We primarily use the solution for analyzing logs, such as those from Azure AD. We have it integrated with Microsoft 365 and plan to integrate it with our firewalls so we can analyze those logs too. So, our main uses are for log analysis and to check for vulnerabilities in our system.
We use more than one Microsoft security product; we also use Defender for Cloud.
Sentinel helps us to prioritize threats across our enterprise.
The solution reduced our time to detect and respond.
The log analysis is excellent; it can predict what can or will happen regarding use patterns and vulnerabilities.
Sentinel provides good visibility into threats.
The product enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place, and that's important to us.
Given the solution's built-in SOAR, UEBA, and threat intelligence capabilities, it provides reasonably good comprehensive protection, and we are happy with it.
Sentinel helps us automate routine tasks and find high-value alerts; the playbooks are beneficial and allow us to optimize automation.
The tool helped eliminate multiple dashboards and gave us one XDR dashboard. Having one dashboard is the reason we purchased Sentinel.
Sentinel's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps. It helps a lot, and that's another main reason we have the product.
The solution could be more user-friendly; some query languages are required to operate it.
A welcome improvement would be integrations with more products and connectors.
We've been using the solution for over a year.
The solution is stable.
Sentinel is a scalable product.
Microsoft support is good, I rate them seven out of ten.
Neutral
We didn't previously use another solution of this type; when we moved to Azure, Sentinel was one of the products Microsoft recommended, so we started using it.
I was involved in the deployment of Sentinel, but my colleague did the majority. The setup was basic; some query language is required to implement it fully, and we could improve our configurations. Our implementation strategy was to cover the major products first, including Office 365 and Azure AD. We did that, and we're now adding the other tools we use in our environment.
Our setup is not particularly expansive, so we can deal with the maintenance requirements within our team; it only requires one team member. Our team consists of three or four admins; we manage the Azure AD logs, and Azure AD has 400 users.
The pricing is reasonable, and we think Sentinel is worth what we pay for it.
One of the main reasons we switched from on-prem to Azure Cloud was to save money, but at the same time, we kept adding on features and spent a lot doing so. We're now looking at cost optimization and removing unnecessary elements, as one of our primary goals is to reduce costs. I'm unsure if we are, but we are trying to get there.
I rate the solution seven out of ten.
Sentinel allows us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem, though we are attempting to integrate all our products. It can ingest and analyze all the data, but we aren't using this functionality to its fullest extent yet.
My advice to someone considering the product is to use it. Start by integrating your primary applications, then slowly move on to others in descending order of importance.
The company I work for delivers SOC-as-a-Service, so I set up Sentinel in the customer's Azure environment and then connect it to our central Sentinel through Azure Lighthouse.
Microsoft Sentinel has made it easier for us to sell SOC-as-a-Service to, more or less, any customer and not just the big ones.
A lot of our customers run Microsoft products, and integrating those with Sentinel is simple and easy. Sentinel can be quickly deployed as well.
As long as the customers are licensed correctly and have, for example, the E5 security package, then the insights into threats provided by Sentinel are pretty good.
Sentinel helps prioritize threats well. The option to dig deeper and go into the different portals is good as well.
Our customers are very happy with incidents being closed in Sentinel and across the tenant.
We are able to fetch data from almost any source with Sentinel. There are some customers who try to customize, but we try to keep it to the out-of-the-box preconfigured data connectors or to what we can find in the Microsoft content hub.
In terms of the importance of data ingestion to our customers' security operations, they only have access to what is in Sentinel. Therefore, it's pretty important for them to have all of their data stored in one location. If it's stored on-premises in Microsoft 365 Defender, then the SOC team won't be able to access that data. Giving a good analysis will then be harder.
It's very important to us to be able to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. We don't create several accounts for each customer. We utilize one account and then get insight into the Sentinel environments of different customers. It's great that we can do all this in one place.
The comprehensiveness of Sentinel's security protection is pretty good. The effectiveness of the web part of this depends on how well the customer has configured their Azure AD and what information they have included for each user, such as the phone number and the part of the organization where the user works.
One of the big issues for our customers is the need to look at multiple dashboards. Sentinel has eliminated this and made it a lot easier by having everything in one place.
Sentinel has definitely saved us time. It has also decreased our time to detection and our time to respond. We try to have an analysis ready within 30 minutes of an incident coming in.
Some of the data connectors are outdated, at least the ones that utilize Linux machines for log forwarding. I believe that Microsoft is already working on improving this.
I would like Microsoft Sentinel to have out-of-the-box threat intelligence because right now, the only option is to add your own threat intelligence.
I've been using Microsoft Sentinel for approximately one and a half years.
Sentinel has only been down once, as far as I know, as a result of Microsoft doing something with Azure Kubernetes, which affected log analytics and Sentinel. It was down for about 10 hours. Other than that, it's always been up.
The scalability is great. You can put unlimited logs in, as long as you can pay for it. There are commitment tiers, up to six terabytes per day, which is nowhere close to what any one of our customers is running.
I might be more fortunate than others, given the fact that I have easy access to Microsoft support. The only downside is that the support staff are not that technical, but there is a big community around Sentinel. I can ask the question on the forums instead, and I usually get an answer there. All in all, I'd rate technical support at eight out of ten.
Positive
The initial deployment is straightforward. We try to utilize a baseline of analytics rules in addition to connecting any security products already owned by the customer.
We usually deploy one Sentinel per Azure tenant. Maintenance-wise, Microsoft updates the analytics rules and the engine behind Sentinel, and it may require some tuning if it creates a lot of noise. Other than that, it's pretty straightforward. Thus, in comparison to other SIEM solutions that you need to upgrade and then turn off for the functionality to be updated, Sentinel saves us time.
My colleague and I usually work with someone at the customer's location to deploy the solution.
Compared to standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions, it is easy to start off with Sentinel. For example, with QRadar there are minimum licensing requirements, EPS costs compared to how many logs are being ingested, etc.
It can become costly with Sentinel if you try to run all of the raw logs for an entire organization. If you prioritize, however, you can have a cheaper SIEM solution compared to the ones that have a starting price of 50,000 US dollars.
The pricing is based on how much you ingest, so it's pretty straightforward. There are no tiers, and you pay for what you use, unlike with other types of SIEM solutions that are usually based on tiers.
It's a great way to get insight into exactly how much you're using. If you connect a log source that utilizes too much, you could turn it off or tune it down. You could also buy tiers in Sentinel and can save money with tier commitments.
Overall, I'm satisfied with Sentinel and would give it a rating of eight out of ten.
As far as going with a best-of-breed strategy versus a single vendor's suite, Microsoft gives a pretty good solution, especially when you get the E5 security package. It gives you a good view of the security across the organization, so I don't mind going for a single vendor's suite and opting to go completely with Microsoft.
It's mostly used for cloud-based analytics for proactive incident response. As an enterprise product, it falls under next-gen SIEM.
An advantage of Sentinel is that Microsoft has acquired RiskIQ as a threat intel platform and they've amalgamated it into the platform. When any analytical (or correlation) rule triggers, the enrichment is bundled within the solution. We don't need to input anything, it is there by default. Every rule is enriched right at the triggering or detection stage, which eases the job of the SOC analyst. The platform has become so intelligent compared to other solutions. When an alert is triggered, the enrichment happens so that we know exactly at that moment the true or false posture. This is a mature feature compared to the rest of the providers.
Most of our customers use M365 with E3 or E5 licenses, and some use Business Premium, which provides the entire bundle of M365 Security including EDR, DLP, Zero Trust, and email security. There are two native advantages for customers that use M365 Security and Sentinel. The first advantage is that the log or security-event ingestion into Sentinel is free. Cost-wise, they're saving a lot and that is a major advantage.
The other advantage is that when you use M365 Security with Sentinel, you get multi-domain visibility. That means when attacks happen with different kill-chains, in different stages through the email channel or a web channel, there is intelligence-sharing and that is a missing piece when customers integrate non-Microsoft solutions with Sentinel. With Microsoft, it is all included and the intelligence is seamlessly shared. The moment an email security issue is detected, it is sent to the Sentinel platform as well as to the M365 Defender platform. The moment it is flagged, it can trigger.
That way, if the email security missed something, the EDR will pick up a signal triggered by a payload or by a script being shared and will trigger back to the email security to put that particular email onto a blacklist. This cross-intelligence is happening without even a SIEM coming into play.
And a type of SOAR functionality is found within M365 Defender. It can run a complete, automated investigation response at the email security level, meaning the XDR platform level. When M365 Security is combined with Sentinel it gives the customer more power to remediate attacks faster. Detection and response are more powerful when M365 Defender and Sentinel are combined, compared to a customer going with a third-party solution and Sentinel.
Sentinel has an investigation pane to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place, where SOC analysts can drill down. It will gather all the artifacts so that the analysts can drill down without even leaving the page. They can see the start of the attack and the sequence of events from Sentinel. And on the investigation page, SOC analysts can create a note with their comments. They can also call for a response action from that particular page.
Also, most of the next-gen cloud analytics vendors don't provide a common MSSP platform for the service provider to operate. That means we have to build our own analytics in front of those solutions. Sentinel has something called Lighthouse where we can query and hunt and pull all the metadata into an MSSP platform. That means multi-customer threat prioritization can be done because we have complete visibility of all our customers. We can see how an attack pattern is evolving in different verticals. Our analysts can see exactly what the top-10-priority events are from all of our customers. Even if we have a targeted vertical, such as BFSI, we can create a use case around that and apply it to a customer that has not been targeted. We can leverage multiple verticals and multiple customers and see if a new pattern is emerging around it. Those processes are very easy with Sentinel as an MSSP platform.
Because we use 75 percent of the automation possible through the platform we are able to reduce MTTA. It is also helpful that we get all the security incidents including the threat, vulnerability, and security score in one place of control. We don't have to go to one place for XDR, another for email, another for EDR, and a fourth for CASB. Another time saver is the automated investigation response playbooks that are bundled with the solution. They are available for email, EDR, and CASB. As soon as a threat is detected, they will contain it and it will give you a status of partially or fully remediated. Most of our customers have gone for 100 percent automation and remediation. These features save at least 50 percent of the time it would otherwise take.
In terms of cost savings, in addition to the savings on log-ingestion, Microsoft Sentinel uses hyperscaler features with low-tier, medium-tier, and hot storage. For customers that need long-term data storage, this is the ideal platform. If you go with Securonix or Palo Alto, you won't see cost savings. But here, they can choose how long they want to keep data in a hot tier or a low or medium tier. That also helps save a lot on costs.
It's a Big Data security analytics platform. Among the unique features is the fact that it has built-in UEBA and analytical capabilities. It allows you to use the out-of-the-box machine learning and AI capabilities, but it also allows you to bring your own AI/ML, by bringing in your own IPs and allowing the platform to accept them and run that on top of it.
In addition, the SOAR component is a pay-per-use model. Compared to any other product, where customization is not available, you can fine-tune the SOAR and you'll be charged only when your playbooks are triggered. That is the beauty of the solution because the SOAR is the costliest component in the market today. Other vendors charge heavily for the SOAR, but with Sentinel it is upside-down: the SOAR is the lowest-hanging fruit. It's the least costly and it delivers more value to the customer.
The SOAR engine also uniquely helps us to automate most of the incidents with automated enrichment and that cuts out the L1 analyst work.
And combining M365 with Sentinel, if you want to call it integration, takes just a few clicks: "next, next finish." If it is all M365-native, it is a maximum of three or four steps and you'll be able to ingest all the logs into Sentinel.
That is true even with AWS or GCP because most of the connectors are already available out-of-the-box. You just click, put in your subscription details, include your IAM, and you are finished. Within five to six steps, you can integrate AWS workloads and the logs can be ingested into Sentinel. When it comes to a third party specifically, such as log sources in a data center or on-premises, we need a log collector so that the logs can be forwarded to the Sentinel platform. And when it comes to servers or something where there is an agent for Windows or Linux, the agent can collect the logs and ship them to the Sentinel platform. I don't see any difficulties in integrating any of the log sources, even to the extent of collecting IoT log sources.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud has multiple components such as Defender for Servers, Defender for PaaS, and Defender for databases. For customers in Azure, there are a lot of use cases specific to protecting workloads and PaaS and SaaS in Azure and beyond Azure, if a customer also has on-premises locations. There is EDR for Windows and Linux servers, and it even protects different kinds of containers. With Defender for Cloud, all these sources can be seamlessly integrated and you can then track the security incidents in Microsoft's XDR platform. That means you have one more workspace, under Azure, not Defender for Cloud, where you can see the security incidents. In addition, it can be integrated with Sentinel for EDR deep-dive analytics. It can also protect workloads in AWS. We have customers for whom we are protecting their AWS workloads. Even EKS, Elastic Kubernetes Service, on AWS can be integrated, as can the GKE (Google Kubernetes Engine). And with Defender for Cloud, security alert ingestion is free
Only one thing is missing: NDR is not available out of the box. The competitive cloud-native SIEM providers have the NDR component. Currently, Sentinel needs NDR to be powered from either Corelight or some other NDR provider. It needs a third-party OEM. Other than that, it supports the entire gamut of solutions.
Also, we are helping customers build custom data-source integration. Microsoft needs to look at some strategic development on the partner front for out-of-the-box integration.
We are an MSSP and we have offered Microsoft Sentinel as a service to our customers for close to one and half years. Before I joined this organization, I worked with another organization that provided Microsoft Sentinel as a service for close to one year.
The platform is pretty stable. I generally do not have any problems with it unless an issue arises while deploying a playbook. The platform is 98 percent stable. That other 2 percent only happens when you start working deep on customization. Out-of-the-box, everything has been tested and there aren't any problems. But when you try to create something on your own, that's where you may need Microsoft support.
You can scale it as much as you want. There are no limitations on scaling it.
It supports multi-region environments. Even if it is a large organization with multiple regions and multiple subscriptions, it can collect the data within the regions. With GDPR, logs should stay within the country. The solution can comply with the law of the land and still serve multiple locations.
Sentinel Lighthouse is not only meant for MSSPs. A large organization with diverse geography can meet the local data-residency laws, and Lighthouse will still act as a platform to connect all the regions and provide a centralized dashboard and visibility as an organization. So it can work if the customer has only one region and if there are multiple regions. It is a unique platform.
Also, every six months they develop a lot of playbooks as well as from the marketplace, the Microsoft Sentinel Content hub. MSSPs like us can use it to create content and put it into the marketplace so that other customers or service providers can use them. Similarly, when those parties develop things, they are available to us.
Microsoft is almost too active. We receive something new to offer to our customers every month or two. We also operate Splunk and QRadar but we see a lot of activity from Microsoft compared to the other vendors. That means we have a lot of value-adds to offer to our customers. These updates do not go to the customer by default. As a service provider, that helps us. We are the enablers, and a lot of these updates are free of cost for Sentinel users.
I would rate Microsoft technical support at five out of 10 because we have to go through a lot of steps before we get to the right technical stakeholder. They have to improve a lot.
Neutral
As an MSSP we also use Splunk, Qradar, and Micro Focus ArcSight. We added Microsoft as well because of customer demand.
Existing customers that are doing a tech refresh are going for cloud-native. Digital transformation has been the driving factor. A lot of our customers have embraced microservices and they're looking for a new-age, cloud-native SIEM to support cloud-native solutions. For most of our customers that are looking at migrating to Sentinel, the major factor is the cloud. They have moved their data center servers to AWS or GCP or Azure.
The initial deployment is straightforward. There are only two or three methods, depending on whether it is on-premises log collection or M365 all-cloud, in which case it is API-based with out-of-the-box APIs. Within a few clicks, we can integrate it. It is simple and fast.
If we're dealing with all-M365 components and Azure components, we can complete deployment within a day. If we're dealing with the customer-log collection, it depends on the customer. There are some prerequisites required, but if the prerequisites are ready, then it takes, again, a day or so.
The number of people involved depends on the situation, but if there is not much more than out-of-the-box deployment, a maximum of two L1 engineers can complete all the activity.
From my perspective, the ROI is good because Microsoft keeps getting new things done without any additional cost. Every quarter there is at least a 10 to 15 percent increase with add-on components and content that are free. That is a type of enrichment that customers receive that they do not get from any other platform.
Microsoft gives a discount of 50 percent but only for customers that are clocking 100 GB and above. They should also look at medium and SMB customers in that regard.
There are a lot of advantages for customers with a Microsoft ecosystem. They need to know the tricks for optimizing the cost of Microsoft Sentinel. They need to work with the right service provider that can help them to go through the journey and optimize the cost.
For Microsoft security products there is a preview mode of up to six months, during which time they are non-billable. The customer is free to take that subscription and test it. If they like it, they will be billed but they have six months where they can evaluate the product and see the value. That is the best option and no other vendor gives a free preview for six months.
Other solutions will have two updates a year, maximum. And most of them are not updates to the features but are security or platform-stability updates. Microsoft is completely different. Because the platform is managed by them, they don't give platform updates. They give updates on the content that are free. They keep adding this data, which is helping customers to stay relevant and updated.
Our customers see a lot of value from that process. Some 60 to 70 percent move from preview mode to production.
The challenge with competitive products, or any SIEM, is that they are use-case specific: You define some correlation and they will detect it. Some of the next-gen solutions today work with analytics but the analytics are limited to the logs that have been registered. Other platforms are also not able to pinpoint the inception point of the attack. Once the attack is being reviewed, they will use log sources of that particular attack and will drill down into that particular attack scenario, but they're not able to group the attack life cycle: the initiation of that attack, and the different stages of the attack. The visibility is limited when it comes to other SIEMs.
But Sentinel has something called Fusion, which can give you multi-stage attack visibility. That is not something available from other SIEM vendors. Fusion is a very special kind of detection. It will only trigger when it sees the linkage between multiple attacks detected by multiple data sources. It will try to relate all the attacks and see if there is a link between them. It gives you a complete footprint of how that attack started, how it evolved, how it is going, and which phase it is in now. It will give a complete view of the attack, and that is a missing link compared with other SIEM vendors. This is a unique feature of Microsoft Sentinel.
Sentinel's UEBA is around 90 percent effective, and the threat intel is a 10 out of 10, but it is an add-on. If a customer takes that add-on package, it will give complete threat intel and visibility into the deep and dark web. In addition, it helps a customer to track the external attack surface. It is a comprehensive threat intel platform.
The Sentinel SOAR is a 10 out of 10 and, if I could, I would rate it higher. Other SOAR platforms do not help reduce the price. A customer may not be able to use them after some time because they charge per SOC analyst. With Microsoft, there is no limitation on SOC analysts. It is purely billed based on consumption, which is a great advantage. Every customer can use it. It is free for up to 4,000 actions. Even if a customer goes to 50,000 actions per day, which is normally what a large-volume customer will do, he'll be charged $50, and no competitive SOAR vendor is in that league.
Understand the product capabilities first and, before finalizing your product, see how we can optimize your solutions. Also, try to see a roadmap. Then plan your TCO. Other SIEMs do not give you the advantage of free log ingestion, but if you want to understand the TCO, you need to know what your organization is open to adopting. If you integrate Microsoft solutions in different places, like cloud or CASB, it is going to give you more free ingestion and your TCO is going to be reduced drastically.
Organizations that have a Microsoft E5 license have an advantage because all the Microsoft components we have talked about are free. Unfortunately, we have also witnessed that most of our customers with an E5 license are not using the product features effectively. They need to see how they can leverage these services at the next level and then start integrating with Sentinel. That will give them a better return on investment and a proper TCO.
The platform gives you the ability to do 100 percent automation, but it is up to the service provider or the customer to decide what the percentage should be. The percentage varies from organization to organization. In our organization, we are using 75 percent of the automation before it reaches a SOC analyst. At a certain point, we want to see our SOC Analyst intervene. We want to do that remaining 25 percent manually, where the analyst can call for further responses.
Threat intelligence, in my opinion, is not generally going to work in a predictive mode. It is more a case of enrichment and indicators of compromise. It can only help in direction and correlation, but may not take you to a predictive mode, except if we talk about external attack surface management. The threat intel feed is going to give you an indicator of compromise and that will help you to be proactive but not predictive.
Whereas the external attack surface management and deep and dark web monitoring will monitor all your public assets. If a hacker is doing something in your public-facing assets, it will give a proactive alert that suspicious activities are happening in those assets. That will help my SOC analysts to be predictive, even before an attack happens. If somebody is trying brute force, that's where the predictive comes into play. The deep and dark web monitoring will help to monitor my brand and my domain. If hackers discuss my critical assets or my domain within a dark web chat, this intel can pick that up. In that case, they can say something predictively and that they are planning for an attack on your assets.
In terms of going with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor's security suite, customers need to be smart. Every smart solution keeps its intelligence within the solution. If the landscape includes email, web, EDR, et cetera, at a bare minimum there are eight different attack surfaces and everyone can have different controls. A SOC analyst will have to manage eight different consoles and have eight unique skill sets with deep knowledge of each product. So although individual solutions bring a lot of things to the table, the customer is not able to use those features 100 percent. We are failing when we go with individual products. An individual product may be more capable, but an organization will not be able to use the product effectively. The silos of intelligence, the number of different consoles, and the right skill sets to apply to each product are problems.
In addition, attacks are evolving and the software is evolving along with them. A product vendor may release some new features but the customer won't have the right skill set internally to understand them and apply them.
But with a single-vendor situation like Microsoft, the SOC analyst has nowhere else to go. It is one XDR platform. All the policies, all the investigation, and everything they need to apply is right in one place. There are also more Microsoft-Certified resources in the market, people who are certified in all the Microsoft products. All of a sudden, my skill set problem is solved and there is no need to look at multiple consoles, and the silos of intelligence are also solved. All three pain points are resolved.
We require a comprehensive, scalable solution for cyber threat protection.
The interface is simple. It was easy to click through and to refer back and assess things.
We can do frequent training sessions so that people or end users are able to get used to the system.
Microsoft Defender is proven to be able to incorporate with this product. We also utilize the Power BI dashboard. We wanted to monitor the logins. It's helpful for threat investigations. We're able to use the session queue report to identify the frameworks having issues.
The workflow is quite smart. Incidents alerts can be generated automatically. It has good automation capabilities and that helps us respond to incidents quickly.
Sentinel provide our customers with a unified set of tools to detect, investigate, and respond to incidents. It's actually a part of Defender. It's unified within the operating platform. This allows for the mobility of the end user.
Our customers use Sentinel to help secure hybrid cloud and multi-cloud environments. We do have a limited amount of space. Out of ten or so clients, five or six have adopted a cloud protection system.
We can use it with Microsoft Athena and we can manage compliance and see logs for analytics. Sentinel can correlate signals from first and third party sources into a single high-confidence incident. Since the process is automated, it makes our response times faster. This saves the team's time.
We do make use of the solution's AI capabilities. The machine learning is very mature. Its machine learning has been very good overall. It's also something that enhances response times and threat analysis.
It's provided us with improved visibility into user and network behavior.
Sentinel has reduced the work involved in the event investigation by quite a lot.
From a client perspective, they'd like to see more cost savings. I'm not sure if Sentinel gives a POC for free.
I've been using the solution for two years.
The solution is very stable. We haven't received any complaints and haven't had outages.
The solution is easily scalable. Of course, we do have to do due diligence with our Oracle system architecture.
We have an SLA that says there will be a receiving engineer that will respond if the system is down. Technical support is great. They might have different tiers of service.
Positive
I did not personally deploy the product. I just work with it.
There is some maintenance. We do have a resident engineer that's certified on troubleshooting.
We have a technical partner that helps with deployment.
The solution is less expensive than an APM option. If the client wants to have a complete solution that covers the whole big organization, a good option will be going with Microsoft Sentinel. For the features it has, the price is justified.
We are an SSI system integrator.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
For those interested in adopting the solution, I'd suggest looking at the costing and billing and ensuring you have the budget and maybe doing a POC for 45 days or two months so that they can really experience the product.
We use it for security. It's at the forefront of managing the security within our organization. We use the platform as our main SIEM for enterprise security whereby we have several tools that feed into Microsoft Sentinel and then from there, we have the use cases. It's a major tool for security monitoring within the enterprise.
Microsoft Sentinel provides the capability to integrate different log sources. On top of having several data connectors in place, you can also do integration with a threat intelligence platform to enhance and enrich the data that's available. You can collect as many logs and build all the use cases.
Microsoft Sentinel helps to prioritize threats across the enterprise. We do threat categorization based on a risk-based approach. We categorize incidents as critical, high, and medium. The platform gives us the capability of categorizing the threats based on our assets' criticality and the type of data on our systems. At the end of the day, it does help in managing the threats within the organization. There are different levels of threats depending on the data that we have.
We also use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. We have integrated Microsoft Defender for Endpoint with Microsoft Sentinel. Most of the alerts that come on our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are fed into Microsoft Sentinel. We manage those alerts through Microsoft Sentinel, but when we are doing our investigations, we always leverage Microsoft Defender for Endpoint because we are able to do the investigation from the original source. Integrating a Microsoft product with other Microsoft products is not as difficult as compared to integrating Microsoft products with other vendor applications. With the inbuilt data connectors that already exist in Microsoft Sentinel, it's much easier to do the integrations with the Azure environment and other Microsoft products. If there's no data connector, it's somehow tricky. If we have a data connector in place, it's better. We also need to do some customization of the data that we ingest because we need to have the right size of the data that we feed into Microsoft Sentinel because of the cost aspect. At the end of the day, we managed to do an integration of on-prem AD with Microsoft Sentinel via a platform that acts as a bridge between them
Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint work together natively. The alerts are fed into Microsoft Sentinel seamlessly, but when it comes to investigations, you need to leverage Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to isolate a device and to see some of the timelines or actions that were done with that machine. You can't do that with Microsoft Sentinel.
Microsoft Sentinel allows us to investigate threats from one place, but it doesn't let us respond from one place. For responding, we need to narrow down the source of the threat. If it has been flagged from a Cisco perimeter solution that we use, such as Cisco Meraki, we need to go back and check in that platform. If it's flagging an issue that's happening on an endpoint, we need to go back to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and do further investigation to respond.
Microsoft Sentinel helps to automate routine tasks. We have playbooks and once we establish a baseline or a routine task that needs to be done, we can just automate it through the playbook.
We have the Sentinel dashboard, but we still need other dashboards for other logs, such as from email. We can't see email logs from Sentinel. We still need a network security monitoring platform. It has helped us to secure 90% of our cloud environment.
With the integrations we have, its threat intelligence helps prepare us for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps. We get visibility into what's happening on the AD on a real-time basis. If there's any issue going on with the AD, we are able to fix that within the minimum time possible. It also helps with the visibility of different resources across the cloud environment. However, it can't do all that by itself. We also need other tools.
It has saved us time. It has helped in handling most of the issues within the cloud environments or any misconfigurations done on the cloud environment. We are able to handle any issues within the shortest time possible. In terms of threat detection, I can give it a nine out of ten. If we didn't have Microsoft Sentinel, it would have taken us three to four days to discover a security incident that is happening or any security misconfiguration in the cloud environment. Within a week, it saves me about three days.
It has saved us money from a security risk perspective, but from a technology perspective, it hasn't saved much. The main value that it's giving to the organization is from a security perspective.
It has saved our time to detect, but that also depends on the original platform. If the original platform, such as Microsoft Defender, fails to detect incidents, then Microsoft Sentinel will definitely not flag anything. The feed that Microsoft Sentinel gets comes from other platforms. With better fine-tuning across the other platforms and with good integrations, it can really help.
Playbooks are valuable. When it comes to automation, it helps in terms of managing the logs. It brings the SOAR capability or the SOAR perspective to the platform with the high usage of Microsoft products within our environment. We are utilizing most of the Azure resources. Our AD runs on Azure. We have on-prem and Azure AD, so we have the integrations. At the end of the day, when we are managing the security, we have the capability of initiating some options from Microsoft Sentinel and directly to AD. We also have automation with Cisco Meraki. We have configured playbooks where if there is a suspicious IP, it blocks the IP.
Microsoft Sentinel needs to be improved on the metrics part. I've had an issue in the recent past while trying to do my metrics from it. It gives me an initial report, but sometimes an incident is created on Microsoft Sentinel, but you realize that when a lot of information is being fed from Microsoft Defender to Microsoft Sentinel, instead of feeding the existing alert, Microsoft Sentinel creates a new alert. So, metrics-wise, it can do better. It can also do better in terms of managing the endpoint notifications.
We do have in-built or out-of-the-box metrics that are shown on the dashboard, but it doesn't give the kind of metrics that we need from our environment whereby we need to check the meantime to detect and meantime to resolve an incident. I have to do it manually. I have to pull all the logs or all the alerts that are fed into Sentinel over a certain period. We do this on a monthly basis, so I go into Microsoft Sentinel and pull all the alerts or incidents we closed over a period of thirty days. I then calculate the meantime to detect and the mean time to resolve. I have to check when all the tickets were created, when they were handled by the analysts, and when they were closed. I do a manual metrics calculation after pulling all the data. I believe Microsoft can do better on the metrics side of Sentinel. They can provide monthly reports. If I want to submit the reports to my senior management, it will be much easier for me to pull the data as a report. Currently, you can't pull any reports from Sentinel. It would be helpful if they can build a reporting tool within it and allow me to have my own customization. I should be able to customize the reports based on my needs. For example, I should be able to generate a report only for incidents with high and medium severity.
It should also provide information on trends within the platform. There should be reports on specific alerts or security incidents.
They should build more analytics rules to assess key security threats. I have had to build a lot of custom analytics rules. There should be more of them out of the box.
There should be more information about how to utilize the notebooks. They can have a better approach to enlightening the end-users about the straightforward use of notebooks. The data point analysis rules and automation are straightforward compared to the way you utilize the notebooks. They can do better in terms of sharing how we can utilize the notebooks.
We are able to ingest data across all our tenants and on-prem solutions, but we have been chasing Microsoft for the longest time possible for ingesting some data from Microsoft Dynamics 365. The kind of logs that we need or the kind of security monitoring that we need to do on Microsoft Dynamics 365 versus what's available through data connector tools is different. The best advice that they have managed to give us is to monitor the database logs, but we can't go into monitoring database logs because that's a different platform. There are several things that we want to address across Microsoft Dynamics 365, but the kind of logs that we get from the data connector are not of any significance. It would be better if they could give us customization for that one. That's the worst application from Microsoft to add because we can't monitor any business processes in that application, and there's no capability to do even customization. We are so frustrated with that.
It's quite comprehensive in threat intelligence capabilities, but it takes some time to establish a baseline. They can also improve the UEBA module so that it can help us address and have an overview of the risk. It's not yet that complete. It can establish a baseline for a user, but it doesn't inform how I can leverage the capability to address risks.
We can also have more integrations within Microsoft Sentinel with TI feeds out of the box. Currently, we don't have something out of the box for other TI feeds. Microsoft has its own TI feed, but we aren't utilizing that.
Microsoft Sentinel should provide more capability to end-users for customization of the logs they feed into Microsoft Sentinel.
It has been two years.
We haven't had any issues with it so far. It's very stable.
It's scalable. There are data connectors for different technologies and products.
I've not contacted their support for Microsoft Sentinel.
I've used QRadar.
We are ingesting on-prem and cloud logs. The initial setup was a bit complex. It wasn't that straightforward because of the integrations.
We had help from a Microsoft partner for visibility and integrations. We had about five engineers involved in its implementation.
In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require any maintenance from our side.
Microsoft Sentinel is costly, but it provides value in terms of managing security or managing the threats within our organization.
The return on investment is in terms of better security, visibility, and management. If you don't know what's going on in the cloud environment or the on-prem environment, you might need to pay a huge price in terms of compliance or ransomware to restore your data. We have seen value in investing in Microsoft Sentinel because we are building a better security capability within our environment.
The current licensing is based on the logs that are being ingested on the platform. Most of the SIEM solutions utilize that pricing model, but Microsoft should give us a customization option for controlling the kind of logs that we feed into Microsoft Sentinel. That will be much better. Otherwise, the pricing is a bit higher.
We evaluated other solutions. The reason why we chose Microsoft Sentinel was because of the cloud visibility. We needed a lot of visibility across the cloud environment, and choosing another product that's not Microsoft native wouldn't have been easy in terms of integrations and shipping logs from Microsoft Sentinel to on-prem.
A good thing about Microsoft Sentinel as compared to the other platform is that most organizations run on Azure, and the integration of Microsoft Sentinel is much easier with other products, but when it comes to other SIEM solutions, integrating them with Microsoft sometimes becomes an issue.
You need to customize the kind of logs that you feed to Microsoft Sentinel. If you just plug-in data connectors and don't do any customization and feed everything to Microsoft Sentinel, it will be very expensive in terms of cost. You only need the traffic that assists you in addressing security issues within your environment. You only need the information that gives you visibility to address security issues.
Overall, I would rate Microsoft Sentinel an eight out of ten.
Our customers primarily use the solution to monitor their infrastructure locally. Some of our customers want to monitor logs to find some abnormal instances, so, they use Microsoft Sentinel to identify threats or identify what is happening in their infrastructure.
Microsoft Sentinel is easy to use compared to some third-party solutions, for example, if we want to get a log using a lot of the third-party solutions it is very difficult because we have to configure it. But in Microsoft Sentinel, if you want to get a log, you just click next, next, next, and see the log. It's straightforward to use the solution. Microsoft Sentinel is on the cloud, so we don't need to maintain a lot of the OS issues we have with other products. Sometimes SIEM has problems that require a lot of maintenance to resolve the OS issues and that takes a lot of time to deal with, but the Microsoft Sentinel benefit is you're on the Cloud. We don't have to spend time dealing with OS issues. We can use that time to focus on critical incidents.
The most valuable features in my experience are the UEBA, LDAP, the threat scheduler, and integration with third-party straight perform like the MISP.
The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning. In my experience in Taiwan, if you want to use Microsoft machine learning for Microsoft Sentinel, the cost is high. The high cost keeps customers from using the feature.
Currently, I think that the customized log can be improved because I check some documents, and Microsoft Sentinel can only customize some file logs. If some logs can be in a database or some user Syslog for all the events in Microsoft Sentinel to be supported. I can't choose to parse the log. I hope Microsoft Sentinel can support more and more different event types for customization. The solution ends up passing a lot of the logs.
I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for 13 months.
The solution is very stable.
The solution is easy to scale.
Technical support uses a ticket system. We just use the portal and I can open a ticket for them, and they will respond back to us. The technical support team is very good they solve a lot of the issues for us, or help us solve a lot of issues, but sometimes the issues can be more complicated and they cannot help us. If I submit a complicated ticket to technical support and they still don't know how to resolve it we are required to use premium support and that option comes with an additional fee. If you have less complicated issues free technical support can resolve the ticket but with more complex tickets you need to use the premium service.
Positive
The initial setup is very easy we just choose where to create, and then next, done, finished. Very easy. The deployment took less than five minutes and only required one person.
The implementation was completed in-house on my own. I just studied Microsoft documents and trained myself. If I still don't know something, I open a ticket to Microsoft to get some help.
The solution is expensive and there is a daily usage fee.
I give the solution an eight out of ten.
I am a third-party user of the solution, but if I were an outside user of Microsoft Sentinel, I really like it because they have a lot of the functions that others don't have. Things like the UEBA and intelligence from Microsoft. Microsoft has already studied a lot of threat intelligence, and they have the capability to help us detect what kind of content will match Microsoft intelligence. I like this and also has a lot of AI machine learning. This will help me to review or, learn easily. I hope this product will help me with a lot of things.
The solution states that it provides good visibility into threats by identifying vulnerabilities. I'm not clear on the vulnerability feature. I am not sure if most customers are familiar with the feature. I believe the feature is used to detect a lot of threats, but what kind of vulnerability? I am still not familiar with the feature.
I think because our enterprise has a lot of different Standard Operating Procedures it depends on the customer, for example, the solution helps detect ransomware, and that helps the organization prioritize dealing with the ransomware situation above other threats.
We have one customer that has implemented Microsoft Security E5. That means they also have Microsoft Defender 365. They use this to detect their infrastructure and their endpoints as well as if they have a SaaS platform they can monitor abnormal behavior.
I have integrated Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender 365, and they are very easy to integrate. They also have a correlate function and they have rules called Fusion. This Fusion function helps us investigate the correlation between the products.
Because my job is to help the customer integrate, I don't know how well the solutions work together to deliver detection and response for our customers. I am not involved once the solutions are deployed.
In Taiwan, we don't have customers that use Microsoft Defender for Cloud but I use it in my lab.
Some of our customers have additional solutions that are not Mircosoft. I have some customers, who have some data from the Microsoft device, from Windows and maybe events, and others that are not Microsoft products. The customers use their own on-premise, third-party products and buy their solutions. Hence, it is difficult to say if Microsoft Sentinel enables us to ingest data from the whole enterprise.
You can investigate the threats and respond from one place using Microsoft Sentinel. We should report correlation too. It's effortless to investigate responses in Microsoft Sentinel.
In Taiwan, we don't believe in automating routine tasks. There are a lot of things we still do manually and are not using the automated function of Microsoft Sentinel except to send mail.
With Microsoft Sentinel, we use one unified dashboard that is very easy.
We don't use the threat intelligence from Microsoft Sentinel because it is not public, so when a threat is detected that matches the Microsoft database threat intelligence, they only send us an alert, but they don't provide the content inside. Instead, we use open-source threat intelligence and integrated it into the solution.
Using Microsoft Sentinel has reduced the time spent per incident from three hours to one and a half to two hours.
The solution has not saved any money because it is still expensive. We have a large customer demand but all the vendors are as expensive as Microsoft Sentinel. I think they are very expensive. The solution has a daily usage charge.
Depending on the rule being used the solution can save us time in detecting incidents or threats. I can say we just use the default, sometimes it's very long and doesn't really take a lot of time. We get the result to tell me, "Oh. You have an incident happen." But I still don't know why Microsoft usually misses the threats. I still don't know why they design it like this, because I have had some instances in my past experience where the rule is if a threat is detected we must immediately alert first. Perhaps the detection module for Microsoft Sentinel is old. It starts to already alert us and that is a default rule. So, I still don't know why Microsoft Sentinel was created like this. I still don't understand. If you use a UEBA, to detect some threats in some abnormal behavior it's very fast, but if you use the scheduler to detect a lot, sometimes it takes a long time.
In my experience, everything is working and the solution doesn't have any bugs.
The solution is only released on the cloud on Azure. You can't deploy the solution on-premise.
Currently, I only deploy in a single environment. I don't have another environment because almost all our customers use a single environment. Perhaps in the future, they will add another cloud that will use Microsoft Sentinel. That is a very long time in the future. In my experience, the solution is used only in a single environment. We have two people in our organization that use the solution and four to five large customers.
Since Microsoft Sentinel is cloud-based it updates automatically and requires no maintenance from our end.
I think I'm more likely to use a single vendor over using a best-of-breed strategy because a single vendor, integrates together all of the things. I don't need to customize. Trend Micro doesn't understand Microsoft products, and Microsoft products, don't know Trend Micro products. If I choose to use a single solution that means they will handle all of those things. I don't need to use or take the time to customize some functions. I don't need to do that. I prefer to use a single vendor.
If a customer is already using a lot of Microsoft solutions I would recommend Microsoft Sentinel because it is very easy to integrate, but if a customer is using multiple different third-party security solutions I would not recommend Microsoft Sentinel because it will take more time to integrate it and check everything.
I support Microsoft Sentinel as a Microsoft partner. We work on various scenarios, such as emails and data connectors. I support licenses by helping them enroll and advising them on the prerequisites they need to meet. I show them how to get started with Microsoft Sentinel.
I'm the technical lead for Microsoft, so I've worked on several Microsoft security products, including Sentinel, Cloud App Security, Defender, Azure Information Protection, and Azure Key Vault. These are now my significant areas. It wasn't easy to integrate Sentinel with other products initially, but we had a smooth experience once the data connectors and everything were in place.
We are from the support team, so we operate in multiple environments depending on the use case. It works smoothly in every environment, including hybrid ones.
I've seen scenarios where the customer's security score was at 60, but we managed to increase it to 80 or 90 based on the recommendations from Sentinel. We use Sentinel to investigate the activity logs and address the issues. The security score increases once we fix those.
The benefit Sentinel provides depends on the organization and how they have recruited engineering staff. If the engineers can maintain two or three products, then it's easy for them, but it hasn't reduced any difficulty from my perspective.
Sentinel saved us time. When this product was introduced, many customers used other SIEM and SOAR technologies separately. Now that we have Sentinel in place, customers only need to learn how to use this product, so it's 50% to 60% more efficient. It's also more cost-effective because you aren't paying separately for those security components. Sentinel is all-inclusive.
Sentinel integrates seamlessly with Azure platform services, making it more reliable and cost-effective. I can't say with certainty because it's outside my department, but my best guess is that Sentinel can reduce costs by about 30% to 40%. I would also estimate that it reduces our response time by roughly that amount.
The bidirectional sync capabilities ingest the data and show us alerts that help us prioritize our policy settings and secure our environment. Once we ingest the IP address, we can monitor the network traffic. It ingests everything from the IP address to the applications we use at the cloud level. Having every event, alert, and output from Log Analytics integrated into one platform is essential. We can ingest everything using the syslogs and data connectors. For example, I'm using Windows Server 2016. It will send the data to the cloud, and Microsoft Sentinel pulls it from there. It removes the sysadmin logs and the other logs, so we can easily see the DDoS attacks and other threats.
It ingests the networking stuff and other things, too. It collects everything the company needs to secure the data from data engineers, Log Analytics engineers, information production engineers, etc. It ingests data from everywhere and stores it in one place. You can pull whatever data you need.
A security product must be integrated with multiple other technologies like SIEM and SOAR to give you the best results and analyze user behavior. Sentinel uses connectors to integrate all Azure products and third-party security tools.
Sentinel provides excellent threat visibility, enabling us to dig deep. It directly connects to Azure Log Analytics, allowing us to do research and pull logs. It uses SOAR intelligence to detect and fix issues using AI and machine learning algorithms.
The ability of all these solutions to work together natively is essential. We have an Azure subscription, including Log Analytics. This feature automatically acts as one of the security baselines and detects recommendations because it also integrates with Defender. We can pull the sysadmin logs from Azure. It's all seamless and native.
Everything shares a common database so that every product can be integrated depending on your enterprise licenses. Microsoft is effortless from a customer's perspective. You get a wide range of features with one license, including threat detection, information protection, infrastructure solutions, and endpoint protection. One or two enterprise licenses cover everything.
Sentinel is an excellent product with multiple dashboards if you want to look at something specific. It also has a centralized dashboard for everything if you want to see the overview of what's essential. I use multiple dashboards because it's easier for us as support team members.
Microsoft Defender has a built-in threat expert option that enables you to contact an expert. That feature isn't available in Sentinel because it's a huge product that integrates all the technologies. I would like Microsoft to add the threat expert option so we can contact them. There are a few other features, like threat assessment that the PG team is working on. I expect them to release this feature in the next quarter.
I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for two-and-a-half years
Sentinel is stable.
I rate Microsoft technical nine out of 10.
Positive
Setting up Microsoft Sentinel is straightforward because it's a cloud platform. You can install it with a few clicks. It isn't like the on-premises solutions we have used in the past, where you need to spend a couple of hours. You can deploy Sentinel with one person in around five minutes if you have all the resources, permissions, and rules.
Like all products, Sentinel requires some maintenance. There are planned and unplanned outages. Depending on when Microsoft releases the updates, it can be challenging, but they usually notify us ahead of time.
Microsoft offers the best value from a customer perspective. With a small amount of money, customers can take advantage of an array of technologies because everything is connected from the Microsoft perspective. The return on investment is massive. You don't need to recruit multiple engineers. One engineer who is familiar with Microsoft products can manage the solution.
I think Sentinel's pricing is reasonable. It's more reliable if it can integrate with other enterprise technologies, so you have to pay for that. We have to consider the size of the organization. We might shift to other security products for a smaller company. Given the reliability of Microsoft support, Sentinel is cost-effective.
Sentinel is one of the best products compared to other SIEM solutions like CyberArk. Microsoft's market share is enormous, and they have surpassed AWS, so more companies are adopting Sentinel. A company can centralize everything with Sentinel, and that's great from a cost perspective.
I rate Microsoft Sentinel nine out of 10. I see a few areas of improvement, but they are already working on implementing these features. If someone asked me whether I would recommend an a la carte approach using the best-in-breed solutions or an all-in-one integrated package from a single vendor, I would say that both approaches have advantages. However, I think it's good to hand everything over to the vendor. A vendor will take the sole responsibility and do the work for you.
I also recommend becoming an expert in Microsoft Sentinel because it has a bright future. You can earn a decent salary once you have hands-on experience with this product. Sentinel is not well known, but I think it will have 60 to 70 percent of the market share.
We're a managed security service provider using Sentinel for its primary SIEM capability. Our company looks after multiple Sentinel instances for a variety of customers. However, we don't do anything through Lighthouse because every customer we monitor wants everything in their own tenant space.
The company ensures suitable detections are created and loaded into the Sentinel side, and we provide them with KQL to help them with some in-house use cases with a security focus. We also made some dashboards so they could visualize their data and what their issues would look like. We adopt different deployment models depending on the customer. It's usually a public cloud or hybrid in some instances.
We work with a few Microsoft products, but it's mostly the Defender for Cloud Suite, including Defender for Endpoint and Defender for Cloud. It's undergone a rebrand from the Cloud Application Security side. We also use Azure Active Directory, Microsoft Cloud Security, and several other Azure and Office 365 applications.
Sentinel made it easier to put everything into one place instead of checking multiple tools, especially when working with Microsoft shops. They focus a lot of the efforts on the Sentinel side, so the data is being correctly pushed across and easily integrated with third-party capabilities. Palo Alto and Cisco feeds can work almost side by side with the native Microsoft feeds seamlessly.
Sentinel helps us automate routine tasks and findings of high-value alerts from a detection perspective. Still, I haven't made much use of the SOAR capabilities with the Logic Apps side of things because of the cost associated with them, especially at volume from an enterprise environment. It was felt that using those features might push some of the usage costs up a bit. We thought it was more of a nice-to-have than something essential for the core services we wanted to leverage. We avoided using that again, but it was more of a cost issue than anything.
Instead of having to look at dashboards from multiple parties, we have one place to go to find all the information we want to know. This consolidation has simplified our security operations.
Usually, it isn't good to have all your eggs in one basket. However, with Azure replicating across the data center, it's better to have all your eggs in one basket to effectively leverage the raw data that would typically be going into multiple other tools. Having everything in one place allows a nice, clear, concise view if you want to see all your network data, which you can do easily with Sentinel.
Some of the UEBA features helped us identify abnormal behaviors and challenge users to ensure it's undertaking particular activities. You can isolate accounts that may have been compromised a bit quicker.
Sentinel reduced implementation time and sped up our response. I can't give a precise figure for how much time we've saved. Onboarding an Azure feed to a third-party SIEM system might take a couple of days or weeks to get the relevant accounts, etc., in place. Onboarding is a matter of minutes with Sentinel if it's a Microsoft feed. Having everything in one place makes our response a little quicker and easier. The KQL can be easily transferred to support the threat-hunting side because all the information is just there.
Our threat visibility also improved. Sentinel changed a lot since I started using it. It's like a whole new product, especially with the tighter integrations on the Defender for Cloud. For customers heavily reliant on Microsoft and Azure, it's much cleaner and more accessible than logging in to multiple tools.
I think some of the two-way integrations started to come through for the Defender for Cloud suite as well, so whenever you closed off notifications and threats, et cetera, that were being flagged up in Sentinel, it replicated that information further back to the source products as well, which I thought was a very nifty feature.
It helps us prioritize threats, especially with the way that the various signatures and alerts are deployed. You can flag priority values, and we leveraged Sentinel's capabilities to dynamically read values coming through from other threat vendors. We could assign similar alerts and incidents being created off the back of that. It was good at enabling that customizability.
The ability to prioritize threats is crucial because every business wants to treat threats differently. One organization might want to prioritize specific threats or signatures more than another customer based on how they've structured and layered their defense. It's useful from that perspective.
The native integration of the Microsoft Security solution has been essential because it helps reduce some false positives, especially with some of the impossible travel rules that may be configured in Microsoft 365. For some organizations, that might be benign because they use VPNs, etc.
Sentinel lets you ingest data from your entire ecosystem. When I started using it, there wasn't a third-party ingestion capability. We could get around that using Logstash. It was straightforward. The integration with the event hub side allowed us to bring in some stuff from other places and export some logs from Sentinel into Azure Data Explorer when we had legal requirements to retain logs longer.
I've used UEBA and the threat intel, which are about what I expect from those sorts of products, especially the threat intel. I like how the UEBA natively links to some Active Directory servers. It's excellent. Integration with the broader Microsoft infrastructure is painless if your account has the correct permissions. It was just ticking a box. It's clear from the connector screen what you need to do to integrate it.
The integration of all these solutions helped because they all feed into the same place. We can customize and monitor some of the alert data from these various products to create other derivative detections. It's like an alert for our alerts.
For example, we could look at a particular user IP or similar entity attribute and set an alert if they've met specific conditions. If there are more than a given number of alerts from different products, we treat that as a higher priority. It's beneficial for that.
Sentinel could improve its ticketing and management. A few customers I have worked with liked to take the data created in Sentinel. You can make some basic efforts around that, but the customers wanted to push it to a third-party system so they could set up a proper ticketing management system, like ServiceNow, Jira, etc.
It would be helpful for incident responders to be able to assign tickets and have permissions assigned to them. Once you have escalated tickets from Level 1 to Level 2, there may be areas where you want to control who has access to the raw Sentinel tool.
I started using Sentinel in July of last year.
Sentinel's stability is great. We only had one outage for a couple of hours, but that was a global Azure issue.
I think I've not had to worry too much about the scaling. It seems to be able to handle whatever has been thrown at it. I assume that's part of the SaaS piece that Sentinel falls under. Microsoft will worry about what's happening behind the scenes and spin up whatever resources are needed to make sure it can do what it needs to do.
I rate Microsoft support a ten out of ten. We had a few issues with certain filters working with some connectors. There were problems with certain bits of data being truncated and potentially lost. I spoke to some people from the Israeli team. They responded quickly and tried to be as helpful as they could.
Support made a solid effort to understand the problem and resolve it. They maintained regular communications and provided reassurance that they were sorting out the problems.
Positive
I used Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Splunk. We switched to Sentinel because of the ease of use and integration. Microsoft infrastructure forms the backbone of our environment. We use Azure for hosting, Active Directory for user accounts, and Office 365 for communications and data storage.
Sentinel made a lot of sense, especially given our difficulties getting our data onboarded into the Elasticsearch stack. We saw similar challenges with Splunk. Sentinel works natively with Microsoft, but we've still had some pain points with some of the data sources and feeds. I think that's just more about how the data has been structured, and I believe some of those issues have been rectified since they've been flagged with Microsoft support.
At the same time, Sentinel is a little more costly than Splunk and the Elasticsearch stack. However, it's easier to manage Sentinel and get it up and running. That's where a cost-benefit analysis comes in. You're paying more because it's easier to integrate with your environment than some of the other providers, but I'd say it is a little on the costly side.
I've spun up my instance of Sentinel for development purposes at home, and it was quick and easy to get through. The documentation was thorough. From the Azure portal, you click Sentinel to ensure all the prerequisites and dependencies are up and running. On the connector side, it's just a matter of onboarding the data. It's straightforward as long as you have the correct permissions in place.
Deployment requires two or three people at most. You probably don't even need that many. Two of the three were just shadowing to get experience, so they could run with their deployments.
It doesn't require much maintenance. Microsoft does a great job of building a SaaS solution. Any problems in the region where Sentinel is hosted are visible on the Azure portal. Once the initial configuration and data sources are deployed, it takes minimal upkeep.
The deployment was done in-house.
It's hard to say whether Sentinel saved us money because you only know the cost of a breach after the fact. We'll probably spend more on Sentinel than other products, but hopefully, we'll see a return by identifying and remediating threats before they've become an actual cost for our clients.
Sentinel has made it a little easier to get the initial Level 1 analysts onboarded because they don't need to know how to use, say, Palo Alto's Panorama. They can focus their efforts on one query language that enables them to go across multiple different vendors, products, and tools. It's quicker for a Level 1 analyst to get up to speed and become useful if they don't need to learn five or six different ways to query various technologies.
Sentinel's pricing is on the higher side, but you can get a discount if you can predict your usage. You have to pay ingestion and storage fees. There are also fees for Logic Apps and particular features. It seems heavily focused on microtransactions, but they may be slightly optional. By contrast, Splunk requires no additional fee for their equivalent of Logic. You have a little more flexibility, but Sentinel's costs add up.
I rate Sentinel an eight out of ten. My only issue is the cost. I would recommend Sentinel, but it depends on what you want to get from your investment. I've seen Sentinel deployed in everything from nonprofits to global enterprises. With multiple vendors, you're more at risk of causing analyst fatigue.
Microsoft has done a great job of integrating everything into one place. The setup and configuration of Azure's general hosting environments reduce the risk. Most services are on the cloud, so Sentinel makes it much quicker and easier to get up and running. You don't need to worry about training and getting multiple certifications to have an effective SOC.
I recommend sticking with Sentinel and putting in as many data sources as you can afford. Put it through its paces based on a defense-in-depth model. Take advantage of all the information Microsoft and others have made available in places like GitHub, where there is a vast repository of valuable detections that can be tweaked depending on your environment.
It makes it a lot easier to get started. Many people approaching security with a blank canvas aren't sure where to go. There are a lot of valuable resources and information available.
