IBM Security QRadar Reviews

We are mainly using predefined rules on IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics

When we started using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics's add-on or extension, we received more than 17 new use cases. Our organization has benefited from using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics's most important feature is its ease of use. 

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics could improve machine learning use cases because they are limited and most of the use cases are rule-based. They should develop more use cases, such as in Securonix or Exabeam because they will detect a threat. Using machine learning is mainly on the correlation rules, but if you think about Exabeam or Securonix, they detect using machine learning or machine learning-based algorithms.

Using the interface of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is the same for years, they should redesign the interface to make it more modern. Some historical queries take a long time, they should improve or change their database. There are some missing operators on the correlation side. For example, some before operated.

I have been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for approximately three years.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is stable most of the time. However, it works on the client-side which requires a lot of system resources, such as RAM. In some cases, if the work is high, the stability deteriorates, but mainly it is stable.

The scalability of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is good. 

We have two people using this solution. We do not have plans to increase usage.

We use a consultancy company for support and are not directly connected to IBM support.

The deployment of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is very easy when compared to other machine learning solutions. The full deployment took approximately three weeks with less than 5,000 EPAs.

We used a consultant that help us deploy and do maintenance for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

I rate the return on investment of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a four out of five.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is an application framework and you can install many applications without any additional costs.

I rate the price of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a four out of five.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is a good solution. If there is a big enough budget they might be able to afford the solution since it is expensive. If the conditions are okay, then they should select the solution.

I rate IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics a six out of ten.

Our primary use case is logging for any anomalous traffic in terms of access times and deviations when users are in different groups within the AD. When a user deviates from their functionality, it's flagged in the UBA and for VPN traffic. I also use it for geolocation functionality. We are partners of IBM and I'm a system engineer. 

The timeline and the machine learning features are great at quickly flagging users who have either left the organization or have dormant accounts. The way that the app has transformed over time is quite phenomenal. One of the major improvements is its capacity for creating machine models. It comes with 16 default machine learning models, where it tracks user activity and changes in profiles and authentications. There are various default machine learning models and I'm able to model those to parameters that suit my needs. It's great that I'm able to implement an unlimited number of use cases on the UBA, putting in as many different kinds of logic as I want. It's a big advantage. 

I'd like to see improved support from the vendor. In addition there are things that are not documented on the IBM site. If you'd like to do something at a high level, the information is not available in the documentation and you have to find it elsewhere. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution has never crashed or failed, it's stable. 

We haven't tested scalability and currently have around 100 users. I'm responsible for maintenance.

The customer support is helpful but that's more about it being a good solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward, it's just a download and it installs. It's a matter of configuring a few parameters in terms of tweaking the thresholds that you want the app to fire in on. Installing takes a few seconds, but in terms of letting it land so that you can tweak it and tune the various metrics, takes about a week. 

This is a free solution which is one of the main reasons we chose it. It's just a matter of getting a license for the curator as a platform.

I recommend this solution and rate it seven out of 10. 

There is a Pulse dashboard that they have. From a reporting perspective, we'll be creating dashboards based on the pulse functionalities. 

There are other third-party plugins that we can use as well. We can initiate in the QRadar platform, however, Pulse is one of the most user-friendly options. 

Along with that, there are out the box rules and out the box dashboards that we have available to us. Mostly what we are concentrating on is creating the rules and fine-tuning the rules to align properly with the customer infrastructure depending upon the customer's requirements. Pulse, UEBA, and NBAD are the features that are the best. They are the most useful from a SOC manager perspective.

The AQL queries could be better. With the queries, there's an option for you to create dashboards based on the queries that they have. The documentation that is available for AQL queries is not well received. They could maybe look at how Microsoft is leveraging AQLs from a Sentinel perspective and create more documentation and training materials and make those more available to the general public.

They have to facilitate more learning opportunities. Microsoft has something called Playground where you have some sample logs and where you can learn how to work on all this stuff, however, there is nothing like that for IBM. They really could make it more generalized and accessible to the general analyst population.

Technical support should be improved.

In terms of QRadar, I've used it for close to two years. I worked for a customer that is a managed security service provider. What we do is we will provide SOC as a service and QRadar. IBM is one of the partners that we have. Depending upon the customer considerations and customer preferences, we will either engage QRadar or Sentinel according to the customer preferences. Splunk and LogRhythm we also use on an as-needed basis. 

What they have claimed is 99.5% uptime. However, I'm not very sure whether there's an implementation problem or not. Sometimes the system gets hung and then we have to restart everything from the scratch. You have got these multi printing options, though not functionally. Sometimes it gets some jitters there. Sometimes there are cases where we are finding it very difficult to get into the system as there can be three or four people logging into the same platform at the same time and sometimes the reduces the speed a lot.

From an architect implementation perspective, the role that I have played is very limited. I'm not very sure about scaling. I'm not in a position to comment on that part. That said, once everything is implemented, I've noted that it's not as scalable as Sentinel or Splunk on the cloud, for sure. That is the same for LogRhythm and QRadar. Obviously, cloud-hosted applications will be more scalable and more resilient.

Technical support is something that has always been an issue for us. We have to raise a ticket and the products team will be available, however, depending upon the criticality, sometimes the support is not very easily accessible on weekends and on Friday evenings.

I've also worked with Sentinel, Splunk, QRadar, and LogRhythm. 

Compared to Sentinel, the initial setup is a bit complex. Depending upon whether you're going ahead with the cloud version or on-prem version, there is human involvement, however, normally everything is done by the platform engineer. I don't have to get my head into that part. Once everything is up and running, that is when we have to start working from our side. I'm sure it is more complex than a plug-and-play Sentinel, where connectors are easily available and just have to click, click and get things done.

The administration and maintenance would be two or three people depending upon the availability. I'm not very sure about troubleshooting. I'm coming at the solution from a user perspective. I'm more concerned with the rule fine-tuning and rule-building part. That kind of troubleshooting will be done with the platform team, which specializes in that. 

Licensing is mostly dependent on the EPS, events per second. Depending upon the number of products that are integrated with the platform, we have to come to an optimal EPS value. I'm not very sure about the financials, however, the licensing cost cannot be as much as that for Sentinel, which is not very low. For customers who need medium EPS values, we advise QRadar.

The basic out the box cost covers, the EPS value that you have specified, and then some archiving maybe. It should include at least six months of archiving and other functionalities. Most of the customers will go for the standard package and we don't have to go for extra archival or enhanced DPS. 10% to 15% of DPS can always be increased. It will not completely shut down the system, however, it'll start sending us notifications that the DPS is getting increased and then we can go for a higher licensing.

The version we use depends on when the customer is onboarded. Whenever recent onboarding takes place, we use the most up-to-date versions. However, there are customers that we have been facilitating for the past two or two and a half years and they might be using the previous versions. There are proper version upgrades that happen on a quarterly basis. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Currently, our main use case for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics revolves around investigating user activity: specific user activity which we find suspicious. We don't monitor the dashboard of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics actively, but whenever we have an alert from other tools, we use it to check whether the user has triggered rules in our SIEM, whether the risk score is high, and other suspicious behaviors we can track.

What I like about IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is that it uses machine learning algorithms to generate risk scoring for the user activity. I also like that it syncs with our Active Directory users, so it really has full coverage for all users in our environment. I also find the risk scoring feature of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics pretty interesting. I don't use it well enough today, but it's a feature I look at closely.

What needs to be improved in IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is the user experience. It's not optimal. For example: we are constantly looking for updates on the app and other features, so we could have a better user experience. Some screens are a bit clunky. We're still trying to figure out whether the solution is going to have a better user experience in the future, but nowadays it's a bit too complex. We need it to be more user-friendly.

I've been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for eighteen months. 

We've had issues with the stability of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics. We had bugs once or twice, but they were quickly solved by IBM's support team. The bugs weren't really something that stopped us from working. We managed to solve them rather quickly.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is easy to scale.

Technical support for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics was helpful.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics was really easy to set up. There were no issues with setting it up.

I don't recall the exact version of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics I'm using, but it's probably the latest one. It's version 4.1.7.

My advice to others looking into implementing IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is to have a dedicated team to implement the solution. Some solutions require close knowledge of your environment, so someone would have to know your infrastructure, your network, your users, and your Active Directory environment well. These are things partners aren't able to do well if they are not supported by internal teams inside their company.

I'm rating IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics seven out of ten.

My company has a contract with another company that is a partner of IBM. The company I'm in is just a customer, not an IBM partner.

To be very frank, it's not that much help as of now. We are not getting that many insights from UVA, which we wanted, actually. As of now, we are exploring that UVA, and we have installed it. It's still quite new.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is still new to us. Currently, it's a work in progress with this. I'm not in any particular condition to tell what exact improvements are required. I will let a few more months go by before analyzing the overall UBS solution QRadar to get to know and final understanding of this particular application.

There are a lot of things that require modification. That's my initial observation, however, I need more time and a few more months to get to know it and get a final understanding of the solution as a whole.

I want a reduction of false positives. I want crisp true positive incidents out of it. I want to see proper user behavior. Whatever algorithm is working in the background, that algorithm should produce accurate, true positive incidents and not false positives.

We are using QRadar as an appliance for the last four years, however, we recently, for the last six months, started using UBS.

I'm not sure about the stability just yet. We've observed a few issues and we raised a supporting ticket for it.

The scalability is very good. It's not a problem.

Technical support has been very supportive. We're largely satisfied with them.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. It's not very complex. 

We are using multiple features in QRadar. UVA is just one feature. We have overall 14 data nodes and we are almost 2,500 GB of data integrated with it and we are using multiple applications in QRadar. We have a nine-member team that manages the overall QRadar architecture, not only UBA.

We did a direct integration.

I'm an architect. Normally costs and licensing are handled by senior management.

For UBA, they haven't asked for any extra charges or anything. It's included in the licensing.

We're an IBM partner. We have platinum support with IBM.

We have segregated our data between on-prem and the cloud. All the on-prem data we have integrated with the QRadar. QRadar itself is an on-prem solution. We have QRadar hardware with us.

At this point, I would not recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

Currently, we are using only Amazon Web Services for monitoring. We have CloudTrail, GuardDuty, Avast, and some Kubernetes security we have installed on Amazon AWS. By getting these logs, we have created the uses for these components.

I have used IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics in a Cloud Pak on Amazon, and there it runs on top of it and is easy to assess. Additionally, I have installed processes and characters.

The most useful feature of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is the User Behavior Analytics aspect. For example, whoever logs into the Amazon AWS to the interface, if someone is logging in for the first time that the administrator has created, or someone is logging in, we receive an email notification saying that they have logged in, we need to check. Based on that, we will start checking to see if the visit was a valid one or a malicious one. Even if we only have a few users, such as 25 to 30 Amazon AWS records.

Whenever we are upgrading or installing any type of patch, at that time we have some delays. 

 Sometimes by mistake, AWS has migrated some other accounts to my enrollment. At that time, we receive a notification special for that. We have created one rule and a case. We receive a notification and we are informed that the Amazon AWS team, sent an email apologizing for this happening. They have confirmed that going forward we will not receive this type of account modification issue. They have sent an email to us. 

If you are searching for three to four months back it takes and there is a time delay. If I compare it to Splunk, it is a little bit delayed. It is because Splunk is using Elasticsearch, while IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics uses a normal one. For example, if Splunk takes two minutes, it will take IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics approximately three minutes.

I have been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for approximately seven years.

I have used many other solutions previously, such as Splunk and McAfee SIEM tool.

The initial setup of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is straightforward. We only have to activate a few aspects. We directly installed our process characters, and an all-in-one setup with it to do the installation. The deployment took use 30 to 40 minutes. However, if you want to add components it will take more time.

We have seen a good return on investment with IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

We pay approximately $40,000 to use the solution annually. This solution is a lot less expensive than Splunk.

I rate IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics an eight out of ten.

I'm an administrator. I have been leading the security operation center for the past four years. I have more than 12 members or SOC analysts for our 24/7 operations. I have been pitching the solutions to multiple customers, and I have also designed, implemented, and administered customer projects and completed them at the specified timeline.

We have many use cases. The most common use cases are related to insights into any threats from the inside and outside. I have also configured X-Force with QRadar, and we are getting all the feeds showing malware-based IPs, etc. I also have designed some anomaly-based rules in case anyone has logged in from outside Pakistan. Most of the rules are custom-based.

The QNI feature is the one I am very interested in, and I have also been interested in Watson. From the log analysis and the security perspective, we are able to dive deep into any of the logs and anomalies.

It is user-friendly, and it is easy to develop. If you know the architecture, what to develop, and how to get the output for your results, you can easily work with it.

I have also been working with other SIEM solutions, and I have observed that they have extensive Linux-based and Unix-based integrations. They have been able to support some of the Linux-based agents, which is useful to investigate and process the information on the Linux and Unix side.

It could have pre-defined automation and integration of all those device parameters that analysts have to share manually.

It is stable.

I would rate them a 3.5 out of 5.

It is not very difficult. I have done more than 10 deployments, and I have integrated and developed custom applications. I have also developed a Python-based script to support me with the things that IBM cannot support. I am using that script from the health check perspective. It gives me a high-level and low-level overview of QRadar with respect to the rules that have been triggered and the notifications that have been generated and how to tune them.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

When it sends the log source, QRadar generates a lot of noise and false positives. LogRhythm logs when the alarm rules are disabled, so it doesn't generate any noise when sending the log source. I think LogRhythm's one, this one too. QRadar, we have to cure it all the time. It's only this advantage with QRadar.

I would also like to see more integration with other vendors. IBM doesn't integrate well with products from China, like Huawei. Many Middle Eastern customers are switching to Huawei from American vendors like Cisco because of the price. In most RFPs, Huawei wins because it costs less. 

IBM needs to integrate better with Huawei. I opened one case with IBM, and they told me to submit a request for enhancement so they could write the correct DSMs to integrate with Huawei. We were very disappointed. Customers who want to implement QRadar or LogRhythm need to consider all the other components. The environment needs to be homogenous to avoid problems due to a lack of integration.

My old company used QRadar, so I still use it sometimes when I consult for them. They get stuck on a few things. I also worked on vulnerability discovery. Right now, my current customers are migrating from QRadar to LogRhythm.

QRadar is built around Red Hat Linux, which is highly robust.

IBM's support for QRadar could be improved. Sometimes it takes them two days to reply to a low-priority case. However, it tasks them about 1.5 hours to respond to a more serious case. Sometimes our customer service will think it's a priority one case, so he asks me to open it as priority one, then IBM reduces it to two or three. 

We don't have any security appliances from Huawei, but they have the best technical support. We have engineers everywhere with CRM, and they call you after the problem is resolved. IBM closes the case, and that's it. It's a very restricted environment. 

QRadar is reasonable compared to LogRhythm.

I rate IBM QRadar nine out of 10. If you're going to use QRadar, you have to be familiar with it and know all the components. IBM offers free appliances, like data nodes, that offload many processes from the collectors and the processors. 

Every engineer must understand the overall portfolio to add some value to the solutions. If a solution isn't integrated with other solutions, they are only collectors. You need to tune the rules and be up to date with the Mitre Att&ck framework all the time.

I am a Product Manager. I am managing the inventory and the logs. For R&D purposes, we downloaded various SIEM solutions from the internet to analyze their performance, and QRadar was one of them. I downloaded the Community Edition of QRadar to check its capabilities and see how to integrate various log sources in our network. It is in my lab, and I have tested it with a few hardware devices and a few computers and servers.

What I like the most about it is that you can very easily install and configure it. As compared to other SIEM solutions, for which you need to know and do a lot more to prepare your SIEM environment, QRadar is much simpler to install and configure. There are various options in the Admin console. In the Admin tab, you can design dashboards and view various graphs. It has a lot of attractive features, and you don't need to configure everything on your own.

I have noticed a few things while working on this. After the restart of the server, sometimes, the services misbehave, and you need to manually start or restart the service. I have seen that specifically with the Tomcat service. 

Sometimes, when you click on log sources, instead of opening the log source extension, it redirects you over the internet. 

There are two types of dashboards in QRadar. One is the conventional or old one, and the other one is Pulse. The Pulse dashboard is better, but we would like to have more options in the dashboard.

Additionally, if possible, there should be a single product for SIEM and SOAR. Instead of having QRadar and Resilient separately, there should be a combined solution to benefit from both. Furthermore, there should be a built-in mechanism to configure it in the cluster mode and high availability mode.

I tested this product in the last two, three months. It is not implemented in our company.

Its installation is very simple. You can install it and configure it very easily.

We are looking at implementing a SIEM solution, and currently, we're comparing various commercial and open-source SIEM solutions. We have tested Wazuh, which is an open-source SIEM solution, but we have not finalized anything.

I would rate it a seven out of 10. It is good, but when a product doesn't behave in a good manner, it creates confusion. Its behavior isn't consistent.

QRadar is our SIEM solution. Our use cases include authentication between logins, database security, monitoring, and user behavior analytics.

QRadar is helping us to identify ongoing, day-to-day threats. We use it to analyze the risk in our environment, including user behaviors. We can easily monitor many things using this tool.

All of the features offered by this product are useful for analysis. Essentially, everything that it offers is critical and we use it.

Several things need to be improved.

We have been struggling with the QRadar support team for quite a long time. There are things that they can reproduce in their lab environment and can fix, yet we struggled with them trying to get this done. These issues included things like custom logs. There are many things that they need to improve upon.

This product should support multiple log sources.

They need to improve their threat intelligence feed and they need to improve their user behavior analytics modules.

The risk manager module needs to be improved.

It's not a very user-friendly interface.

I have been working with IBM QRadar for seven years.

IBM QRadar is quite stable.

We have approximately 50 users and we keep expanding its usage. It is growing on the infrastructure level, as well as the EPS level.

Three or four administrators are all that is required for the maintenance.

I recommend this product for large enterprises.

We have had a lot of trouble with technical support. As of late, they take too long to respond to our issues. For 99% of our issues, they take too long to respond. It's not instant.

I do not have any experience with other SIEM solutions. QRadar is the first one for me.

The initial setup is complex because it is not managed properly.

Our implementation strategy is based on it being a distributed environment.

We completed the implementation and deployment ourselves.

We did not evaluate other options prior to selecting QRadar.

This is a good product for large enterprises. Smaller companies should implement an open-source solution but for a large enterprise, QRadar is a good product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.