Splunk Enterprise Security Reviews

I went to a cybersecurity boot camp through Penn University, and we went over this topic for a decent amount of time. It was more of a testing environment where they gave us different file formats that we had to go through. We would upload those files to Splunk, and it would give us good examples of what it would look like under different circumstances, such as when an organization is getting hacked, when there is a DDOS attack, and so on.

It is a good way of seeing the network traffic as a whole. With network traffic, there are a lot of things going on, especially in a big organization. It organizes the information and makes it more usable for average people. If you use Wireshark, you'll get a ton of information, and it is super easy to get lost in it. Even if you put Wireshark on for about 30 minutes, you can very easily get lost. Splunk simplifies the information, and it gives you charts and different means of seeing that information, making it easily understandable for people.

From my experience, the visual aid that it provides is most valuable. There are charts and other means to provide information.

Its user interface for everything other than the charts can be improved. Some parts of it can be simplified a bit, such as when importing documents that have the network traffic. When you're going through the information about the network traffic, you have to have the expertise, but even if a program is supposed to be for IT support, it is good to make it user-friendly because it gets easier to train people. When something goes wrong, the more difficult a program is in terms of UI, the harder it is to fix the issue.

I've been using this solution for a little while. 

In terms of stability, I really liked it. I didn't see any issues as far as stability was concerned. Whenever I needed it, it was there. It was available, and it worked. It was pretty good.

Its scalability seems pretty good. If you are working with a lot of information, it would be usable.

Its users would depend on the organization. Mostly network engineers, network analysts, and SOC analysts would be dealing with this. 

There were instructors who knew how to fix a lot of the issues. If there was an overarching issue, they would deal with it.

At the boot camp, we also used Kibana, which looked a little bit more friendly, but when we got into the details, I liked Splunk a little bit more. It was more intuitive, and it did a little bit more on its own rather than Kibana. With Kibana, it felt like I had to hold its hand all the way through the whole process. There were 20 people, and I know a number of people were leaning towards Kibana. It just came down to personal preference.

We saw some of the basics for deploying it within an environment, but it was very minimal. 

It isn't complex, but there is a little bit of a learning curve. Once you get the hang of it, it is very easy to get in and do things, but there is definitely a learning curve. I am not speaking just for myself; other 20 or more students that were in that class at the time also had a difficult time getting the hang of it, but once you get the hang of it, it is smooth sailing. You can fly through the program. Making it a little bit more simplified would help.

I remember Splunk being relatively affordable. Kibana was more reasonable, but you get more with Splunk. If I was suggesting something, I would probably suggest Splunk because it is better to pay a little bit more and get a lot more.

I would advise making sure that your staff is very aware of how the program works. After one or two classes, I got the hang of it, and it felt like I knew everything that was there to know about it, but when we went into the next class, I realized that there is a lot more. So, if you are going to use the program, I would advise making sure that everyone is trained and everyone really understands it. You should take your time to go into the nitty-gritty. You can very easily think that you know everything, but when you make mistakes in Splunk, at least from my experience, it can get messy quickly. So, you want to make sure that everyone has a very good understanding of what they're doing so that you can keep everything organized and accurate.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. When we're getting into the nuts and bolts and looking at the data, it is an eight, but when we are just navigating through the website, it is a seven. Only its UI needs improvement. It isn't bad, but there is room for improvement. They should make it a little bit more user-friendly.

We are using it for information assurance, system alerting, and compliance. We are using its latest version.

It integrates into our VMware environment and provides infrastructure alerting and monitoring.

The ability to ingest different log types from many different products in our environment is most valuable.

It seems to have everything in terms of features. Every time I think of something, I go out to their site, and I can pretty much find it.

The biggest problem is data compression. Splunk is an outstanding product, but it is a resource hog. There should be better data compression for being able to maintain our data repositories. We end up having to buy lots of additional storage just to house our Splunk data. This is my only complaint about it.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is excellent in terms of performance and reliability.

Its scalability is excellent. Its users are mostly on the backside. I know there are a lot of opportunities to allow developers and engineers to access Splunk for doing different things, but we use it purely for information assurance and system monitoring. So, our engineers and IA professionals are the only ones who access Splunk. We have a couple of them, but it supports thousands of users.

We started with Splunk Light, and now, we're using Splunk Enterprise across most of our projects. It is being used extensively. It is our primary SIEM product. I'm sure its usage will increase, but that's managed at a much higher level. The company has an agreement with Splunk on how our licensing model is established.

Their support is great. I've talked to them many times.

We used InTrust. We switched to Splunk because of its flexibility and capability.

Its initial configuration is pretty straightforward. Their repository for information and help is really good, which makes it pretty straightforward. You can just go out to their site and do a search for any question. Usually, someone else would have experienced the same issue.

It took us hours. We obviously expanded it as we were building the environment because we did it from scratch, but it only took hours to get it up and running and configured to do ingestion. We then deployed more forwarders and tweaked it as we went along.

It was implemented in-house. Its maintenance is pretty lightweight, and I take care of it. I have a couple of other team members to help make changes. We have engineers who are available for adding capacity. We have a team of six or seven people to support our Splunk Enterprise.

It is expensive. I used to buy it early on, but then they combined it into a higher-up organization. They buy it for multiple systems now. Last time, I paid around 60K for it.

There is just the licensing fee. That's all.

I would advise making sure that you incorporate enough storage and processing in order to properly support the environment.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. It is definitely the best tool I've ever used, but nothing is perfect. They could do a little bit better on data compression and system resource management, but outside of that, it is an excellent product.

Our initial use case was for security investigation, with the intention of creating some use cases. We ended up adding operational aspects, monitoring certain operational activities, such as high CPU utilization or any other applicational basis. 

This is obviously a cloud solution, but it does have some presence on-premises as well, so it's hybrid. 

One of the most valuable features is threat hunting. We can do threat hunting and identify if there is any malicious activity happening within our environment, which is a key feature for us. 

Splunk could be improved by reducing the cost. The cost is one of the biggest challenges for us in keeping to our production requirements. 

As for additional features, I think they need to refine their AI capability. I know that everyone is talking about artificial intelligence and threat hunting, so I guess one of the key requirements for us is for the solution to automatically provide us some kind of indication and then mitigate any risk. So automation should be a feature. 

I have been using Splunk for two years. 

This solution is excellent from a performance and stability perspective. There's very minimal maintenance required. Basically the only aspect we need to maintain is the one we have on-prem. So patching up everything and making sure it has the required updates. 

There are no issues at all in terms of scalability, since this is a cloud-based solution. There are around 25 to 30 users in my company accessing Splunk. 

Splunk's support is good. The process was smooth and they provided sufficient support, so there was no need to escalate anything. Also, they provide training on a regular basis, which is good. 

I have never worked with other similar products. I've worked for three companies, all of which use Splunk. 

The initial setup was very smooth. I think we got some support from the Splunk team. Since it's a cloud-based solution, it took us probably three or four weeks to actually start working. But deploying agents, configuration, refining, fine tuning, and other ongoing activities went on for about a month. 

We implemented through an in-house team with some support from the Splunk team. It was a very smooth process, from our perspective. 

This solution is costly. Splunk is obviously a great product, but you should only choose this product if you need all the features provided. Otherwise, if you don't need all the features to meet your requirements, there are probably other products that will be more cost-effective. It's cost versus the functionality requirement. 

I also evaluated IBM QRadar and LogRhythm NextGen SIEM. 

I work in security architectures, not operations, so I don't actually work with Splunk on a regular basis, but the team that does is working on threat hunting and incident management. 

I rate Splunk an eight out of ten. 

We are currently using it with SIEM, and SOAR which is Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response.

Splunk is primarily used for security, incident response, and security analytics.

Using Splunk, give us the visualization we need, we can easily observe things such as user behavior analytics, irregular traffic, frequency, and any spikes in unusual activity inside the network.

The additional vendors we've brought on board, particularly the Elastic, have been quite beneficial.

It's a solid platform.

Other than the pricing modules, I have no issues with the product itself.

The configuration had a bit of a learning curve.

I would like to learn more about the Cloud solution, but I'm aware that it's lacking some core applications.

If they could bring on more vendors, you would be able to monitor a larger number of applications. We could have visualization with other applications we have with the infrastructure in our organization.

I did a POC, but we have recently procured it. We did a rudimentary setup to get an understanding of how it works. We are into our sixth month of using it now.

Splunk is a very stable solution.

This solution is quite scalable.

In our organization, we have 10 users, who use this solution but we have plans to increase our usage.

The technical support has been quite helpful.

The previous solution was limited in its functionality. 

We were looking at the additional controls that enterprise security may have, as well as visualization, to gain greater visibility.

Splunk offered us more visibility.

The initial setup was complex.

We had some assistance with the actual deployment, but while I was doing the POC, I was working with a vendor. There were things I had to do myself, such as the configuration, which was a bit challenging for me, it was a big learning curve.

For the installation, we received some assistance from the vendor.

It's too early to know if there will be a return on investment.

The pricing modules could be improved.

The licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

There is a standard license with provisions for more. As we are still exploring the functionality, there may be other departments that want to use it.

Those who are interested in implementing this solution should be prepared to dig deep into their pockets.

I would rate Splunk a nine out of ten.

I have some experience with the solution, since I am working with customers who are interested in part time help monitoring their network and have been helping them fine-tune the rules in the solution's platform. The way the primary task works is to watch for and then respond to the threat. Should there be a need, I usually work with a team in fine-tuning the rules on this platform. We are providing the products.

I recently started working primarily on the Playbooks of the Splunk Phantom, so I've been creating some of these to help the customer automate the process of responding to the threats.

What is nice about the solution is that it makes it easy to build the queries, search for the events and then do analysis. I recently have become involved in the Playbooks, since it is painful for the client to respond to the threat, be it positive or negative. As such, I currently see the Phantom component of the solution to be of great value. Otherwise, most other features seem to be similar to Netwitness, such as the monitor log, network, and endpoint capabilities. Importantly, the solution lacks endpoint options, as these are currently deployed on Cisco, which is okay, as it works fine with that bad side of the endpoint security. This translates into them building queries, rules and then Playbooks. 

The main advantage of the solution is that it provides an easy setup platform in the new environment. When set up afresh, it is also easy to build queries. Historical queries can be used to site for a new event, which makes it easy to use, deploy and understand.

Endpoint access is the only issue I can think to mention, even though the endpoint access we have with Cisco is fine. 

I have been engaged in the production environment of Splunk for around a year and have been reading up on it for a long time.

I would rate Splunk as one of the big five platforms. I would give it a high rating based on the efficiency of the platform. 

Splunk allows one to easily scale up this platform. One can add more interfaces to that platform if he gets more data. 

I usually rely on the Splunk community for information, such as discussions of incidents and other issues which others are facing. I feel the Splunk community to be an excellent source of information for me.

Out of the three platforms I have been dealing with, I feel the initial setup of Splunk to be the easiest. I found it a bit difficult to set up a new environment with RSA Netwitness. Splunk, on the other hand, I have found to be very straightforward and an uncomplex platform. 

I have been proposing to management to take the solution to be a primary product in our dealings with it. We do not encounter many issues involving the solution. One of the problems I have with the RSA Netwitness platform is its complexity. Splunk is straightforward for us when it comes to views and it provides us the network security posture.

The ability for the solution to work with Cisco shows that the solution can work with other products. The only thing is that when the solution is compared with other vendors, one sees that there is only a single other vendor that has endpoint security like this one, Netwitness platform having its component for the endpoint. This is why an integrated endpoint would be a nice feature, even though the solution works on Cisco. 

The main advantage of the solution is that it provides an easy setup platform in the new environment. When set up afresh, it is also easy to build queries. Historical queries can be used to site for a new event, which makes it easy to use, deploy and understand. 

When it comes to a data platform, there is RSA NetWitness, which may also be a good platform. I have not done much training of my own on Splunk, but have gained much experience through learning and working with clients that I support. This is because the platform is understandable. 

I would rate Splunk as one of the big five platforms. I would give it a high rating based on the efficiency of the platform. Clearly, I cannot include Wazuh in the top five categories, as its rating is not up there with Splunk, Qradar and LogRythm.

I cannot think of anything disadvantageous about Splunk, as we are talking about a product that I like. I feel the solution has beautiful features. 

The decision to go with Splunk would depend on the business needs of the individual. I know that Splunk has both a cloud and an on-premises option. Sometimes, such as when it comes to conferences, there is no need to move some of the data to the cloud for the purpose of complying with regional requirements. There may be a need to retain some of it and a person might wish for a mixture of on-cloud and on-premises capabilities.

I rate Splunk as an eight out of ten. It is a robust platform and easy to use. 

We typically use it for centralized log management and SIEM functionality.

I am using the most recent version of it.

As per government requirements, a lot of government sites have to have the active monitoring of logs. So, we use their security appliance add-on that essentially combs through the log. It pre-filters and brings out the critical events so that you can focus on those instead of having to create your own searches and whatnot. It helps simplify the process of monitoring security events in the logs for people.

The flexibility of the search capability is most valuable. You can use it for more than just a basic log aggregator. It is powerful in that regard.

It is a good product, but the Achilles heel for a lot of organizations is the cost model for it because it gets expensive. That's because the model is based on how much data it processes a day, which can be prohibitive, especially if you have a lot of data. A lot of customers may not be ready for the sticker shock on how to fully leverage the product. I realized that the reason for that is that when it was originally designed, it was kind of like a big data modeling application. If they want to have a bigger customer base, they can come out with subsets of their product that are focused on specific things and have different pricing models. It may help with the cost.

To actively use the interface, you have to be able to speak their language. You really need to have Splunk training to use the tool. Integrations are not that bad, but once you get into that developer mindset and you understand the programming query language, then you're pretty flexible in making it work with other products. It could be daunting if you don't have the training. It is akin to being thrown and asked to go write a Python script when you don't know any of the Python language or PowerShell. If you don't know how to form the queries, the words, or the syntax, it can be a hurdle if you're looking everything up.

I have been using Splunk for about seven years.

It has been very stable. It is pretty rock solid.

It is as scalable as you can afford. We have a pretty small user base of 75 users, and it is mostly data center administration staff, application administrators, and security people. It is more of an in-house solution than a customer-facing solution.

Our usage is moderate. We're okay right now. We primarily use it as a SIEM and log aggregator. We could use it for other things, but the cost is what is preventing us from that at this point.

We've had a few calls, and they're very responsive.

We were using an assist log backend with Rsync and Kiwi prior to that. It was more of a co-solution than a cobbled-together solution. Splunk was a big improvement. The main reason for going for it was just the rate at which we were growing. We needed to have something that was more scalable than what we had before.

It was pretty straightforward as compared to most applications. It had the ability to auto-deploy agents to end devices. Splunk infrastructure itself wasn't difficult to deploy or set up. They package that process, and it is pretty well-rounded. They even offer a jumpstart install service to help get it off the ground when you buy in, and those components work really well together.

It was all done within a day. Some of the endpoints took a little bit longer, but the basic install was done in the day.

We used packaged professional services from a partner of Splunk. Our experience with them was very good.

In terms of maintenance, it is pretty simple. There are fewer patches than there would be for supporting a Windows device. There is not much labor to maintain it.

It can be cost-prohibitive when you start to scale and have terabytes of data. Its cost model is based on how much data it processes a day. If they're able to create scaled-down niche or custom package offerings, it may help with the cost. Instead of the full-blown features, if they can narrow the scope where it can only be used for a specific purpose, it would kind of create that market for the product, and it may help with the costing. When you start using it as a central aggregator and you're pumping tons of logs at it, pretty soon, you'll start hitting your cap on what it can process a day. Once you've got that, you're kind of defeating the purpose because you're going to have to scale back.

They're kind of pushing everybody away from perpetual licensing into subscription-based models, which a lot of companies are doing too, but in most environments that I've been in, they prefer to go the perpetual license and then just pay maintenance on top of it. That's because it's easier for them to forecast the big expense up front.

I would advise definitely taking advantage of their professional services and making sure that the administrators and whoever is going to be using the tool go through the training. The cost for the training, which depends on if you're commercial or government, is not that much, and there is a definite value there because if you're trying to learn it on your own with a book, it is going to take forever.

I would rate Splunk a seven out of 10. 

It's the mainstay of our monitoring solutions that we have for auto-logging, et cetera, for our enterprise solution.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ability to capture the different data streams. We also appreciate the reporting in that aspect of Splunk. If we can grow now, with any security arena, it's going to be proactive, not reactive. It allows us to digest the information, the data, the different data streams, so we can make decisions based upon information that we receive, and it is pretty robust.

The configuration could be better.

We would like to see improved pricing, however, I'm kind of out of that arena. I make suggestions based upon the flexibility with which we serve our customer base, which is millions of our veterans. I would say that if someone was not familiar with it, one of the things that I've heard is that it's kind of hard for them to understand the whole thing. Splunk is just one piece to the puzzle. It's not the whole puzzle. It's kind of not the solution's fault, in that sense. That said, if it could be more accessible to people with different skillsets, that would be ideal.

We'd like to see reporting where there's a way that we can get a higher description without being too technical, for example, where it's kind of more of an executive-level of technical.

I've personally been using the solution for over ten years. At this point, it's been more than a decade. I've used it for a while now. 

We're partners and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Splunk.

We use the latest version. I'm not hands-on. I'm called the architect, however, we do use the latest version as that's a part of our configuration management framework, that all of our applications - especially in security - are up-to-date with the latest and greatest updates, bells, and whistles. We use both public and private clouds.

In terms of creating the solution, for what we do from an enterprise standpoint, everything from monitoring to data capture to reporting, we would rate it at a nine out of ten.

As there is no SIEM solution here at present, we are building it up through the assistance of a vendor. In the past I worked in the Splunk Cloud, which was seven-point something. With QRadar I worked on version 7.3. 

We use Splunk Cloud as a SIEM solution and to monitor traffic and the network for detection purposes. We can create use cases so that if the solution picks up on anything entering our organization, the malicious IP can be blocked. 

In respect of ones which are suspicious, based on the logs we pull from the data source, we can build the use cases accordingly and have our analysts work on these. 

In the several years I have worked with the solution, I have felt there to be a need for practice of queries and understanding. As with other areas needing practice, the more one learns and practices, the easier things become. 

While this is not terribly difficult, it is so when compared with QRadar. This holds true when we don't know the queries at all. Other than this, it is a great tool. 

The solution should also have more advanced capabilities in comparison with QRadar, which offers Watson. The product should have add-ons. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

The solution is easy to scale, to add on and to integrate with other solutions. I am familiar with app integrations. Many solutions can be integrated with Splunk Cloud, such as CrowdStrike or Symantec. 

The solution's response time is not that fast. The experience of some of my peers is that the vendors have actively offered help. By contrast, when I tried Splunk Cloud's technical support I did not receive a response. 

We have not yet undertaken deployment. For the moment, we are on the EPS and discussing the proposed structure with the vendors. Our team is conducting talks with the vendors of QRadar. 

We are exploring multiple avenues in search of a one-SIEM solution. 

I am not in a position to comment on the pricing. 

By comparison, I feel QRadar to be better than Splunk Cloud, since it comes with Watson. 

Another advantage is that QRadar works like a threat intelligence tool. It, also, does not require queries, which Splunk Cloud does. It is important that we have an understanding of the queries for the purpose of pulling the logs which we seek. I feel QRadar to be better than Splunk Cloud, as it does not require us to work on the queries. 

I have worked on Splunk Cloud in the past, as well as on QRadar. As there is no SIEM solution in my current organization, we have plans to build it up. This is an ongoing process. I have suggested QRadar to my team and others are considering Sentinel. 

The solution is deployed on-cloud. 

I would recommend the solution to others since there are a couple of companies with many clients that are looking for Splunk Cloud, with which they are familiar. We must consider client demands when it comes to attracting projects. 

Even in India, most of the companies employ Splunk Cloud as the most prevalently used SIEM solution. Then comes QRadar, which is easier. So too, Splunk is less cost-effective than QRadar, although it is more in demand. There are a couple of companies with call centers that request Splunk Cloud. 

I rate Splunk Cloud as a seven out of ten.