We are in the middle of a critical financial reporting cycle, and our internal finance application has been completely blocked by our Prolexic protection policy. The system was flagged as a "malicious source" and added to a mitigation list. This is a clear false positive—it's our own application server making legitimate, high-volume API calls to our payment processor.
I understand the principle: volumetric detection is working as designed. However, the business impact is severe, and the process to resolve this seems opaque. Our security team submitted a ticket, but we're waiting on an "internal review."
My questions for the community are procedural and technical:
* **Mitigation Overrides:** What is the most reliable method to prevent this in the future? Is it creating a specific allowlist rule based on our source IP/CIDR, or should we look into adjusting the anomaly thresholds for that particular policy? I'm concerned about the trade-off in security efficacy.
* **Escalation Paths:** Beyond the standard support ticket, are there effective escalation channels for business-critical false positives like this? The delay is causing tangible financial operational cost.
* **Configuration Review:** Could this indicate a misconfiguration on our end? Our traffic pattern is predictable but high-rate. Should we be implementing a different user-agent or spreading calls more evenly to appear less "bot-like" to the detection engine?
From a cost perspective, this isn't just about service availability; the labor hours spent by finance, security, and DevOps teams to manually work around this blockage represent a significant, unplanned operational expense. Any insights into streamlining the resolution and prevention process would be valuable.
Less spend, more headroom.