Elastic Security Reviews

We are using the solution for log management. We use it for monitoring and observing. 

Its search engine is great, and it is really quick. In the beginning, we wanted to search through terabytes of log data, and after that, we decided to search using the solution.

The initial setup is very easy.

It can scale well. 

It's very stable and reliable. 

We use it as an open-source product and do not have to pay for licensing. 

There is a lot of good documentation online if you need to troubleshoot. Everything is clear and easy to follow. 

The solution wasn't designed for monitoring at first. It was for search and stack logs and for working with solutions like Kibana. Therefore, they are a bit weak when compared to traditional monitoring tools. 

They should work to improve their integration and graphical interfaces. Their visuals and graphs need to be better. They need better charts. These already exist in Kibana and should be in this solution as well. 

I've been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. it is reliable, and the performance is good. It'd rate the general stability ten out of ten. 

We can easily scale up, according to our needs. It's easy to expand. 

I'd rate the overall ability to scale up eight out of ten. 

They do not have technical support. They have community support and documentation to help with troubleshooting. We've been happy with the amount of detail we can find online if we need assistance. 

I have not used any other products that are the same. I only use Micro Focus Ops Bridge and SiteScope, which are traditional monitoring tools, so I can't categorize them. They are slow yet they can handle big networks. 

The solution is straightforward to set up. They have documentation on their site that shows how to do everything step by step. Everything is very clear and easy to understand. I'd rate the overall ease of implementation nine out of ten. 

The deployment is fast and only takes hours, not days. 

One person helped me deploy the solution. However, we did not need outside assistance. We did it ourselves. 

The solution is open-source and, therefore, free to use. 

I'm a partner. 

I'd advise others to take advantage of the documentation of the solution in order to get the most out of the product.

In general, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Basically, we are using this product for monitoring and for developing the processes for our company.

I like that there is a knowledge base. There's the possibility for technical people to develop this product and to know much more. However, they do not need additional certifications from the vendor side or to pay a lot of money for their courses and certifications. We don't need to rely on vendors. We can handle the product ourselves. 

It's open-source and free to use.

The solution isn't really recognized in the market. They need to do a better job when they are marketing the solution. We'd like customers to have more visibility of it, and we'd like them to see how secure and highly effective it is. There needs to be more brand awareness. 

We have faced some obstacles when handling the implementation process. 

There are no templates available when integrating with other products. We sometimes need to find some workarounds. 

We'd like to see some more artificial intelligence capabilities.

I've been using the solution for four and a half years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. We found the product to be very usable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. Integration with other products may be a bit difficult, yet it is doable. 

If we need assistance, we tend to use the community. There is always somebody in the world who can help us if we have a question. There are many people that can provide good tips and useful advice. Typically, many people have faced the same problems and they can help us solve things. 

I'm also aware of Curator. 

Compared to Curator, customer awareness isn't as strong. From the price perspective, this product is better, however, many customers don't want to change their own CM and their products if they already have something in place.

The initial setup wasn't overly complex or difficult. That said, it wasn't simple either. It's somewhat moderate in terms of implementation.

I'd rate the solution three out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

This is an open-source solution. It is free to use. 

For new customers, this is a perfect choice. For older customers, it's very difficult to change solutions.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We really like that it integrates into the overall ELK Stack, and we're using that as our theme. We were looking for a product compatible with that. We like the detailed investigation features of the platform as you're able to get a lot of detail as to what's going on on the host when you do investigations. We like the quarantine feature.

We chose the product based on the ability to scan for malware using a malware behavioral model as opposed to just a traditional hash-based antivirus. Therefore, it's not as intensive. We have a lot of satellite communications, and it's not as intensive since we don't require updates to calm down on a regular basis for updated DAT files for hashes on a regular basis. We only have to update quarterly against the new malware model. It's also a lot less impactful from a performance perspective on a machine.

It's a pretty solid product. It's pretty easy to use as it's not a full endpoint protection suite. We're actually dependent on using Windows Defender for a firewall and traditional antivirus when it's required. It could use maybe a little more on the Linux side. Now that the product line is getting picked up by Elastic, they're going to continue to build out and make the Linux feature set more robust. However, I would say that right now the Linux feature set is a little limited.

I've been using the solution for about a year.

Stability is very good. It's a very stable product. We haven't had any issues with stability at all.

For what we use it for, scalability has been great. Our environments tend to be smaller. We're only talking about 200 to 1,000 systems. Therefore, I don't know that I could speak to a real large scale since that's not our implementation level.

We are kind of in an interesting use case as we're not actually using it on a day-to-day basis. We are a production house, and we shift suites out to customers to use. As far as what the user feedback is on a regular basis, we don't really see a ton of that unless we kind of go out and hunt for it.

We're using the Microsoft Defender product. It's just what's embedded inside of the operating system. It's not the full Defender for Endpoint. It's just Windows and antivirus.

The Endgame itself is extremely straightforward to set up and you just filled out the ISO and you follow a couple of wizards you're done. It's very easy. I would say the ELK Stack is a little more complicated, however, that's due to the way we implement PKI in our environment. The product in itself is fairly straightforward to implement. It's our choice of certificate implementation that's making it a little more complicated.

We targeted it to be able to be maintained by one person. In a lot of cases, our scenario is that we only have one person available to maintain the product. It's very easy to maintain. There's not a ton going on. In a scene, you always have to have somebody watching the log of traffic if you want it to be effective. However, outside of that, there's no extreme maintenance associated with the product.

I do not know approximately how much it costs per month or per year. I'm not the one who makes the purchases.

We are just customers. 

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use it as a SIEM for monitoring a client's environment.

One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it is more flexible than AlienVault. 

It is difficult to anticipate and understand the space utilization, so more clarity there would be great.

My company has been using this solution for two years.

It is a very stable solution.

The solution is very scalable.

The technical support is adequate.

Neutral

We currently use AlienVault for some clients and Elastic Security for others. We chose Elastic Security because we felt it was the most flexible, cost-effective solution to provide the results needed.

In certain respects, the setup of this solution is more straightforward than other solutions, but in other respects, it's more complex because it needs more fine-tuning than Splunk or AlienVault.

We implemented through an in-house team and it took about two months.

The licensing cost depends on the size of the environment it's monitoring. Everything is based on volume, as with all SIEMs. When compared to other products, the price is average or on the low side.

We evaluated several options, including Monster SIEM, Splunk, and Wazuh.

There's a lot of fine-tuning involved with this solution. When you go to a diner, and the menu has everything on it, and you can't figure out which part to look at first, it's a double-edged sword. You can do everything with this solution, which means you have to figure out which part of "everything" makes sense for your company to do.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. It's a good value for money and a  reliable solution, but it's heavily reliant on appropriate configuration.

I worked for a telco client for the security model of Elastic, but my role was unit manager. I don't have a lot of technical expertise, but I decided on the solution for a client, and I was responsible for the delivery.

I worked with the security of the mobile app. I see all the logs in Elastic for SIEM. I monitored the logging and some logs from the machine for a UNIX system with some use cases like the machine's file system.

This solution is deployed on-premise.

We provide this solution to our customers, which are telcos, in the finance industry, and in retail.

I think that it's a good solution for a SIEM.

Elastic doesn't have the features like other competitors in SIEM. For example, Dynatrace as a solution for SIEM has features that Elastic actually don't have.

With Elastic, you have to build the use cases for the specific requirement. Other products have a simple integration and more use cases to integrate out-of-the-box solutions for SIEM. That's the improvement I would like to see.

The product is stable.

Other products like Splunk are better than Elastic for a SIEM because there are some use cases already available for a client. Elastic doesn't have this, so the user must build the SIEM solution. I think that Elastic has to increase the features for the SIEM.

It's not very complicated to install Elastic, but I didn't deploy it.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

It's a good solution and I would recommend it, but there are other products that have more features that Elastic doesn't have.

We do not use monitoring due to the fact that we use Prometheus for monitoring. We don't use APM and so on. We use ELK only for logging.

The solution has very good logging functionality. 

The aggregation capability is quite useful. 

The solution is quite stable. The performance has been good.

The solution scales well.

The solution has gotten easier to deploy since the 2019 version.

Using ELK the first time there was a lack of security. We had to buy the paid version due to the fact that we needed to secure access to Kubernetes.

The problem with ELK is it's difficult to administer. When you have a problem, it can be very, very difficult to rebuild indexes. In fact, you have to monitor the stack and it's very, very difficult. Sometimes we lose indexes or we have nothing on the dashboard.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. It hasn't been an extremely long amount of time.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so pretty easily.

We use the solution for quite a small team. Ten people work on it.

Due to the fact that we have a paid version of the product, technical support has been fine. We've been satisfied with the level of service provided to us. They are quite helpful and responsive.

Previously, we were on Datadog, Kubernetes Logs. It was not very easy to debug incidents and so on. If I had to compare, I'd say that Datadog is very easy to implement and it's such a fast solution.

The first time, it was very hard to deploy on Kubernetes. However, as we reached version seven, they are now an operator. Now it's very easy to deploy. We no longer have any issues.

The solution is a bit expensive. I don't know the pricing of Datadog, which is what we used to use, however, it's my understanding that it is very expensive also. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with ELK.

The solution is deployed on Kubernetes in Azure.

I would advise other companies and users not to mix monitoring and logging. It's not the same purpose. Many people do monitoring by scanning logs. It's not a good idea. The good idea is to monitor separately. In case of incidents, you have to monitor metrics and logins for the root cause. It's important to separate this, and not treat them as the same thing.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

It is currently deployed as a single instance, but we are currently looking at clusters. We are using it for a logging solution. I'm a developer and act as a server engineer for DevOps Engineers. It's used by developers and mobile developers. It could be used by quite a few different teams.

It is quite comprehensive, and you're able to do a lot of tasks. It has dashboards and we're able to create a lot of search queries. It is not easy to use, but once you get the hang of it, then it provides good graphs and visuals such as these. The indexes allow you to get your results quickly. The filtering and log passing is the advantage of Logstash.

In terms of query resolution, error searching finding and production issues, we're able to find issues quicker. We don't need to manually obtain the logging reports. All bugs in code are quickly identified in the logs as they are in one centralized logging location.

We're using the open-source edition, for now, I think maybe they can allow their OLED plugin to be open source, as at the moment it is commercialised. We are planning to go into the production to use the enterprise edition, we just wanted to check how this one works first.  I think maybe on the last exercise part, I think the index rotation can be improved. It's something that they need to work on. It can be complex on how the index, all the logs that have been ingested, the index rotation can be challenging, so if they can work on that. In terms of ingestion, I think they should look at incorporating all operating systems. It should be easy to collect logs from different sources without a workaround to push the logs into the system. For example, in AIX, there's no direct log shipper so you do need to do a bit of tweaking there.

We have been using ELK Logstash for three years or so. We believe we are using the latest version. 

The solution is quite stable, although it does need a bit of maintenance, and because there is quite a lot of plugins that come with it. There's a lot of testing that is involved to ensure that nothing breaks.

The solution is scalable. So you're able to extend it and grow it. For example, you're able to put it in a cluster, so it is quite scalable.

I have used the technical support. Their forums are quite good in terms of response. There is quite a big community of forums, where you can get similar question or issues that others have experienced issues previously. Even then direct support is quite good. They also have regional support. 

Logging solution previously, but mainly I've been using Graylog and ELK. Graylog gives you centralized logging. It's built for a logging solution, whereas ELK is designed and built for more big data. If you want to go in deeper into analytics, ELK gives you that flexibility and out of the box models. The two solutions are widely used by a lot of bigger clients in the industry and they've been tried and tested.

With ELK, installation is not really straightforward. There are about three applications to consider. It's quite intense in terms of set up, but once you've done the setup, then it's nice and smooth. The implementation took about 3 weeks, but that is because I was doing it in between other projects. We used an implementation plan. It was deployed to the development environment, then the Point of Concept (POC) environments. It was then deployed into the production environment.

We implemented the solution in-house. There were no third parties involved. For deployment and maintenance, we just need about two to three people and the role is known as maintenance and installation.

We're using the open-source solution, So there are no-cost implications on it, but we are planning to use it throughout the organization. So, we will soon adopt the open-source model and depending on if there is a need for enterprise then we'll go down the enterprise route. If you need a lasting solution, you do need to buy the license for the OLED plugin. The free version comes fully standard and has everything that you need. It is easy to deploy, easy to use, and you get everything you need to become operational with it, and have nothing further to pay unless you want the OLED plugin. 

We also have Graylog, for Graylog we're using it in parallel for a similar solution. At the moment, we're basically just comparing the two and see which one is preferred.

Do a POC first. They should compare solutions and also look at different log formats they're trying to ingest. See how it really fits with the use case. This goes for ELK and Graylog. You can trial the enterprise version. In terms of lessons learned it does need some time and resources. It also needs adequate planning. You need to follow the documentation clearly and properly. I would give this solution 8 out of 10. 

We plan to use it to analyze the data that we're pumping into it from Active Directory and from firewalls, then we'll pass that information onto our own external SOC.

We really haven't had any significant SIEM solutions, so it's all new to us, other than a simple up-down solution. Just the ability to do a lot more than just up-down is nice, which a lot of people take for granted.

The biggest challenge has been related to the implementation. It's a very complex product which, without a lot of knowledge or a lot of training, it's very difficult to get into and make use of. They try and make a lot of the general features very simple to access; a lot of the dashboards are very simple to use and so forth, but a lot of the refined capabilities take serious skills. They're not necessarily the easiest to implement.

We've been trying to implement it and get it up and going for a good three to four months now.

Elastic SIEM is pretty stable. I did have a problem during one of the upgrades, but customer support was able to resolve it for me quickly. Other than that, it's been very reliable and stable.

The customer service is great; not a whole lot of back-and-forth going on.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

It's a monthly cost with Elastic SIEM, but I am not sure of the exact cost.

In our case, being a medium-sized business, it takes a lot of resources to learn how to properly use and implement it — you need to have a good understanding. They give you a very good framework and a very good solution to work with, but there's a lot of intuition that's required to actually make it work well. It requires a lot more effort than they would lead you to believe or that you would even expect.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. This is based on my experiences from the past as we're still implementing it.