"It has helped us to organize our security. We get a better overview on what is happening on the network, which has helped us get quicker responses to users. If we see malicious activity, then we can quickly take action on it. Previously, we weren't getting an overview as fast as we are now, so we can now provide a quicker response."
"The most valuable feature for Cognito Detect, the main solution, is that external IDS's create a lot of alerts. When I say a lot of alerts I really mean a lot of alerts. Vectra, on the other hand, contextualizes everything, reducing the number of alerts and pinpointing only the things of interest. This is a key feature for me. Because of this, a non-trained analyst can use it almost right away."
"The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day."
"One of the most valuable features is all the correlation that it does using AI and machine learning. An example would be alerting on a host and then alerting on other things, like abnormal behavior, that it has noticed coming from the same host. It's valuable because we're a very lean team."
"The solution provide visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It makes our security operations much more effective because we are now looking not just at traffic on the border, but we're looking at east-west internal traffic. Now, not only will we see if an exploit kit is being downloaded, but we would be able to see then if that exploit kit was then laterally distributed into our environment."
"The key feature for me for Detect for Office 365 is that it can also concentrate all the information and detection at one point, the same as the network solution does. This is the key feature for me because, while accessing data from Office 365 is possible using Microsoft interfaces, they are not really user-friendly and are quite confusing to use. But Detect for Office 365 is aggregating all the info, and it's only the interesting stuff."
"It has reduced the time it takes to respond to attacks. That comes back to the proactive point. It makes us able to lower down in the kill chain, we can react now, rather than reacting to incidents that happened, we can see an instant, in some cases, as it's being implemented, or as it's being launched."
"It does a reliable job of parsing out the logs of all the network traffic so that we can ingest them into our SIEM and utilize them for threat hunting and case investigations. It is pretty robust and reliable. The administration time that we spend maintaining it or troubleshooting it is very low. So, the labor hour overhead is probably our largest benefit from it. We spend 99% of our time in Vectra investigating cases, responding to incidents, or hunting, and only around 1% of our time is spent patching, troubleshooting, or doing anything else. That's our largest benefit from Vectra."
"It's easy to set up. The deployment takes one or two days. You need to collect the data from a device and then direct it to the portal."
"Overall, the implementation is very good."
"From what I understand, you can encrypt and unencrypt traffic moving in transit. This is one of the features that we liked about it."
"Great network monitoring, looking at anomaly detection and evaluation."
"We find that Stealthwatch can detect the unseen."
"It has definitely helped us improve our mean time to resolution on network issues."
"All of the features are great."
"The reporting on the solution is good."
"The most valuable feature for us is the support for testing Linux-based web server components."
"Rapid7 Metasploit is a useful product."
"The solution is open source and has many small targetted penetration tests that have been written by many people that are useful. You can choose different subjects for the test, such as Oracle databases or Apache servers."
"I'd like to be able to get granular reports and to be able to output them into formats that are customizable and more useful. The reporting GUI is lacking."
"The false positives and the tuning side of it is something that could use improvement. But that could be from our side."
"Some of the customization could be improved. Everything is provided for you as an easy solution to use, but working with it and doing specific development could be worked on a bit more in the scope of an incident response team."
"If you hit a certain number of rules, triage filters, or groups, the UX responds more slowly. However, we have a complex network and a lot of rules. So, our setup might not be a typical implementation example. We even had UX engineers onsite, and they looked at issues, improvements, and user feedback. Since then, it has gotten a lot better, they even built in features that we specifically requested for our company."
"I would like more integrations with IOCs and threats currently on the Internet. I would also like to know which threats are based on zero-day attacks, current botnets, etc. Therefore, I would like more information on external threats."
"I would like to see a bit more strategic metrics instead of technical data. Information that I could show to my executive management team or board would be valuable."
"I would like to see data processed onshore. Right now, the cloud components, like Office 365, must be processed on servers outside of Australia. I would like to see a future adoption of onshore processing."
"They use a proprietary logging format that is probably 90% similar to Bro Logs. Their biggest area of improvement is finishing out the remaining 10%. That 10% might not be beneficial to their ML engine, but that's fine. The industry standard is Zeek Logs or Bro Logs, or Bro or Zeek, depending on how old you are. While they have 90% of those fields, they're still missing some fields. In very rare instances, some community rules do not have the fields that they need, and we had to modify community rules for our logs. So, their biggest area of improvement would be to just finish their matching of the Zeek standard."
"The visualization could be improved, the GUI is not the best."
"We determined that Stealthwatch wouldn't provide the machine learning model that we required."
"It's a good solid solution but integration with Network Access Control products with Cisco ISE would be good."
"Many of these tools require extensive on-premises hardware to run."
"We would like the solution to make more advances in the way that Extreme Networks has been doing."
"Cisco could improve the administration for the customers."
"The solution should improve the responsiveness of its live technical support."
"Rapid7 Metasploit can add a GUI feature because it is only available online."
"The solution is not very scalable, it does not provide any automation to be able to scale it."
"Better automation capabilities would be an improvement."
"At the time I was using it, the graphical user interface needed some improvements."
Cisco Stealthwatch is ranked 4th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 6 reviews while Rapid7 Metasploit is ranked 10th in Vulnerability Management with 5 reviews. Cisco Stealthwatch is rated 8.4, while Rapid7 Metasploit is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Stealthwatch writes "Provides valuable security knowledge and helps us improve network performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 Metasploit writes "Straightforward to set up, and helpful for moving from development to production". Cisco Stealthwatch is most compared with Darktrace, SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, ThousandEyes and Cisco Stealthwatch Cloud, whereas Rapid7 Metasploit is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM, Wireshark, Darktrace and IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment.
We monitor all Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
