to cross-check it against
- Stating the limits felt like rigour rather than weakness
If you disliked it
If the cleaning felt like pointless drudgery blocking the interesting part, be honest about that — because in real data work the cleaning IS most of the job, frequently eighty percent of it. Enjoying the answer but not the preparation usually points toward analyst-adjacent roles that consume prepared data rather than data engineering, which is almost entirely preparation.
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Find what’s exposed
Free Discover what is actually listening on your own network — including the things you had no idea were there — and work out which of them would matter.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Find what’s exposed
Before you start
Scan ONLY your own home network, and only devices you personally own. There is exactly one external exception below — scanme.nmap.org, which the Nmap Project publishes specifically so people can practise, and which should be scanned a couple of times, not hammered. Everything else is off limits: not your employer, not your university, not a friend's network with verbal permission, not a website "just to see". Unauthorised scanning is a criminal offence in the UK, the US, and most of Europe, and the fact that you were curious rather than malicious is not a defence anyone has successfully run. If you are ever unsure whether you have permission, you do not have permission.
Nmap is free and open source. One install, no account, available for every platform.
- 1
Establish what your own network is
Find your own address and the range your network occupies. You need to know precisely what you own before you touch anything, and getting this wrong is how people accidentally scan their neighbour or their ISP.
Windowsipconfig
macOSifconfig | grep "inet "
Linuxip addr
- 2
Find out what is actually on it
A ping sweep of your own range. Count the results. Almost everyone finds more than they expected — a thermostat, a TV, a printer they thought was off, a doorbell, a device they cannot identify at all. That last category is the interesting one.
Anynmap -sn 192.168.1.0/24 # adjust to YOUR range from step 1
- 3
Identify the one you cannot name
Pick the device you could not identify. Ask what it is — services, guessed operating system, vendor from its hardware address. Then go and physically find it in your home. This is device profiling, and it is precisely what a network access control system does automatically, all day, at enterprise scale.
Anynmap -A 192.168.1.42 # the unknown device on YOUR network
- 4
Practise against the one legal target
The Nmap Project runs scanme.nmap.org for exactly this purpose. Scan it once or twice — not repeatedly — and compare what a deliberately exposed host looks like against your own devices. Read the open ports and ask what each one is for.
Anynmap -A scanme.nmap.org
- 5
Ask the question that actually matters
You now have a list of open ports. A scanner will tell you what is open; it will never tell you whether it matters. For each finding ask: is it reachable from outside my house, what would someone get if they took it, and is there a reason it is on at all? That reasoning — exposure and impact, not severity scores — is the whole difference between running a tool and doing the job.
- 6
Write it up as if for someone else
Three findings, ranked by what you would fix first, with a sentence each on why. Include one you decided NOT to worry about, and say why. Being able to justify what you deliberately ignored is what separates a useful report from a wall of noise nobody acts on.
This suits you if…
- Finding a device you did not know was there was a genuine thrill
- You wanted to keep pulling on what each open port was for
- Deciding what mattered was more interesting than running the scan
- You immediately thought about how this scales to ten thousand devices
If you disliked it
If the scanning felt like pressing a button and reading output someone else generated, that reaction is worth trusting. Offensive and vulnerability work is far more about the judgement in steps five and six — exposure, impact, prioritisation, writing — than about tooling. If the tool was the fun part and the reasoning was the chore, the day-to-day may disappoint you.
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Write a detection
Free Define what normal looks like, write a rule that catches an exception to it, then find out how often your rule is wrong — which is the part nobody tells you about.
Nothing to install · no account · open the steps
Try the work · 60–90 minutes
Write a detection
Before you start
Your own personal machine only, exactly as with the log-reading trial. Do not run detections across systems you do not own or are not authorised to monitor.
Your own machine’s logs and a command line. Nothing to install, no account.
- 1
Pick something that should be rare
Choose one event that ought to happen occasionally but not constantly on your own machine: a failed login, a service crashing, a scheduled task failing, a USB device connecting. Rare-but-real is the sweet spot — common events make useless alerts and impossible events make rules you can never test.
- 2
Count it over thirty days
Before writing any rule, find out how often it actually happened. This number is your baseline, and skipping this step is the single most common reason real detections get switched off within a fortnight for being too noisy.
WindowsGet-WinEvent -FilterHashtable @{LogName="Security"; Id=4625; StartTime=(Get-Date).AddDays(-30)} -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Measure-Object | Select-Object CountLinuxjournalctl --since "30 days ago" | grep -ci "authentication failure"
macOSlog show --last 30d --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "Failed"' | wc -l
- 3
Write the rule
Express your detection as something runnable — a filter, a grep, a query. Not pseudocode. It needs to actually execute so it can actually be wrong, which is the only way you will learn anything from it.
WindowsGet-WinEvent -FilterHashtable @{LogName="Security"; Id=4625; StartTime=(Get-Date).AddHours(-24)} -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Group-Object -Property @{e={$_.Properties[5].Value}} | Where-Object Count -ge 3Linuxjournalctl --since "24 hours ago" | grep -i "authentication failure" | awk '{print $NF}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | awk '$1>=3' - 4
Deliberately set it off
Trigger the thing yourself — mistype your own password four times, plug in a USB stick. Does the rule fire? A detection you have never seen fire is not a detection; it is a hypothesis. Astonishing numbers of production rules have never been tested this way.
- 5
Now find out how wrong it is
Run it across the full thirty days. Every hit that was not really an attack is a false positive — and every one of those, in a real SOC, costs a human being fifteen minutes. Calculate your rate. If it is above roughly one a day for one machine, imagine that multiplied by five thousand machines and ask whether anyone would keep it switched on.
- 6
Tune it once, and record what you gave up
Narrow the rule to cut the noise — raise the threshold, exclude a known-good source. Re-run it. Then write down what you can no longer catch as a result. Every tuning decision trades coverage for signal, and being unable to state what you traded away is how organisations end up blind in ways nobody has documented.
This suits you if…
- Watching your own rule fire was satisfying
- The false-positive count made you want to fix the rule rather than abandon it
- You enjoyed the trade-off in the last step rather than finding it frustrating
- You started wondering what else you could baseline
If you disliked it
If the tuning loop felt like an endless treadmill with no clean answer, that is an accurate preview — detection engineering never reaches a finished state, and tolerance for permanent, incremental, never-quite-right work is what the role requires. Enjoying the investigation but not the rule-writing points toward analysis, hunting or response instead.
Certifications that fit this path
These come last for a reason. A certification is evidence for a direction you have already chosen — it is not the direction itself.