Microsoft Sentinel Reviews

Our first use case is related to centralized log aggregation and security management. We have a number of servers at the user level and data center level, and I cannot use multiple tools to correlate all the information. My overall infrastructure is on Azure. We have a hybrid approach for the security environment by using Sentinel. So, hybrid security is one of the use cases, and unified security management is another use case.

It has helped us in three ways. One is IT, one is security, and one is compliance. Before Sentinel, our IT was mature, but our security and compliance were not mature enough in terms of certain controls, client requirements, and global-level regulatory compliance. By implementing the SIEM along with Security Center, we have improved security to a mature level, and we are able to meet the compliance reporting and client requirements for security within the organization.

It has an in-depth defense strategy. It is not limited to giving an alert; it also does correlation. There are three things involved when it comes to a SIEM solution: threats, alerts, and incidents. Sentinel gives you granular and concise information in the UI format about where the log has been generated. It doesn't only not give the timestamp, etc. This information is useful for the L1 and L2 SOC managers.

It has good built-in threat intelligence tools. You can configure a policy set and connectors, and you don't need to have any extra tools to investigate a particular platform. We can directly use the built-in threat intelligence tools and investigate a particular threat and get the answers from that.

We are using Microsoft stack. We use SharePoint. We use OneDrive for cloud storage. We use Teams for our internal productivity and communication, and we use Outlook for emails. For us, it provides 100% visibility because our infrastructure is on Microsoft stack. That's the reason why I'm very comfortable with Sentinel and its security. However, that might not be the case if we were not in Microsoft's ecosystem.

We are using Microsoft Defender. The integration with Microsoft Defender takes a few seconds. In the connector, you just need to click a button, and it will automatically connect. However, for data ingestion, it will take some time to configure the backend log, workspaces, etc.

It is useful for comprehensive reporting. We need to prepare RFPs for our clients. We need to do reporting on particular threats and their resolution. So, it is useful for our RFPs and our internal security enhancements.

It is helpful for security posture management. It has good threat intelligence, and it provides deep analysis. The security engine of Microsoft Sentinel takes the raw data of the logs and correlates and analyses them based on the security rules that we have created. It uses threat-intelligence algorithms to map what's happening within a particular log. For example, if somebody is trying to log into an MS Office account, it will try to see what logs are available for this particular user and whether there is any anomaly or unwanted access. It gives you all that information, which is very important from the compliance perspective. It is mandatory to have such information if you have ISO 27001, HIPAA, or other compliances.

It enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. It is not only about detecting threats. It is also all about investigating and responding to threats. I can specify how the alerts should be sent for immediate response. Microsoft Sentinel provides a lot of automation capabilities around reporting.

With the help of incidents that we are observing and doing the analysis of the threats, we are able to better tune our infrastructure. When we come across an incident or a loophole, we can quickly go ahead and review that particular loophole and take action, such as closing the ports. A common issue is management ports being open to the public.

It saves time and reduces the response time to incidents. We have all the information on the dashboard. We don't need to go ahead and download the reports.

There are a lot of dashboards available out of the box, and we can also create custom dashboards based on our requirements. There is also one dashboard where we can see the summary of all incidents and alerts. Everything can be correlated with the main dashboard.

We can use playbooks and data analytics. We have one system called pre-policy definitions where our internal team can work on the usability of a particular product. We get a risk-based ranking. Based on this risk-based ranking, we will create policies and incorporate data analytics to get the threats and alerts. We are almost 100% comfortable with Sentinel in terms of the rules and threat detections.

It improves our time to detect and respond. On detecting a threat, it alerts us within seconds.

The AI and ML of Azure Sentinel are valuable. We can use machine learning models at the tenant level and within Office 365 and Microsoft stack. We don't need to depend upon any other connectors. It automatically provisions the native Microsoft products.

Playbooks are also valuable. When I compare it with the playbooks in other SIEM solutions, such as Splunk, AlienVault, or QRadar, the playbooks that Sentinel is providing are better.

The SOAR architecture is also valuable. We use productivity apps, such as Outlook and Teams. If a security breach is happening, we automatically get security alerts on Teams and Outlook. Automation is one of its benefits.

We are working with a number of products around the cybersecurity and IoT divisions. We have Privileged Identity Management and a lot of firewalls to protect the organizations, such as Sophos, Fortinet, and Palo Alto. Based on my experience over three years, if you have your products in the Microsoft or Azure environment or a hybrid environment around Microsoft, all these solutions work well together natively, but with non-Microsoft products, there are definitely integration issues. Exporting the logs is very difficult, and the API calls are not being generated frequently from the Microsoft end. There are some issues with cross-platform integration, and you need to have the expertise to resolve the issues. They are working on improving the integration with other vendors, but as compared to other platforms, such as Prisma Cloud Security, the integration is not up to the mark.

The second improvement area is log ingestion. Sometimes, we are observing large ingestion delays. We expect logs within 5 minutes, but it takes about 10 to 15 minutes.

They can work on their documentation. For Sentinel, not many user or SOP information documents are available on the internet. They should provide more information related to how to deploy your Sentinel and various available options. Currently, the information is not so accurate. They say something at one place, and then there is something else at other places.

It has been about two years.

It is stable. They are enhancing it and upgrading it as well.

It is scalable. It is being used across all departments. We took it for about 80 devices, but, within 24 hours, we mapped it to 240 devices.

Technical support is very straightforward. They will not help you out with your specific use cases or requirements, but they will give you a basic understanding of how a particular feature works in Sentinel.

Positive

We didn't use any other solution in this company. We went for this because as per our compliance requirements, we needed to have this installation in place. About 80% of our environment is on Microsoft, and we could just spin up Azure Sentinel.

It is straightforward. Usually, you can deploy within seconds, but in order to replicate an agent on your Sentinel, it will take about 12 to 24 hours.

We engaged Microsoft experts to deploy the agents across the devices on the cloud. It didn't take much time on the cloud, but for on-prem, it takes some time.

It has saved a lot of time. Implementing a SIEM solution from a third-party vendor, such as AlienVault OSSIM, can take about 45 days to 60 days of time, but we can roll out Sentinel within 15 days if everything is on Microsoft.

For implementation, we have about three people. One is from the endpoint security team. One is from the compliance team, and one is from the security operations team.

It is a cloud solution. So, no maintenance is required.

We have reached our compliance goals, and we have been able to meet our client's requirements. We are getting a lot of revenue with this compliance.

It has saved us money. It would be about $2,500 to $3,000 per month.

It varies on a case-by-case basis. It is about $2,000 per month. The cost is very low in comparison to other SIEMs if you are already a Microsoft customer. If you are using the complete Microsoft stack, the cost reduces by almost 42% to 50%.

Its cost depends on the number of logs and the type of subscription you have. You need to have an Azure subscription, and there are charges for log ingestion, and there are charges for the connectors.

I would strongly recommend it, but it also depends on the infrastructure. I would advise understanding your infrastructure and use cases, such as whether your use case is for compliance or for meeting certain client requirements. Based on that, you can go ahead and sign up for Sentinel.

If you have the native Microsoft stack, you can easily ingest data from your ecosystem. There is no need to think about all the other things or vendors. However, in a non-Microsoft environment where, for example, you have endpoint security from Trend Micro, email security for Mimecast, and IPS and IDS from Sophos, FortiGate, or any other solution, or cloud workloads on AWS, Microsoft Sentinel is not recommended. You can go for other solutions, such as Splunk or QRadar. If about 80% of your infrastructure is on Microsoft, you can definitely go with Microsoft Sentinel. It will also be better commercially.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10 based on my use case.

We needed a SIEM solution that could integrate with our Microsoft 365 stack. Being a Microsoft product, that was the first SIEM we looked at, and we haven't looked back. We're still growing with the product over the last couple of years. It is phenomenal.

We're mainly focused on the cloud, but one of our selling points is that you can integrate with on-prem. We push to get the Azure Arc implementation done on top of Sentinel so that we can ingest data from your on-prem environment into Azure Monitor, which is then exposed to Sentinel. That's how we drive that integration, but we mainly have the cloud. We have 80% cloud and 20% on-prem.

The specific focus on entity behavior is where the gold is within Sentinel. The machine learning and AI capabilities that Microsoft already provides within their toolset are exposed through entity behavior analytics. That really is magic. It is something we don't live without. We have specific key metrics we measure against, and this information is very relevant information to our security approach. That's because not everything is an alert and not everything is a threat. In some cases, the anomalous sign or the anomalous behavior is more important than the actual alert coming up and saying that something has been infected. It could be those sign-ins a week before or a month before into a database that you don't always look into that end up being the actual threat. The entity behavior or the overall feature that Sentinel has is absolute gold for us.

In terms of the visibility into threats, because I set up the product, I'm very much aware of the fact that you see what you configure. That's probably a plus in terms of if you have an appetite only for product one, you ingest and you consume only product one. In our company, we have the full E5 solution, and we tend to have a lot of endpoints or metrics that we can pull into one space. So, each and every sub-component, such as Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Identity, and all the incidents end up within Sentinel. It is one spot from where we can manage everything. That works very well for us. We do have small customers with one or two Microsoft solutions, and even third-party solutions, and we can still integrate or expose those product-specific incidents within Sentinel. For me, that's a big plus.

It definitely helps us to prioritize threats across our enterprise. There is not just a clear classification of severity but also the ability to team certain alerts together. It can chain events and bring you a bigger picture to tell you this is something that you need to take care of or look at because it is tied or chained to multiple events or alerts. That ability is again a big plus.

We probably use all of the Microsoft products. We use Azure Active Directory, and we use Defender for pretty much everything, such as Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Cloud, and Defender for Cloud Apps. As a senior cloud infrastructure consultant, it is a part of my role to provide or customize and configure these products on behalf of our customers. We have integrated these products for multiple customers. One of my favorite benefits of Sentinel is its integration with the entire stack. I am yet to find a Microsoft product with which it does not integrate well. All of the Microsoft products are fairly simple to integrate with it. Anyone can set up their own environment. It is only third-party products where you tend to have a bit of technicality to configure, but even that is not a difficult process. It is fairly straightforward and easy to follow.

All these solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment. Microsoft Defender stack does that quite well. One of the reasons why Microsoft personally favors the Microsoft Defender stack is because of the integration with the rest of the products.

I'm a big fan of the layered approach, and it should be in every environment. Microsoft does a good job of providing you with that layered approach without too much of an oversight or a combination of a bunch of products. They work well individually, and they stack together quite well based on the individual requirements or the needs of each.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Our footprint in the cloud is limited. We only have two or three customers that fully make use of the product, but it is something that I do make use of and will. We do make use of its bi-directional sync capabilities. Especially within the organization, we have a very small team dedicated to assisting in our cloud-managed servers. If one person has to run around and duplicate these efforts in multiple portals, that wouldn't be an effective use of their time. So, the simple ability to just be in one portal or one place and apply the remediation or the management of an item is a big plus for us.

It allows us to ingest data from our ecosystem. I have found only one or two third-party antivirus products that still don't integrate fully with Sentinel, but for my use case within my own environment, as well as the environments we manage through our inSOC offering, there hasn't been any case or instance I know of where we could not find a solution to ingest necessary logs.

I work with security, and I also work with compliance. On the compliance side, the ability to have an audit trail and all your logs in one central location is important. The data is queryable. The KQL language is not a difficult language to get under. So, for me, having it all in one place and being able to query it and slice the data to what I need to provide or expose is a key feature of a SIEM solution.

It enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. It is very important, and bidirectional ties into this. We have a small team. So, the following capabilities are critical to our managed solution:

• The ability to hunt from one location or one stream.
• The ability to integrate with multiple sources and data tables for ingestion.
• The ability to expose information from those tables from one stream or portal.

We probably would end up having to hire twice as many people to accomplish what we can do simply by integrating Sentinel with the rest of our product stack.

It helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts. Being able to automate routine tasks or routine alerts is a big save for us because our analysts are not bogged down trying to just close alerts in a portal. This freeing up of time alone is a big save for us.

It helps eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards and gives us one XDR dashboard. The workbooks already integrate well with Azure Lighthouse. So, right out the bat, we had that multitenant capability from one dashboard or one screen. It is just absolutely brilliant.

It saves time on a daily basis. For example, as a desktop engineer, if I have to go through 20,000 devices, it would take a long time to go one device at a time. To make sure everything is fine, if I have to log in, upload some logs, do some metrics, log off, and go to the next office, it would take us a good part of a year to be able to work on each of these devices. With Sentinel, once your logs are configured and analytics rules are in place, a simple hunting query could accomplish exactly the same in a month.

Previously, four hours of my day were spent on just dashboards here and there, logging into tenants one time to the next, running the same view in the same portals, and looking through, for example, the alerts for the day or the threats for the day. With Sentinel, all that is in one place. I can just log on with my company-provided credentials, do MFA once, and through a portal with multiple links, seamlessly go through entity after entity. My whole exercise of four hours per day is now probably down to half an hour just because everything is in one place.

It has decreased our time to detection and time to respond. In the past, we would have to get someone to physically log onto a portal once there is an alert, and if that alert was in multiple places or multiple customers, it would mean multiple portals and multiple logins. The ability to manage from one screen and run an effective service has alone saved us 60% of our day.

I work with the Microsoft 365 products stack quite a bit, and I'm a big fan of the granularity that the products have. For example, the Defender stack is very focused on endpoints, identities, and so forth. With Sentinel, we have the ability to integrate with each of these components and enhance the view that we would have through the Defender portal. It also gives us the ability to customize our queries and workbooks to provide the solution that we have in mind on behalf of our team to our customers.

The part that was very unexpected was Sentinel's ability to integrate with Azure Lighthouse, which, as a managed services solution provider, gives us the ability to also manage our customers' Sentinel environments or Sentinel workspaces. It is a big plus for us. With its integration with Lighthouse, we get the ability to monitor multiple workspaces from one portal. A lot of the Microsoft Sentinel workbooks already integrate with that capability, and we save countless amounts of money by simply being able to almost immediately realize multitenant capabilities. That alone is a big plus for us. Never mind everything else, such as the security benefits, visibility, and the ability to query the data. They all are great, but the ability to see multiple workspaces is a big money saver and a big time saver for our team.

We offer a managed service where we are geared toward a proactive approach rather than a reactive one. Sentinel obviously covers quite a lot of the proactive approach, but if you engage all of your Microsoft products, especially around the Microsoft endpoint stack, you also gain the ability to manage your vulnerability. For us, gaining the ability to realize a full managed service or managed solution in one product stack has been valuable.

Its threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit and take proactive steps. It highlights items that are not really an alert yet. They are items that are running around in the wild that Microsoft or other threat intelligence providers have picked up and would expose to you through Sentinel by running a query. This ability to integrate with those kinds of signals is a big plus. Security is not only about the alerts but also about what else is going on within your environment and what is going on unnoticed. Threat intelligence helps in highlighting that kind of information.

Improvement-wise, I would like to see more integration with third-party solutions or old-school antivirus products that have some kind of logging capability. I wouldn't mind having that exposed within Sentinel. We do have situations where certain companies have bought licensing or have made an investment in a product, and that product will be there for the next two or three years. To be able to view information from those legacy products would be great. We can then better leverage the Sentinel solution and its capabilities. It is being enhanced, and it has been growing day to day. It has gone a long way since it started, but I would like to see some more improvement on the integration with those third parties or old products that some companies still have an investment in.

In terms of additional features, one thing that I was hoping for is now being introduced through Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence. I believe that is going to be integrated with Sentinel completely. That's what I've been waiting for.

I have been working with this solution for close to two years.

It is very much stable. We've had one or two issues in the last two years where we had a Microsoft-reported incident, and there were data flow issues, but overall, they are 99.9999% available. We've not had an unrecoverable event across the solution. We've had incidents where users ended up not paying the subscription and the subscription got disabled. It simply required just turning it back on and paying your bill, and you were back up and running. It is quite robust.

It definitely is scalable. It will adapt to your needs. It is really about how much you're willing to spend or what your investment is like. That's basically the only limitation. We've seen customers or deployed to customers with thousands of endpoints across the world, ingesting tons and tons of data. We're talking 200, 300 gigabytes per day, and the product is able to cope with that. It does a great job all the way up there at 200, 300 gigs per day to all the way down to the 10, 20 megs per day. It is really scalable. I am quite a fan of the product.

It is being used at multiple locations and multiple departments, and in our case, multiple companies as well. In terms of user entities, the number is probably close to 40,000 in total across our state. In terms of endpoints, we probably are looking at close to 30,000 endpoints.

I've dealt with Microsoft technical support in the recent past, and I'm overall quite happy with it. Being a big company with big solutions and lots of moving parts, overall, their approach to troubleshooting or fault finding is great. I'm going to give them an eight out of ten. There is always some room for improvement, but they're doing well.

Positive

We didn't really use a full SIEM solution at the time. We hovered between dashboards and certain portals. We didn't have a SIEM in place. The first solution we looked at was Sentinel, and we fell in love. It does everything we want and everything we need, and we haven't looked back. We're not even looking at any other solutions right now. For us, it is unnecessary. We're very happy with Sentinel and what Sentinel can do.

It is very straightforward. As a service provider, we'd love to be part of that integration or setup. That's where we make our bread and butter. It is simple enough for the average IT enthusiast to get going, but if you do want to get the best out of your product and if you want to start with some customization, reaching out to a service provider or to a specialist does make sense because they have learned a few things on your behalf. Other than that, it is easy enough to get going on your own. It is a very straightforward configuration, and it does make sense. It is easy to follow.

If you already have a subscription in place, you could be fully operational in less than one business day.

For its deployment, it is a one consultant kind of approach. What is important is that everyone from within the company that is part of the decision-making chain is present as part of it. That's because the main pushback is not the implementation of Sentinel, but the connection to it for the data. So, you would have your firewall guys push back and say, "I don't want to give my data to you." You have your Defender guys saying, "No, I don't want to give my data to you." That's more important in terms of the deployment. One person can easily manage the deployment in terms of the workload.

There is some maintenance. There are some daily, monthly, and weekly tasks that we set out for ourselves. It is normally in the form of query updates, workbook updates, or playbook updates. If some schema update has happened to the underlying data, that needs to be deployed within your environment. Microsoft does a great job of alerting you, if you are within the portal, as to what element needs updating. We have 16 customers in total, and we have one person dedicated to maintenance.

We could realize its benefits very early from the time of deployment. Probably within the first three months, we realized that this tool was a lot more than just a simple SIEM, SOAR solution.

It has absolutely saved us money. Of course, there is an upfront investment in Sentinel, which has to be kept in mind, but overall, after two years, the return on investment has been absolutely staggering. In security, you don't always have people available 24/7. You don't have people awake at two o'clock in the morning. By deploying Sentinel, we pretty much have a 24/7 AI that's looking at signals, metrics, and alerts coming in, making decisions on those, and applying automated actions. It is like a 24-hour help desk service from a solution that is completely customizable. We have programmatic access to the likes of playbooks to be able to further enhance that capability. The savings on that alone have been astronomical. If we did not have Sentinel, we would have had to double the amount of staff that we have now. There is about a 40% reduction in costs.

I'm not happy with the pricing on the integration with Defender for Endpoint. Defender for Endpoint is log-rich. There is a lot of information coming through, and it is needed information. The price point at which you ingest those logs has made a lot of my customers make the decision to leave that within the Defender stack. The big challenge for me right now is having to query data with the Microsoft Defender API and then querying a similar structure. That's a simple cost decision. If that cost can be brought down, I'm sure more of my clients would be interested in ingesting more of the Defender for Endpoint data, and that alone will obviously drive up ingestion. They are very willing to look at that, but right now, it is at such a price point that it is not cost-effective. Most of them are relying on us to recreate our solution, to integrate with two portals rather than having the data integrator Sentinel. If we can make a way there, it'll be a big one.

We have had some assessments where we were asked to do a comparison with the likes of Splunk and other similar tools. What I love about Sentinel is the granularity. You can configure what you need. Whether it just logs from a server or logs from any of the Microsoft solutions, you have the ability to limit data depending on your use or your need. You can couple that with the ability to archive data, as well as retain data, on a set schedule.

Its cost is comparable to the other products that we've had, but we get much more control. If you have a large appetite for security, you can ingest a lot of information right down to a server event type of log. That obviously would be costly, but for ingesting from the Microsoft stack itself, a lot of the key logs are free to use. So, you could get up and running for a very small amount per month or very small investment demand, and then grow your appetite over time, whereas with some of the other solutions, I believe you buy a commitment. So, you are in it for a certain price from the beginning. Whether you consume that, whether you have an appetite for that, or whether there are actual people in your company who can make use of that tool is separate from that commitment. That commitment is upfront, whereas Sentinel is much more granular. You have much more control, and you can grow into a fully-fledged product. You don't need to switch everything on from day one and then run and see what it will cost. You can grow based on your needs, appetite, and budget until you find that sweet spot between what you ingest and what you can afford.

Having worked with the product and knowing the capabilities of the product, it is worth investing in a product that Microsoft has spent a great deal on integrating with the rest of its product stack. Now, we can argue how far along the third-party vendors are in terms of integration with the rest of the security landscape, but if you're a Microsoft house, there is literally no better solution right now in terms of integration and highlighting the best out of your investment. Of course, every use case is different, but I'm happy to look at any challenge in terms of what a third-party solution can bring and what they reckon Sentinel can't.

My advice to others evaluating the solution is that Sentinel isn't a silver bullet solution. It is not something you deploy and set up, and it is going to work 100% well and you're going to be happy. There is going to be some upfront investment. You're going to have to spend some time getting the product in place and getting it configured to your needs. To showcase in a PoC environment is quick and easy, but to realize real-world day-to-day benefits from this product, there is going to be some investment. Keep that in mind. If you're willing to spend that time upfront within the first couple of days or a couple of weeks of you deploying the solution, you'll immediately realize the benefit, but you have to have that mindset. It is not going to just be next, next, next, where it is deployed, and congratulations, you are now secure. That's never going to be the case, but after spending a bit of time on this product, there is nothing it can't do.

I want to give it a 10 out of 10 just because I'm very passionate about this product. I've seen it grow from a very basic SIEM solution to a fully-fledged SIEM, SOAR solution. Some of the capabilities that are built in right now make my day so much easier. Overall, it is a brilliant product, and I love what Microsoft is doing to it. It is a great product.

Microsoft Sentinel is a monitoring tool. It is a SIEM solution and is used to gather logs. It allows us to analyze and understand the flow of information based on the events that happen and the systems we connect it to. 

I explain it to my customers as being almost like an octopus. It sits in the middle of a tank, and it has all these tentacles that connect to different systems. We bring that information in via those connections, and then we query them. We can centrally analyze, examine, and understand the data that comes in through the analytics or the capabilities that Azure links to Microsoft Sentinel, which is Azure Log Analytics Workspace. We then use queries to help us understand or make sense of the data. We can have dashboards and visualize them. 

We use it to set up monitoring for cloud infrastructure and we use it as part of a larger monitoring capability around setting up a SOC capability. We are then able to keep track of infrastructure and mitigate risks.

Microsoft Sentinel gives visibility to some degree to all of the customers that I work with. It has given us more visibility into the accurate state of the endpoints being monitored in near real-time. 

With the solution, we are now able to respond to incidents in a more timely fashion, which helps us. It helped us to understand what is happening and make informed decisions as a result. It has given us a more comprehensive and holistic view of the ecosystem that exists, and not just an individual piece of that ecosystem. It does not give a view of just one server. It also gives a view of the supporting infrastructure around it. It has given us a lot more visibility, and it has made us smarter in terms of being able to defend ourselves against bad threat actors and the harm they look to do. It made us better armed and more informed, and therefore we can offer a better defense that will hopefully ward off some of those bad actions.

Microsoft Sentinel helps to prioritize threats across the enterprise in several ways. This capability is linked to other technology elements that make up the overall security posture of the Microsoft offering. Microsoft Sentinel, in particular, allows us to look at the flow of information coming through the connectors from various systems. This helps us create alerts and analyze that data so that we can bubble up and see what is happening. We can tie that into the Microsoft Defender stack or the products in the Microsoft Defender ecosystem, and we can take action and monitor. 

Whether it is being alerted, manually choosing to do something, or automating through the broader security capabilities of the platform, we can take action. When we tie in the broader security capabilities that involve governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC), and we have all the tools at our disposal to do that, Microsoft Sentinel becomes a huge ingestion engine that brings in signals. The telemetry and data from all the monitored endpoints allow other capabilities to access that data so that we can monitor it. We are then not only well-informed, but we can also choose how to respond. We can respond through a combination of automation and manual actions. If something occurs, we can then kick off an incident response to deal with it. If needed, we can quarantine and mitigate it. We have a rich set of capabilities but also a very flexible set of opportunities to respond because we are given near real-time information. We can analyze that information in near real-time to make informed choices when it comes to threat intelligence, threat mitigation, and threat assessment.

I use all of the products that Microsoft has in the market in various architectures or configurations with different customers, and I have used them for many years. Various customers use the entire suite of offerings that Microsoft has in the security space in terms of governance, risk management, and compliance, such as Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender. There are also solutions like Privileged Identity Management (PIM), which is now a part of Microsoft Entra, which has been renamed. I have integrated these products and set up the architectures or designs for customers. The setup depends on the size of the customer and some smaller businesses do not use all of them. They license at lower levels and do not have the business case, the resources, or the need to use them all. Larger companies tend to utilize more of them. Because I work with different-sized companies, I set the solutions up and have used them in a variety of circumstances across the board for different companies. 

In the beginning, like any technology, it was a little harder to integrate when the products were new. As they matured and went through iterations, they became easier to work with. Utilizing a new product is more painful than using a product that has perhaps been out for a year or two, that has been vetted and maybe has gone through one major update or release. The integration has gotten better over time, and the product lines continue to mature and become more powerful as a result.

Microsoft security products work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across the environment. For this, you need to use the appropriate connectors to bring in the information from both Microsoft-centric and third-party systems that you want to incorporate and monitor. It is bounded by the vision of the architecture that allows you to connect those systems and the availability of those connectors. Assuming those systems are connected properly, brought online, and are reporting, it gives you the depth of visibility that you need to manage both Microsoft and non-Microsoft systems.

Microsoft security products provide a very thorough set of security. Microsoft is looking at billions, perhaps a trillion, individual data points a day at this point across the Microsoft ecosystem, which includes everything Microsoft does, all customers, and all interactions. They take all that information and analyze it with dedicated security teams, machine learning and artificial intelligence, business analytics, etc. They turn that information around and make it available for customers who are consuming the threat analysis and threat intelligence capabilities on the platform. Some of the solutions are available for free to everybody regardless of licensing. For others, you need enhanced licensing to take advantage of it fully. The threat intelligence feeds, the live analysis, and the security posture that Microsoft provides to its customers globally as part of the shared responsibility model have matured tremendously. They are the best. You get incredible value for the amount of work that goes into providing that. The customers I work with are very happy with the work that Microsoft does and continues to do in that space.

We use the bi-directional sync capabilities of Microsoft Defender for Cloud in some cases. It is a very useful feature for myself and my customers. It is very important because it allows us to use the Defender product, which is made up of maybe 20 individual offerings at this point. There are a lot of different sub-areas that you have that you can attach the Defender product to. This concept allows us to be able to have the endpoints monitored, whether they are the servers or the service that Defender would monitor and protect. It allows us to understand what is happening with them and to have near real-time updates about their status. We can see the impact of potential threats that are attaching and risks that may become apparent, and we can see the impact of remediation or the things that are being done to stop those things or perhaps forestall them, hopefully, to prevent them from harming. This capability is very important, and it is one of the secrets that allow that platform to not only be very flexible but also very impactful in terms of monitoring the bulk of the infrastructure and services that most customers would have running in a public cloud, whether it is Microsoft or any other public cloud, such as Amazon, Google, etc. We can monitor any infrastructure and understand it, especially customers' environments that are hybrid where they have on-premises as well as cloud or multi-cloud infrastructure with more than one cloud. To be able to monitor both on-premises and multi-cloud environments is a requirement today, and Microsoft provides those capabilities but not all other providers do. 

It enables us to ingest data from the entire ecosystem as long as we are using a connector to link to the infrastructure that we need to monitor and as long as there is a connector for monitoring that infrastructure. So, as long as the pipe exists, we connect the pipe, and we can monitor the infrastructure. For a majority of mainline infrastructure or a majority of third-party vendor systems today, there are connectors. For some smaller systems or proprietary or custom systems that some companies run, there might not be connectors, but for mainline systems that you would buy, acquire, or use from large-scale SaaS vendors, connectors have been there for a while. As long as we are running connectors to that infrastructure, we can monitor almost anything that we have.

Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. We have a central dashboard that we can use to monitor and then from there, do the analysis and also create the remediation if necessary. This functionality is very important. The biggest mistake vendors make in tool design from a UI/UX or user interface/user experience perspective is that they do not make things centrally available and obvious for the administrator or the end user who is going to run or use that system. Generally, if something is overly complicated and not very intuitive, it is hard to get people to buy into using something. With Microsoft Sentinel, you can have everything in one place and visualize the impact of the threats, the risks, the incoming data, and the number of incidents, events, or alerts that are happening. All those things are visually represented in the opening part of the dashboard. You could drill down from there with a navigation area that is intuitive and easily understood. That makes it very easy for different users, such as administrators and managers, and other user profiles that have different reasons for being in the tool, and that is the hallmark of a good design.

When you look at it holistically and look at what it is linked to in terms of the broader security platform that Microsoft provides, it is very strong, and it continues to get better. When you ask anyone about their thoughts about a product and how it works for their customers, the mistake that people often make in describing something is that they say, "I think it is great, and it is great for us. It does everything we need." That is good, and it should be. I can say that for the majority of my customers without any ambiguity or concern about being accurate, but the thing you have to add is that there are always things that we do not know that we need to do until they occur. We might not have seen that threat before. Maybe there is a new advanced persistent threat or zero-day exploit that we have to contend with, which we have not been aware of until now. The hallmark of a really good tool is its ability to integrate that new information in a timely fashion and have the flexibility to mature the tool over time based on feedback and iterative use. The strength that Microsoft has brought to the platform over time is the ability to listen to its customers and make sure they are offering based on that feedback. It is good, and it continues to get better. Today, it is good, and tomorrow, it will be better because of that thought process in the way they engineer over time.

Microsoft Sentinel helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high standards. If you set it up the right way, it does that as one of the key things that it is designed to do. It has streamlined our ability to respond, so response time has gone down. It has enhanced our understanding because automation is managing some of the remediation and the menial, repetitive ongoing tasks of:

• Paying attention to information flows.

• Picking out the most important elements.

• Prioritizing them and bubbling them up.

• Creating alerts around them and then telling people that these things are happening. 

Automation lets you do that without having to spend human or people cycles to do that. The automation never gets tired and it never gets bored. It never needs to take a break. It never gets distracted. Because of that, we find not only more things we need to react to, but we react to the things that we truly should be chasing. We are not distracted as much by things that seem to be important, but we find out that they are just ghosts. They are false flags. The ability to bring machine learning, artificial intelligence, business analytics, and data visualization as a part of automation has filtered out a lot of the background noise that distracts. It has allowed us to hone in and refine our activity cycles around the most important things that we have to pay attention to.

Microsoft Sentinel helps eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards and gives one XDR dashboard if you set it up the right way. I have seen it set up in ways where it does not do that because it is not optimized, but if you are using it the right way, if you understand the tool and how to integrate it properly, then it gives you that single dashboard where you can directly find the information or link through a smaller visual tile that will take you to that information that you need if you need to drill down in a deeper, more meaningful way.

Its threat intelligence helps to prepare for potential threats before they hit and take proactive steps. If you are integrating the threat intelligence feeds from Microsoft and looking at them, everything is relative. They are there if you are smart enough to consume them and understand what you are looking at. In other words, people who are paying attention to them and are using them properly are getting tremendous value out of them. Microsoft globally examines billions, if not a trillion, of individual telemetry data points every day and incorporates that into their threat analysis feeds, so no individual company, irrespective of how big they are and how much money they have, can bring that kind of at-scale analysis to that problem. As a result, you are getting a tremendous amount of data that is being vetted, analyzed, and distilled down to meaningful actionable intelligence. It is consumable because it is presented in a very summarized and succinct way. It is very valuable, but you have to be able to understand that and utilize that to draw value from it.

We have saved me time with Sentinel. The ability to have the power of Microsoft as a global scanning organization service provider at my disposal is helping me to better understand the environment I operate in through threat intelligence and threat analysis. In addition, the ability to automate at scale across the platform and to have the research and design that is being done to continuously upgrade and add features to those platforms has made me a much more capable and therefore, more successful security practitioner. It is hard to quantify the time saved. It would probably be a very extreme exercise to go back and do that, but it is fair to say that over a year, we have probably saved a thousand or more human hours. I look across a team for one of the customers that I work with, it is fair to say that we have saved at least a thousand human hours for a year by relying more on the automation toolsets. That is about ninety hours a month on average. We can break it down to 15 or 20 hours a week or something like that, but the reality is that it is about a thousand or more hours that we have saved in a year.

Time to detection has decreased, and the time to respond has gone. They both have decreased. That has been an outcome that we have seen and is measurable. It goes back to the investments you make in building out that architecture in terms of:

• How many systems are you monitoring or how many are you connecting?

• How much data do you have coming in? 

• What are you doing with that data and how are you using it? 

If you are building out a full SOC analysis capability or a full monitoring solution, and you are typing this into incident response and alerting and event continuous monitoring through automation, time to respond and time to solution is going to decrease as a result.

It can connect to an ever-growing number of platforms and systems within the Microsoft ecosystem, such as Azure Active Directory and Microsoft 365 or Office 365, as well as to external services and systems that can be brought in and managed. We can manage on-premises infrastructure. We can manage not just the things that are running in Azure in the public cloud, but through Azure Arc and the hybrid capabilities, we can monitor on-premises servers and endpoints. We can monitor VMware infrastructure, for instance, running as part of a hybrid environment. The continuing evolution of what we call the connectors, which is the marketplace that lets us connect these systems to Microsoft Sentinel, is probably one of the most important features.

The reliance on a very simple but very powerful query language called Kusto Query Language or KQL that Microsoft uses to allow us to log into the analytics workspace to assess and analyze the data is also valuable. That has made it very approachable and very scalable. Those are very big and important things for me as a consultant, as an architect, and as a person who is implementing these solutions for customers and who is explaining them, and ultimately working with them. This makes the product not only usable but also very flexible. Those are two very important elements.

Everyone has their favorites. There is always room for improvement, and everybody will say, "I wish you could do this for me or that for me." It is a personal thing based on how you use the tool. I do not necessarily have those thoughts, and they are probably not valuable because they are unique to the context of the user, but broadly, where it can continue to improve is by adding more connectors to more systems. 

The really interesting area where we are already seeing the impact is the use of more artificial intelligence. There could be the ability to bring AI into the analysis capabilities of the toolset in more ways so that we can utilize the power that computer analysis at scale has. That is because we are limited. As humans, we can only look at so much information, see so many patterns, and absorb so much in any given cycle of a workday, but artificial intelligence and automation engines do not take breaks. They do not stop. They do not need to. They can go deeper, and they can see more data and ingest more to find patterns that, as humans, we are not going to be able to see. The evolving technology in this area is all moving towards the use of artificial intelligence, embedding it in multiple areas in the platform so that we can be told that there are things that we need to pay attention to that are becoming a problem as opposed to things that are already a problem. Where the biggest improvements can happen is how we move that ability to identify emerging threats closer to the point of contact so that we can interject and essentially stop and disrupt the kill chain of an event series before it harms. Currently, the problem we often have is that things get bad, and until they get bad, we do not really know what is happening, and we do not know how to respond, so we spend a lot of time responding to incidents that have already started or have unfortunately unfolded fully in a reactive manner. The value proposition in terms of improvement down the road is getting better at predictive defense and proactive response before events take place to stop them before they start. That is the future that we are moving towards, and that is where the biggest improvement lies.

Sentinel, which is now called Microsoft Sentinel, used to be called Azure Sentinel. It was renamed about a year and a half or two years ago, but I have used Sentinel for about four years. It was probably released in 2019.

It is very stable. I have had little to no difficulty with it in the more than four years that I have used it or deployed it. I cannot think of a time in the last four years when it was unstable or unstable enough that I had to open a support ticket. I have had issues with it because people have misconfigured it or not set it up properly, but those issues were not related to the platform itself. Those were human interactions that were complicating it because it was not set up the right way. When it is set up correctly, it is a very solid platform with minimal to no downtime. There were no major service disruptions that I remember that caused problems.

It is very scalable. You do not think of scalability necessarily the same way you would if you were setting up a cluster to run virtual machines, for instance, because there, you have to add resources, and you are monitoring to make sure that there are enough resources versus the load in the system. Microsoft Sentinel is a managed solution. You are deploying it, but then Microsoft is scaling it and managing it on the backend for you, so you do not control some of the things that would impact scalability directly. Microsoft is hosting it. It is essentially a service you are consuming. In my history with the product, it has always met my expectations, and I have never had an issue where it could not perform because of a resource constraint, so its scalability is solid, and it is always available when necessary. It is not scalable in the same sense as you would control it by adding hosts to a cluster. It is a different kind of scalability, but it has been rock solid all the time I have been working with it.

In terms of the environment, I have multiple customers, so each one is different, but generically, it is safe to say that it is deployed to monitor infrastructure that is in multiple geographies, multiple data centers, or multiple places both on-premises and in the cloud. It could be hybrid as well as multi-cloud. The infrastructure is being monitored from a variety of different locations. Microsoft Sentinel itself is typically installed and instantiated in one instance. You set it up inside of an Azure subscription and you have one instance. If you need more than one, you might set up more than one depending on the geography and the needs of the organization, but typically, we have one central Microsoft Sentinel instance running, and then you will bring that information into it through the connectors. It is typically going to be a single instance. It will usually monitor geographically distributed architecture, and it will usually operate at scale, so there will be quite a bit of information coming into that at any given moment.

Like anything else, you can get support depending on how you are using the tool and the level at which you are using it. You get basic support from Microsoft. If you have a problem, they are very good at telling you if there are service issues. If you are paying additionally, you can get premium support to support you with the tool. There is an additional fee for platinum-level support or premium support. Their support is very good if you are paying for it and you are able to utilize it. If you are just able to open a basic ticket because you are having a problem, support is good, but you are going to be limited in the help you are going to get. To talk to a high-level engineer to deal with complicated issues, you are going to need to pay extra money for support. Overall, I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have used several different solutions over time with different customers for different reasons. I work with a lot of different customers. I set up solutions for different customers. They have different technologies and different needs, and some of them have a bias towards certain products and against others, but I have used products like ConnectWise, which is a SIEM solution, and Splunk, which is probably one of the biggest ones out there that most people would name if you ask them. Splunk is probably at the top or near the top of everybody's list. Datadog would be another big one. I have used LogPoint and GrayLog. I have also used ManageEngine's Log360. SolarWinds is another popular one that I have come across pretty often. I have used many more than that, but those are probably the top five or six that I have used. They are the ones that customers tend to use a lot. Some of them are still using those products and have chosen not to move, but the ones that have chosen to move have done that because of two things. The cost plays a part. They have the ability to leverage a tool that is already built into the platform and that may be easier to work with and integrate in a more readily accessible fashion, and it would be as expensive and maybe less expensive over time. It might also seem to be a better architectural choice for them as they look at an upcoming renewal cycle, or they have heard or been told that they need a certain capability or feature and the vendor that they are currently using does not have that or it is not as easily accessible or readily available, but Microsoft Sentinel has that capability. It has connectors to those other platforms, but for whatever reason, their particular vendor does not have that connector, or they might promise to deliver it but it is not going to be ready for six months. It comes down to features and cost. These are the two main reasons or two main motivators to drive people to migrate.

In terms of the cost and ease of use of Microsoft Sentinel against standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions, it is difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison. That is because, in theory, you can look at Microsoft Sentinel as a single standalone product with its own cost associated with it, but it is linked to, consumed by, and used in partnership with many other systems and tools that also have a licensing cost. Some of it is built-in and some of it is an add-on, depending on where you are and how you choose to license. In other words, Microsoft Defender is a per instance per month cost that is additional to using the Microsoft Sentinel product, and what you get with a standalone solution is essentially just the SIEM or the SOAR capability. You are not getting the capability to blend them across the platform, or if the vendor does both, you are buying them as an all-in-one solution and you are paying a monthly fee per user based on licensing. 

From my perspective, cost comparisons are not as accurate. When a customer asks whether Microsoft Sentinel is going to cost them less or more than using this other tool, it is a very simplistic way of looking at the tool, and it is a very operational-centric or OpEx discussion. When anyone asks about the monthly fee for the investment in this tool, you have to be more strategic. When you look at a tool, features, and capabilities, the capital expense is broader than just the operational expense. You have to understand the strategy associated with the tool decision and the impact and value of the tool. 

Microsoft Sentinel gives a good value for money or a return on investment in terms of what it costs you to run it. When comparing it to any of the other major competitors in the market, it is as cost-effective and perhaps even more cost-effective than some of them. It certainly is very competitive, but people do not necessarily understand the subtlety in that assessment in terms of how they are integrating the Microsoft Sentinel solution or the third-party solution into the broader context of their infrastructure and security posture. That is where they run into issues that become more prohibited from a cost perspective, both hard and soft. For example, the hard cost could be $15 a month per user to license or $15 a month per endpoint and $100 per gigabyte of storage or something like that. Those numbers are wildly inaccurate, but you do have hard costs, and then you have soft costs, which include what it costs you to train people who have to use that technology or to train people who have to manage it ongoing and integrate it. You might have to hire consultants to do that, for instance. Those are hard and soft costs. When you are using a Microsoft product and you are Microsoft-centric, you overcome some of those soft costs because you have people who already have skills on the platform. You are already integrating that technology. Microsoft is doing that for you. You do not have to do it yourself. As a result, some of what I refer to as hidden costs are not as high with a Microsoft solution as they would be with a third-party solution. If you are already Microsoft-centric and you are using a majority of Microsoft Azure and Microsoft 365-based infrastructure in some form, it is easier to implement that technology. It costs less when you go forward with Microsoft Sentinel than it does when you try to bring in a third-party external SIEM or SOAR and tie it into the Microsoft platforms and have it do the things that you are looking for it to do.

It is predominantly deployed for public cloud use, meaning customers hosting on a public cloud are using it. They are hosting in Azure, for instance, and they are running their cloud infrastructure in that cloud environment. You can link to on-premises resources in hybrid scenarios, and you can certainly make the case that it can be used for private cloud as well because you can extend it to the on-premises environment. It can be used to ingest information in a multi-cloud environment, meaning you can bring in infrastructure information from Amazon or Google, the other two major public cloud provider platforms, as well as VMware, which, in its own right, is a public cloud provider. So, it can be used or potentially be available to consume data from any of those areas.

I have been involved in the deployment of hundreds of instances of Microsoft Sentinel. Its initial deployment is straightforward. In terms of implementation strategy or how to approach it, it is important to spend a lot of time with whoever the customer is. I work with multiple customers. I ask them what sound like fairly simple and simplistic questions but are very important questions. What are they looking to accomplish by deploying a SIEM solution? What is the business requirement that we are addressing by deploying the solution? We need to define that and understand that because oftentimes, we find that the customer says, "Well, we think we need, for instance, X." We talk about it, but realize what they really need is perhaps X with other things or it is not X at all. It is really W. They just thought it was X because somebody told them that. They did not know any better, so asking W&H is important.

• Who is this for?

• Who are the stakeholders?

• Why are we doing this?

• What are we looking to accomplish?

• When are we looking to get it done?

• What is the timeline?

The where and the how are not as important because it is typically in the cloud, and we are going to have qualified people deploy this architecture and we are going to run it in Microsoft, Amazon, or whatever. If we ask those questions upfront, then we can come up with a deployment plan and architecture solution that approximates the customers' needs but also meets their expectations, so for me, a project's success or failure lies in planning. The majority of the work you do has to be done in the planning cycle before you do implementation. If you are really strong in planning, then implementation is relatively straightforward. There are not a lot of surprises. As long as you are technically competent, you can do your deployments, and they should be relatively straightforward and minimal risk to the organization in terms of the deployment. If you do not get your planning right, you are opening up a tremendous amount of risk and liability in the organization.

In terms of maintenance, you cannot set it and forget it. Like any other product, it does require maintenance. If you are smart about it and you set it up the right way the first time, it will take care of itself, and it will certainly operate well at scale, but you have to examine it on an ongoing basis. There is always an opportunity to refine and update connectors. You can add new connectors as you need to extend the reach of the tool. You may have to look at the volume of data that is coming in to refine the amount of data that you want to store, pay for, and analyze, and then you have to look at the queries you are running to be able to stay on top of the data to extrapolate meaning. So, there is maintenance that goes into using a tool like this. There is no checklist that you go through every day, but there are absolutely things that have to be done on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis to keep the tool running properly.

I am the one who handles the deployment. It is rare that I would not do it myself or work with a team that would be empowered to do it as part of that.

The deployment, depending on the size of the deployment, could be done by as little as one person. It does not necessarily need a huge number of people to be associated with it. The bigger need there is what you do once the initial deployment is done, meaning fine-tuning the operation of that. When you add all that in, you typically look at a team of anywhere from three to six individuals. There are incident management and response and SOC analysis people. There are also network people. There are different people who would play a part in ultimately standing up and optimizing a tool like this, but usually, four to six people play a part on average.

There is absolutely an ROI if it is architected properly and the customer has the right expectations going in.

Microsoft Sentinel has saved my customers money. There is an initial investment upfront, so you have to spend money to save money. There is an initial investment upfront of hard and soft hours, but if the systems are set up properly and optimized and you have people who understand them, one of the things that you are able to do is look at the redundancies in your security stack or in your provisioning. You can look at tools that you may be able to move away from at the end of a license period instead of renewing, for instance. You can do away with that redundancy and focus on simply using the Microsoft toolset, so you tend to find that there is definitely an economy of scale there in terms of recouping those returns on investment. There may be a one to three-year cycle to see those savings. It depends on where you are with redundant tool sets that you have identified to be eliminated and where you are with a contractual licensing obligation of time cycle or license period before you have to pay to renew based on current investment, so it may lag a little bit. You do not tend to see those results right away. They tend to lag anywhere from 12 to 36 months, but at the end of, for instance, a three-year cycle, you are not spending another $300,000 to re-license a new tool. You are saving that money. You can then work backward and say that on average, you are now saving x amount of dollars a month going forward because you are not making that investment anymore. You definitely do see investments that yield value, but they tend to lag.

It is priced fairly given the value that you get from the use of the product. The biggest mistake people make with Microsoft Sentinel is not understanding the pricing model and the amount of data that they are going to be running through the tool because you are paying based on the flow. You are paying based on the amount of data that is moving through the tool. People do not plan, and therefore, they get surprised by the cost associated with using the tool. They connect everything because they want to know everything, but connecting everything is very expensive. They might not need to know everything. That is what I talk about with customers. It would be nice to know everything, but it might not be affordable or cost-effective. Microsoft Sentinel provides good value for the money. It is competitive with any of the other offerings out there based on the cost, but the mistake customers make is that they do not understand the cost model for using a SIEM solution regardless of whose solution they are using. When they get visibility into that model, it becomes a lot easier for them to make informed decisions.

I certainly evaluate products all the time. I am always looking to see what capabilities exist and which vendor can offer me the best mix of features and capabilities for the price, and then I make recommendations to my customers as a result of that. Microsoft Sentinel is a newer product in the market in terms of time. It has only been around for about four years, whereas some of the other products, such as Splunk, have been around a lot longer, so I tend to find people evaluating Microsoft Sentinel versus the other products they already possess when they are looking to move.

To those evaluating this solution, I would advise doing their due diligence. They have to understand the technology, the capabilities, and the limitations. They need to assess the business requirements that they are trying to address by deploying a SIEM solution, whether it is Microsoft or not. They need to understand what those key business requirements or key objectives are, and then evaluate the tools to make sure that those tools can achieve those objectives. They can then make an informed decision accordingly.

Microsoft Sentinel is one piece of the puzzle. Threat intelligence or threat analysis is a broader aspect of the security platform that Microsoft provides. It is certainly reliant on the data that Microsoft Sentinel provides, but there is a lot more to it than that. Overall, Microsoft has made tremendous investments in the last five to ten years. Especially in the last five years, in that space, they have developed a threat intelligence, threat analysis, and threat awareness capability that rivals any of the top platforms that are out there today. They continue to mature and grow that capability by maturing the products that support it. Microsoft Sentinel is one aspect of that. The Microsoft Defender stack or all different Defender products are a part of that. A few years ago, it would have been very hard to make the statement or make the case that Microsoft has a mature offering that is certainly at the very top along with other offerings that are often talked about as being at the top in that field. Today, Microsoft competes at the top tier of that field, and their solution is as mature as any of the ones in the market. The challenge with Microsoft solution is that it is very specific and uniquely honed for the Microsoft infrastructure. That is not a bad thing, but it is something that you need to be aware of. It is specifically designed to work with, work for, and wrap around Microsoft's public cloud offering Microsoft Azure and the supporting elements in Microsoft 365, etc. So, as long as you are Microsoft-centric in your stack, in your technology, in your architecture, it is a very valuable piece of the overall threat posture management that a company needs, but if your investment in technology is heavily weighted outside of Microsoft, it is of less value because you need to be Microsoft centric and Microsoft forward to be able to fully leverage that platform.

To a security colleague who says it is better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite, I would say that it depends on the nature of the organization's technology architecture. If the organization is overwhelmingly single-technology-centric, meaning they use Microsoft almost exclusively, you can make the case either way. Using an external third party not tied to Microsoft is important because now you are splitting your investment, and you are not gambling only on one provider, which is the argument you always hear people make when they say, "Do not put all your eggs in one basket." The counter to that argument is who knows my environment better than the vendor that has made all the technology that I am integrating, and who would be better to monitor it than the vendor that makes all the technology? When I have customers that are single-technology-stack customers, they are almost exclusively or predominantly Microsoft, I counsel them to think strongly about using Microsoft products unless there is a compelling reason not to because Microsoft is going to make a much better solution than a third-party vendor that has to figure out how to connect to Microsoft to use that product properly. Organizations that have a mixed technology environment do not use only one vendor. To be fair, many small, medium, and large organizations are mixed technology environments, and it would be foolish to only rely on one vendor's security solution.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Sentinel an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Sentinel for log aggregation, data connectors, and alerts.

In terms of visibility, Microsoft Sentinel captures a lot of useful data.

Microsoft Sentinel helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise. It shows us the most vulnerable assets, and because we have agents on every machine, we know exactly where to go to investigate. This is important for staying secure as a company. It allows us to cover our own bases by seeing what is happening in real-time and taking proactive steps to address threats, rather than reacting to them after they have already occurred. We can stay up-to-date with security measures and ensure that we follow through and execute our security plan.

We integrated Microsoft Sentinel with Defender for Cloud, Endpoint, and Defender Vulnerability Management. 

Microsoft is not the most vendor-friendly company in terms of integrations and connections, but we were able to get it working in the end, so we cannot really complain.

Microsoft's security tools work natively together to deliver coordinated detection responses across our environment.

The comprehensive threat protection that Microsoft Sentinel provides is good. They provide really good information. We are able to create documents, perform root cause analysis, and analyze anything we need to. Log integration is also key. We are able to find potentially malicious files, correlate events to alerts, and then take action on alerts. So, the comprehensiveness is pretty straightforward.

We use Cloud and Endpoint security. We have our Defender cloud, and then Defender agents on each endpoint. The bidirectional sync capability is important, and it is a work in progress. We are in the process of off-boarding our contract with CrowdStrike. We are moving all of our cybersecurity needs to Microsoft Defender, which is included in our existing Microsoft licenses. This makes financial sense, and CrowdStrike was not providing us with much value.

The system allows us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem, which is very important. This is our main source of correlation of logs to alerts. Therefore, we definitely need to get every single log source, and possibly a few more.

The system allows us to investigate and respond holistically from one place.

It is a very comprehensive tool to use. However, the supporting documentation is limited to initial troubleshooting. This is where I find the most difficulty in explaining how good the tool is. Other than that, the tool is pretty straightforward. There is enough documentation to get us started. However, beyond that, we will need to rely on online forums and other open-source resources to learn more about the tool.

When comparing Microsoft Sentinel to other SIEMs in terms of cost, we are saving money because it is included with our Microsoft 365 E5 licenses. This also helps us to reduce the number of different types of software that we need to use. We do like redundancy in terms of coverage, but the cost of multiple solutions adds up. We want to be able to use one central location for all of our security software. This is one of the reasons why we choose Microsoft Sentinel over third-party solutions. As we move into larger projects, we need to have a centralized place for all of our security policies and procedures.

Microsoft Sentinel helps us automate routine tasks and find high-value alerts. We also use Sentinel as a store for our alerts. This allows us to automate most of our responses if not all of them. We also tailored our alerts to specific events that occur in our environment.

Microsoft Sentinel helps eliminate the need to use multiple dashboards by providing a single XDR dashboard. We currently use Sentinel's workbooks, which provide a dashboard that we can use for metrics, reporting, and other purposes. This makes it easier to relay information upwards, as it is presented in a more visually appealing and easy-to-understand manner. For example, we can use pie charts, bar charts, and line charts to represent data in a way that is easy to understand. This makes it easier to convey information to upper management, such as where we are most vulnerable and what steps we need to take to improve our security.

Microsoft Sentinel helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit by taking proactive steps. We can also detect ongoing incidents. For example, if we receive a ticket or alert that is ongoing and will not go away, we can automate a response to it and add it to our playbook. This way, if a similar incident occurs in the future, we will know what to do to respond immediately.

In terms of automation, I believe we save about 20 to 22 hours per week by closing tickets. We receive about 50 to 100 tickets per day, and we automated about 80 percent of those. This means that we can now close tickets without having to manually review them. This saved us a significant amount of time, which we can now use on other tasks.

We are on the smaller side in terms of the number of logs that come in. So, I don't think it's necessary to compare at this level of data ingestion. However, I can definitely see that if we scale and grow in the future, it will save us a lot of money, especially in terms of manpower and hours that we have to dedicate to automation or non-automated tasks. For example, in the six months that we've had Sentinel up and running, we've saved 755 hours in automation alone.

We currently meet all of our service level agreements in terms of incident response. This definitely saved us time, and we also receive email alerts directly so that we know as soon as something happens.

Log aggregation and data connectors are the most valuable features. We have a plethora of data connectors, so being able to get all of our logs into a central location is very helpful.

For certain vendors, some of the data that Microsoft Sentinel captures is redacted due to privacy reasons. In the future, it would be helpful to have this data unredacted so that we can have a better understanding of it.

Microsoft Sentinel is not the most user-friendly tool. Other tools, such as Splunk SIEM or any other SIEM, are better and easier to use.

Our threat-hunting capabilities can definitely be improved. We do use workbooks to view incoming data, but threat hunting is where we can really find those underlying issues that may not be immediately visible. We will use these alerts as a starting point for our hunting. If we can correlate two different events and identify the same root cause, it will save us a lot of time and resources.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for six months.

I would definitely rate Microsoft's technical support low. First, it is very difficult to reach a real person. We are always directed to a bot, which can only diagnose some issues. If we do need to speak to a real person, the wait time is very long. It can take hours or even days to get a call or video conference. Second, the documentation is outdated. This is especially true since Microsoft recently rebranded Azure Sentinel as Microsoft Sentinel. The new documentation is not yet available, and the old documentation is no longer accurate.

Negative

Microsoft Sentinel is included in our E5 license.

I give Microsoft Sentinel a seven out of ten. It has good capabilities, including a large number of native connectors. It is a well-known brand, so it is likely that many third-party vendors will integrate with it in the future. This will give Sentinel a wider range of data sources to collect from. In terms of data connectors, I think Microsoft Sentinel is one of the better options available. However, some of its competitors, such as Splunk and SentinelOne, have better interfaces and support. They may also have some proprietary capabilities that Microsoft Sentinel does not offer.

I believe that duplicating security measures is a good thing. It is also important to have redundancy in tools. If we have multiple tools that cover the same thing, we will have more eyes and visibility, and we will be able to remediate issues as they arise. Therefore, using multiple vendors, platforms, and consoles is the way to go. If we use only one tool for everything, it will be like a Swiss Army knife. We will definitely run into problems. I believe that we should avoid single points of failure at all costs. We should have redundancy in tools, but not just in tools. It is also beneficial for our team to all know the same tool or a specific suite.

I'm using it as a SIEM solution. If I consider the leading clouds, especially Google and Amazon, so we don't have a dedicated SIEM solution available in either and we have to create a SIEM solution by using the native services of those clouds. But Microsoft Sentinel gives us an opportunity to use a direct SIEM solution. 

I have clients from different regions and they already have environments on the cloud with various vendors, as well as on-prem. The problem they came to me with was that they wanted to secure their environments. They wanted to monitor all the vulnerability management, patches, and vulnerability scans in a single place. They have third-party data sources that they wanted to monitor things in a single dashboard. I suggested they use Microsoft Sentinel because it can integrate many third-party vendors into a single picture.

Those are the kinds of scenarios in which I suggest that my clients use Microsoft Sentinel.

One thing that makes our work easier is that Sentinel enables you to investigate threats and respond from one place. We don't need to jump into different portals. We configure the rules there and we have the response plans as well as the recommendations from the Sentinel itself and, from there, we can take action. It saves time. That is a good and really important feature.

Working with Sentinel, trust is something we have gained. My company is a consulting firm and we have multiple clients in different regions. We have Australian clients and have to deal with Australian policies, as well as in India where there are different kinds of government policies. With all these policies that our clients have to accommodate, when we deploy Sentinel, the trust we are gaining from them is good.

We are also able to optimize costs, have stability, and an improved work culture by using Sentinel.

Another benefit is the automation of routine functions, like the creation of incidents. Our SOC doesn't need to create incidents manually. We have playbooks to automate things. That saves time on a daily basis.

A monotonous job was the need to send an email to an affected user to tell them to take an action because their third-party tool was something we didn't have access to. For example, we do not have visibility into the portal of Palo Alto, CyberArk, or Zscaler. My team's job in that situation was to send an email for every alert to tell someone to take action. Now, they don't need to waste their time. With automation, we can create a playbook for that. When an alert is generated, it automatically triggers the affected user to take action accordingly. In the time we have saved, my team has been able to learn and customize KQL queries and enhance their KQL skills.

Another area where it is helping us is in creating a single dashboard for our environment. We can collect all the logs into a log analytics workset and run queries on top of it. We get all the results in the dashboard. Even a layman can understand this stuff. The way Microsoft presents it is really incredible. We can download that dashboard or a report from the dashboard and present it in a team meeting. That is really useful.

Overall, per week, Sentinel saves us 40 to 45 hours, per person. We have a team of 20 people who log in to Sentinel and each of those people is saving something like 40 to 45 hours by using it. In that time we can work on different technologies. It has also definitely decreased our time to detection by 80 percent.

The most amazing aspect of Microsoft Sentinel is the daily upgrading of the product. They have third-party connectors that their people are enhancing on a daily basis. That is what I like about the product. Their people are not sitting idly and saying, "Okay, we have created the product, now just use it." It's nothing like that. They are continuously working on it to make it number one in the market.

It also has a playbook feature so that we can do automation in Sentinel itself, based on the data sources and the logs that we are receiving. That means we don't need to do manual stuff again and again.

Using Sentinel, we can collect all the logs of third-party vendors and use them to analyze what kinds of scenarios are going on in the environment. On top of that, we can create analytics rules to monitor the environment and take action accordingly if there is a suspicious or malicious event.

Something else that is great is the visibility into threats. We have an AI feature enabled in Sentinel and that gives us great visibility into the data sources we have integrated. And for data sources that we don't have integrated, we have a Zero Trust feature and we get great visibility into the threat log. Visibility-wise, Sentinel is fantastic.

The ingestion of data from our entire environment is very important to our security operations. We have clients in insurance and multiple firms that deal with taxation, and we need to do an audit yearly. To do that, we need the data from the whole environment to be ingested into the workspace.

They can work on the EDR side of things. It is already really superb, because of the kinds of features we get with the EDR solution. It's not a standard EDR and they have recently enhanced things. But the problem is with onboarding devices. I have different OS flavors, including a large number of Linux, Windows, macOS, and some on-prem machines as well.

Every time we need to onboard these kinds of machines into the EDR, we need to do it with the help of Intune, to sync up the devices, and do the configuration. I'm looking for something on the EDR side that will reduce this kind of work. They can eliminate having to do manual configuration for the machines, and check the different types of configurations for each OS. In some cases, it does not support some OSs. If they could reduce this type of work, that would be really amazing.

I have been using this product for the last three and a half years.

It is reliable. I would rate it a nine out of 10 for performance and reliability.

The scalability is also a nine out of 10.

We have the solution in different locations and regions. Most of my clients are in Singapore, Australia, and India and we have some European clients as well. On average, our clients have 2,200 employees.

Most of the time, their technical support is very good and very supportive. But sometimes we feel that they don't want to help us. Recently, we had a major issue and we tried to involve a Microsoft engineer. I felt he was not aware of the things we were asking for. 

I said, "That machine is hosted on Microsoft Azure and you and people are managing that stuff, so you need to know that machine inside and out." He said, "No, the configuration and integration parts, in the machine itself, is something I'm not aware of. You people did this, and you need to take care of it." I told him that the challenge we were facing was with the configuration and we do not get those kinds of logs. I suggested he engage some Linux OS expertise for this call, but he said, "No, we don't have a Linux OS expert."

Sometimes we face this kind of challenge, but most of the time their people are very helpful.

Neutral

It is a very simple process to integrate things. On a scale of one to 10, where 10 is "easy," I would rate it at nine. We have a team that takes part with me in the implementation and we divide the work.

And we don't need to worry too much about maintenance. Microsoft takes care of that part.

We do it all in-house.

Microsoft can enhance the licensing side. I feel there is confusion sometimes. They should have a list of features when we opt for Microsoft Sentinel. They should have a single license in which we have the opportunity to use the EDR or CASB solution. Right now, for Sentinel, we have to pay for a license for something in the Azure portal. Then, if we want to work with CASB, we need to buy a different license. And if we want to go for EDR, we need to buy another license. They do provide a type of comparison with a combo of licenses, but I feel very confused sometimes about subscriptions and licensing.

Also, sometimes it's quite tough to reach them when we need a license. We have to wait for some time. When we drop an email to contact them, it is at least 24 until they reply. They should be able to get back to us in one hour or even 30 minutes. They do have a premium feature where, within one or two hours, they are bound to respond to a query. But with licensing, sometimes this is a challenge. They don't respond on time.

If I compare Sentinel with standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions when it comes to cost, Sentinel is good. It is really cheap but that does not mean it compromises on features, ease of use, or flexibility, compared to what the other vendors are providing. When I look at other similar solutions, like Splunk, QRadar, and ArcSight, they are charging more than Microsoft, but ultimately they are not giving us the features that Microsoft is offering us.

Sentinel is far better than these other solutions. I have worked with Splunk in the past and many of my colleagues are working in the QRadar as well. When I talk to them, and when I compare the features, these solutions are not at all near to Microsoft Sentinel.

So while we do create a type of SIEM solution in other platforms in the cloud, using the native services, Microsoft gives us a direct solution at a very reasonable rate. They are charging less money, but they will never compromise the quality or the features. Microsoft is updating Sentinel on a regular basis. If I look at Sentinel three and a half years back, and the Sentinel of today, the difference is really unbelievable.

As part of our consulting team, I have never suggested that someone go for a third-party solution. Some of my clients have a whole environment on AWS and GCP and they have said, "Can we create some kind of SIEM solution for my cloud by using something we have in Microsoft?" I give them a comparison between using the native services and Microsoft Sentinel. The main point I tell them is about the cost. They are convinced and say, "Okay, if we get those kinds of features at that cost, we are good to go with the Microsoft Sentinel." And they don't need to migrate their whole environment into Sentinel or Microsoft Azure. They can continue to use whatever they are using. We can onboard their logs into Sentinel and, on top of that, create use cases and dashboards, and they can monitor things.

Microsoft is proactive in helping you be ready for potential threats, but I'm not involved in that part. It's something my counterpart takes care of. But I have heard from them that it is proactive.

We also use Microsoft's CASB solution, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, and Defender for Endpoint. There is some complexity when it comes to integration of Defender for Endpoint. This is the feedback I have submitted to Microsoft. When we do the integration of Defender for Endpoint, we have more than 12,000 machines, with different OSs. Onboarding all those machines into the environment is a challenge because of the large number of machines.

Although it's not creating any kind of mess, compared with Sentinel or the CASB product, Defender for Endpoint is something Microsoft can work on to create an option where we don't need to onboard all these machines into Intune and then into Defender for Endpoint. If that step can be omitted, Defender for Point will also be a good solution because it is also working on an AI basis.

These Microsoft products do work together to deliver coordinated detection and response. We simultaneously get the benefits of all these products.

We are also using Microsoft Defender for Cloud to see the security posture of our environment and it also has some great features. It helps us understand vulnerability issues and, on the top of that, we get recommendations for resolving those issues. The security posture is based on the policies it has, as well as third-party CIS benchmarks that people are using in the backend to provide the recommendations. It's good.

We have created an automation rule, but not directly using Defender for Cloud's bi-directional feature. The automation we have created is logic using a bidirectional aspect for Sentinel incidents. When we get incidents in Sentinel, we can trigger those same incidents in ServiceNow as well. We have a SOC team that manages our incident response plan and ServiceNow. Once they take an action in ServiceNow, they don't need to go to Microsoft Sentinel again and take action on the incident. It will automatically reflect the action they have taken.

Between best-of-breed versus a single vendor for security, Microsoft is on top. They are continuously enhancing their product and other cloud platforms don't have a direct SIEM solution. We need to customize other solutions every time if we want to opt for another cloud vendor. This is the advantage of Microsoft Sentinel at this point in time.

I would recommend Microsoft Sentinel to anybody.

I and my colleagues feel that Microsoft Sentinel is the number-one product for anyone considering something similar. We have other tools as well, but none compare with Sentinel.

We utilize Microsoft Sentinel to monitor files for suspicious activities, such as unauthorized user login information, remote logins from outside the secure region, and primarily attachments.

Microsoft Sentinel offers good visibility into threats because we can integrate it with both Defender for Cloud and Defender for Endpoint. We conducted a test to determine the extent of visibility achievable through Sentinel integration, aiming to identify the primary sources of attacks.

We also use Microsoft Office 365, Defender for Cloud, and Defender for Endpoint.

When it concerns cybersecurity, particularly regarding zero-day attacks, Microsoft tends to promptly release TVEs. These updates enable us to patch systems that are susceptible to specific zero-day attacks.

Sentinel allows us to gather data from our entire ecosystem. We can install connectors or an agent on the user's system, or we can do it manually.

Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond promptly from a unified platform. Upon receiving alerts, we can navigate to the corresponding tab for analytics, where we can initiate an investigation to view comprehensive details about the threat's origin and its interactions.

It has assisted our organization in enhancing our preparedness and thwarting phishing emails and attacks. We encounter attacks on a daily basis from individuals attempting to execute scripts via websites. Every month, we can conduct simulations to train our personnel in recognizing and evading threats. Sentinel is particularly effective in mitigating risks posed by employees who click on dubious email attachments.

Sentinel assists in automating routine tasks and identifying high-value alerts. Although I haven't extensively used it, playbooks can be employed to create automated responses for alerts and to resolve them.

It assists in eliminating the need to utilize multiple dashboards. We configured one of our servers as a honeypot, enabling us to observe all access and related details from a unified dashboard.

The threat intelligence assists us in preparing for potential threats before they occur and taking any necessary proactive measures. When a potential threat is identified, we are also given recommendations on how to proceed.

Sentinel has helped decrease our time to detect and respond. The automation has reduced the time I spend on low-level threats, allowing me to focus on the priority threats.

Microsoft Sentinel comes preloaded with templates for teaching and analytics rules. we can also create our own.

We need to continually test and define analytics rules due to the possibility of triggering false positives if we simply use the preloaded templates and neglect them.

We attempted to integrate our Microsoft solutions, but we occasionally faced problems when connecting with other systems. While it functioned effectively with Linux and Unix systems, a Windows 11 update led to complications. Sentinel was unable to capture essential logs on certain computers. As a result, we were compelled to create two SIEMs using Splunk and QualysGuard. This was necessary because certain operating systems experienced issues, particularly after receiving updates.

Although Sentinel is a comprehensive security solution, it could be more user-friendly. When I started using it, it was a bit confusing. I think that certain features should be placed in separate tabs instead of being clustered together in one place.

The KQL query does not function effectively with Windows 11 machines, and in the majority of machine-based investigations, KQL queries are essential for organizing the data during investigations.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for two years.

I have not experienced any stability issues with Microsoft Sentinel.

Scaling is straightforward. For instance, if an organization opts to establish a new department and intends to add ten machines to that department, all that is required is to create a new load analysis workspace, incorporate the machines into that workspace, and subsequently link it to Sentinel.

Microsoft Sentinel requires an E5 license. When considering this from the perspective of a large enterprise organization, the cost might be justified. However, for smaller organizations, it is comparatively expensive when compared to other SIEM and SOAR solutions. Open-source SIEMs like OSSEC are also available. These can be integrated with other open-source tools to address similar issues as Microsoft Sentinel, often at minimal or no cost.

I would rate Microsoft Sentinel an eight out of ten.

Our Microsoft security solutions both cooperate and have limitations in working seamlessly together to provide coordinated detection and response across our environment. The individual who initially implemented these solutions did so in a manner that prevents us from accessing all the necessary information to effectively utilize Sentinel with a single administrative account, as intended.

Most of our servers are on-premises but we have two that are connected to Defender for Cloud. Those are mostly pickup servers.

Microsoft takes care of the maintenance for Sentinel.

Using a best-of-breed strategy is superior to relying on a single-vendor security suite. I have observed while working with Splunk and QualysGuard, that they are capable of detecting certain low-level threats more promptly than Sentinel. Occasionally, these threats manage to slip through when using Sentinel.

Microsoft Sentinel is a commendable solution, and its value justifies the cost. However, it should be noted that it comes with a significant price tag. Therefore, any organization considering implementing this solution should ensure they are financially prepared for it. I strongly advise obtaining certification and acquiring proficiency in using Sentinel. It is an excellent tool equipped with numerous features. Unfortunately, many users remain unaware of these features or lack the understanding of how to utilize them effectively. It's worth mentioning that Microsoft Defender and Intune serve to further enhance Sentinel's capabilities, elevating it into an even more powerful tool.

My client has a huge environment in Azure. They have around 30,000 resources spread across the globe. They also have a huge presence on-premises itself. So, for on-prem, they have a SIEM solution already in place. But for the cloud, they didn't have anything. So, basically, no visibility into any kind of attacks or any kind of logging or monitoring in the cloud. We could not scale up our on-prem counterpart for it due to various reasons of cost and how much resources it would take. Microsoft Sentinel seemed like a pretty good solution since it's cloud-native, it's hosted by Azure itself. So we went ahead with the solution.

Microsoft Sentinel has given us great visibility into our cloud workloads and cloud environment as a whole. And not just that, but even, in fact, with the MCAS and email-security solutions also. We get a lot of visibility into what kind of emails we are getting and how many of them are malicious versus legitimate. From a visibility and compatibility perspective, it's really a nice product to have as a SIEM solution for your cloud environment. In fact, we have integrated this with our AWS, as well. At this point in time, it's just one account, but we plan on expanding more. So all the logs from our AWS environment flow to the solution. Microsoft Sentinel performs the analytics and gives us the alert for that.

The comprehensiveness and coverage of multiple different solutions, on-prem solutions, and cloud solutions, are the two aspects, Microsoft Sentinel really has an edge over other products.

Visibility into threats is above average. Since I also went through some slides of Microsoft and they receive a lot of telemetry because of their Windows platform, because of Azure. What I saw in those slides is that they benefit from this telemetry and create a rich threat-intelligence, kind of a backend service, which supports Sentinel and literally enriches the detection capabilities for Microsoft Sentinel.

Correlation is something that helps us instead of looking at every single alert. So, if we get a phishing email and five users click on it, instead of going through five individual detections, it correlates all of that and presents it in one single incident correlating all these five events. So, in terms of that correlation, it is pretty good. In terms of responding to these alerts, I know there is some automation. There were multiple calls with Microsoft when we were setting up this solution. They showed us how we can do this and they gave us a demo, which was really nice to see the automation. But from the response point of view, we haven't enabled any automation as of now because we are still in the nascent stages of setting this up. We have done multiple integrations, but, still, there's a lot of ground to cover. So, the response is something we would look at last. I think the response side also has a lot of automation and correlation, but we haven't worked on that as of now.

The time to detect and time to respond has been reduced considerably. Detect, because the analytics that is done by Microsoft Sentinel is near real-time, and response is based on us. So, when we see the alert, we respond to it, and we wait on the teams to receive an answer. Previously, the SOC guys were doing this. It was really slow and, sometimes, proceeded at a snail's pace. With Microsoft Sentinel, at least one part of it got addressed, which was running these queries with the SIEM and getting to analyze multiple events to go onto a specific security incident. That time has been saved by Sentinel. I would say 20 to 30% of the time to respond and detect has been saved.

In terms of Microsoft Sentinel, I think a large part of it has been automated by Azure itself. From a customer point of view, all you have to do is just run some queries and get the data. In terms of connections or the connectors for multiple data sources or multiple log sources, it's very easy to just set it up, be it Azure-native services or something customized, like some connection with the on-prem servers or things like that, or even connections with the other cloud platforms, such as AWS. The connectors are really one thing I appreciate. I think it sets Microsoft Sentinel apart from other solutions. Apart from that, the analytics that it performs and the built-in queries that it has, are valuable. A lot of automation on part of Microsoft Sentinel is really commendable.

Microsoft Sentinel definitely helps prioritize threats across our enterprise. I think Microsoft Defender for Cloud would also come in when we talk about this because Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Microsoft Sentinel work in conjunction with each other. We can set it up that way so any alerts that are found in Microsoft Defender for Cloud are forwarded to Microsoft Sentinel. Then, the prioritization is set based on the standard criticality, high, medium, low and informational. So, from our sense, what we can do is, we can simply target the high incidents.

Another thing is that it very efficiently correlates all the events. So if multiple emails have been sent from a single email ID, which is supposed to be a phishing email, Sentinel identifies it, flags all the emails, and it can very beautifully track all of it from their console such as who clicked it, when did they click it, which ID was it, who received it. So, in terms of all that, correlation also helps us prioritize those events.

Prioritization is important. If we have a bunch of alerts and we started investigating some alerts that are not of that much value, some alerts would get ignored if the prioritization was not set correctly. So if it's a phishing attempt and, in another area, we find that there's a brute-force attack going on, we would first want to address the phishing attempt since, in my opinion, in my experience, the probability of getting a link clicked is high rather than a password getting compromised by a brute-force attack. So, in those terms, prioritization really helps us.

Microsoft Sentinel definitely enables us to ingest data from the entire ecosystem. Microsoft Sentinel has around 122 or 123 connectors. Although we haven't set up the solution for our whole ecosystem, be it on-prem, Azure Cloud, AWS cloud, or any other cloud for that matter, looking at the connectors, I feel like there's a whole lot of support, and possibly, we can cover our whole ecosystem, with some exceptions for some solutions. Exceptions are always there. From a coverage point of view, I think it's pretty good. We can cover at least 80 to 90% of our ecosystem. Obviously, it comes at a cost. So at that point in time, it could get very costly. That is one downside.

From the SOC point of view, everything depends on how good the data you are ingesting is and the amount of data you are ingesting. So, the more data we have, the better insights we would have into what activities are going on in our cloud environment, and in our on-prem environment. So it's very critical to have the right data ingested into things like Microsoft Sentinel. Otherwise, you could have a great solution but an ineffective solution in place if you don't have data ingestion configured in the right manner.

Investigations are something really remarkable. We can drill down right to the raw logs by running different queries and getting those on the console itself.

The number one area of improvement for Sentinel would be the cost. 
At this point in time, I feel like, simply because we are a huge organization spread across the globe, we can afford it, but small and medium businesses cannot afford it. Maybe it's not meant for them? I don't know; that's a debatable topic. But even for organizations like ours, a problem that we face and for some of my other friends that I have talked to, it's a great solution, but we cannot deploy it everywhere because, frankly, we overrun our budget.

One thing that would really help or benefit would be the alerts that get thrown up. I've seen multiple alerts. For example, external file activity or external user activity. I open those alerts and there is absolutely no information in them. If there's external user activity, then who is that user, what is something that they are doing, how did Microsoft Sentinel detect this, or what were the analytics based on this outcome that it was a malicious activity or there was something anomalous or something like that? There is some particular type of alerts where a bit more data enrichment would help us.

The alerts get thrown out, and this is something we generally see with any kind of SIEM or any kind of other detection-based solution. For example, in an EDR solution or a vulnerability solution, the typical problem is alert fatigue. We get so many alerts that we start to see a large amount of them, and then we don't know where to start. Although here, we have the prioritization already shared by Microsoft Sentinel, so we have a starting point, but then it never ends. Perhaps tweaking and reducing the number of alerts that get thrown out, and enriching those alerts with more data would help. A lot of these alerts are just very normal things. They are not security incidents in their truest form, but it does take up our time just viewing those alerts. And sometimes, it also lacks a lot of information, like who did what, at exactly what time, and why did Microsoft Sentinel think that it was a malicious incident. That is one question I see a lot of times myself and don't get an answer for, like, "Okay, I get this a lot, but why do you think it's a security event?" So, enriching those alerts with more data might be a good area of improvement for Microsoft Sentinel.

The number of dashboards is something we complained a lot to Microsoft about, "You have great solutions, but you have a different console or a different dashboard for everything. So, as a person who is responding to these alerts, it really becomes overwhelming juggling between multiple different screens, dashboards, tabs, and windows." They have acknowledged this and they have mentioned to us that a lot of other customers made the same complaint and they're working on integrating these dashboards. So, for example, if you are using Microsoft Defender for Cloud, in one click you can reach a Microsoft Sentinel page wherein it would show you the raw logs. It sometimes gets overwhelming viewing the same alert on multiple different dashboards. In one sense, if I had to give an example, you might see an alert on Microsoft Sentinel, but it won't have much data to it. To drill down to the very specific raw data, you would have to go to some other console. You would have to go to the source of that event or detection, be it Microsoft Defender for Cloud, MDI, or MCAS. So in those terms, we have to sometimes juggle through all these dashboards and tabs of multiple solutions.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

I think the solution is pretty stable. I didn't see any aberrations or anomalous behavior of Microsoft Sentinel. And that's the benefit of having a managed service. Downtime is quite less. Especially from providers like Microsoft. With Microsoft Sentinel, we didn't feel like there were any hiccups in the operations or any sort of problems we faced with the solution, as of now.

This is something good about having a managed product, you don't have to worry about scaling. And this is exactly the problem we felt with our existing on-prem solution LogRhythm: the scaling was not possible because of the cost included. With Microsoft Sentinel, you have to pay extra, but you don't have to worry about setting up more servers, configuring them, patching them, doing all the maintenance, and doing additional administrative work. The solution is pretty scalable.

Based on our interactions at the time of setup, after that, we didn't really require that much assistance from Microsoft. So, at the time of setup, they really helped us with insights and with decisions that we had to take based on our organization type and how we work. We have teams distributed globally across multiple time zones, and similarly, we have data and operations distributed all over the world. So this becomes a challenge when dealing with anything related to IT. So, Microsoft did really help us with setting it up. From a technical-assistance point of view, at the initial stages, it was a good experience.

Neutral

Our on-prem solution is LogRhythm and the reason we decided to add Microsoft Sentinel was scaling up of LogRhythm would have been a huge cost to us. Because right now, on-prem LogRhythm is running on multiple VMs, so their cost structure is very different. If you run the same setup on Azure, it's just an exorbitant amount of money. So that was one factor that we chose not to scale up LogRhythm to our cloud environment and looked for some other solution. The other reason we went for Microsoft Sentinel was that it is cloud-native. Since it's a managed service from Microsoft and from Azure themselves, not just time but also a lot of responsibility on our end gets transferred to the cloud provider of just setting up and maintaining that infrastructure, updating and patching all those systems, and doing that maintenance work. That overhead gets taken off our heads. That's why we were looking for a cloud-native solution. And hence, in our comparison, in our multiple rounds of discussion with internal stakeholders within the cybersecurity team, Microsoft Sentinel seemed like a perfect fit, so we went ahead with the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We didn't face many problems or complexity. We had everything running in a couple of weeks. The deployment was just me and one other person from the security team. She had a lot more experience with Microsoft 365 and the MCAS side of things. And I was more from an Azure infrastructure point of view, Defender for Cloud and the like.

We started the deployment from scratch and we brought on Microsoft for assistance. We already have a huge presence in Azure, so we already had a Microsoft contact. We reached out to them. We mentioned that we want Microsoft Sentinel on board. We got in touch with their own cloud security and Microsoft Sentinel experts. They advised us, but I can say all the setup and all the operational side of things we did because if Microsoft did it then that would be handled by the consulting arm of Microsoft and that would be a full-fledged project, which would have its own cost. So Microsoft had to play a role as an advisor. We used to get about four IT calls to set it up. Whatever Microsoft recommended us to do, we went ahead with that.

First of all, we enabled everything that was free of cost. When you onboard Microsoft Sentinel, you pay some fee for the solution itself, and with that, you get some free connectors. So Azure AD sign-in and audit logs are one thing, Azure activity logs, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud are another. All these integrations don't cost anything extra over and above. So we started off with integrating all of that, and later on, slowly and steadily, we scaled up our integrations. There's still a lot of ground to cover. We aren't there yet with what we envisioned initially.

At this time I don't have an answer about a return on investment but it is something we have been contemplating inside our own team and we have been thinking of since we talked about how good a solution Microsoft Sentinel is. We cannot enable it across the organization, so we are thinking about creating a story of how much value, not in just terms of money but how much value in terms of security has the solution brought for us, and communicating this idea to other stakeholders in other teams and probably to the leadership, and maybe getting a little more budget for this project.

Microsoft Sentinel is definitely costly. If we factor in the cost of other services, MCAS, MDI, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud, it gets seriously costly, to the extent that we cannot enable it across the organization. It simply overshoots the budget by a huge margin. When talking about the Microsoft Sentinel piece itself, let's say we have set up custom integrations and it does not cost us that much, it is definitely costly. If we talk about log retention, then it is even more costly. Comparing it to the other solutions, in fact, when we started off with the SIEM solutions for the cloud, we did do a comparison between which one would be the best: the classic Splunk, like we used in our on-prem, or maybe Microsoft Defender for Cloud. So, for our use case, Splunk was also a bit costly but less than Microsoft Sentinel. We went ahead with Microsoft Sentinel being a cloud-native platform on our side, the effort would be a lot less. Splunk would require to be set up from scratch. From a cost perspective, Microsoft Sentinel is quite costly.

We compared Splunk with Microsoft Sentinel.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have used and tested additional Microsoft solutions. At one point in time, we used Microsoft Defender for Identity, MDI solution, but it was for three to four months only. We discontinued it because it was more of an experiment and the guys from Microsoft gave us the license for that product for a limited time for testing. We were short on budgets, hence we could not leverage or we could not go ahead and purchase it. Another product was MCAS, Microsoft Cloud App Security. Primarily, we use Microsoft Sentinel. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is also used, but it has not been enabled on a lot of resources because it has a cost implication. So cost is a huge factor that we have to think about every time we do anything in security related to all these four products. 

Wherever it is possible, wherever we have identified some critical resources and we had the budget, we enabled Microsoft Defender for Cloud and then integrated it with Microsoft Sentinel. Integration is super easy for anything which is an Azure service. It's mostly about doing a couple of clicks or maybe running a couple of commands. For Azure-native services, it's very easy, be it integrating the Azure AD logs or Microsoft Defender for Cloud or things like that. If I remember correctly, I integrated Microsoft Defender simply by flipping a toggle on the console. So it was easy to integrate Microsoft Defender for Cloud.

The coordination among all these tools is really marvelous. Although my role is not exactly that of an incident responder or from a SOC point of view, if I was a SOC person or an incident responder, it really takes the load off of my work to look around and to correlate that, and open four, five tabs and just juggling through them and trying to make a story. Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Microsoft Sentinel, and MCAS, all of them do it for us. So you just have a single pane of glass. Although these are four different products and you sometimes do have to juggle around, but not to that extent. Many times, it happens that your job gets done with just a single pane of glass.

I think the coverage is comprehensive from a protection point of view for all these four, or five products from Microsoft.

The bi-directional sync capabilities of Microsoft Defender is an option that we get at the time of integrating the solution. This is exactly what I mean by using the toggle button to integrate Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Microsoft Sentinel.

I would say the sync capabilities are both critical and a nice add-on to have. Even if it's not critical and there was no sync between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Microsoft Sentinel, we would still be doing our job of looking at two multiple portals. But since Microsoft does it for us, then it's really good to have. It takes the load off our shoulders and we could do other tasks and possibly look at more alerts instead of juggling through these portals between Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Microsoft Sentinel, MCAS, and MDI.

Investigations are something really remarkable. We can drill down right to the raw logs by running different queries and getting those on the console itself.
In terms of response, I do not have that much experience in automating the responses or letting Azure handle it, because we feel like the automation here might go wrong and we might have to face another incident caused by some sort of misconfiguration. So, at this point in time, we respond manually to the alerts. We don't use many of the response capabilities of Microsoft Sentinel. I did have a look at what I think, these are called playbooks, which are based on LogicHub. They do seem very promising, but we haven't used those functionalities as of now.

If I had to rank the three capabilities in terms of comprehensiveness, at the top would be SOAR. I would put threat intelligence and UEBA second. I haven't used both of these capabilities that much. We haven't enabled UEBA in our environment. Threat intelligence is the default one. Again, this is something we haven't enabled on a custom basis or something add-on; it's the default one that Microsoft provides.

In regards to proactiveness, I don't feel like there is anything proactive about the solution. It's mostly reactive. The nature of the whole SIEM is reactive: you analyze the logs, you get some alerts, and then you react to those alerts. I think in terms of prediction, I don't see it like that. But in terms of using threat intelligence, I definitely think that it really adds value when, for example, there's something legitimate in the email, there's something malicious. But when it comes to the unknown, when you cannot determine if it's good or bad, it adds value there, its threat intelligence, by simply stating that. Just a couple of days back, we had an alert that said that "URL was clicked," and it wasn't able to determine the nature of the URL: Was it malicious? Was it bad? So it gave us a low or an informational alert. Threat intelligence helps us in those situations.

The solution has saved us time in two aspects. A tremendous amount of time is saved in terms of integration. Nowadays every organization across any sector you talk about has a lot of IT solutions and security solutions in place. You talk about network devices, VPNs, security devices, these collaboration services, et cetera, all of these generate a lot of data integrating and investing all of that data into SIEM is really critical for the SIEM to function properly. That is something that Microsoft Sentinel does quite well. And I see that they are always working on not just creating those integrations but also making them very easy to configure, from a customer point of view. So, those integrations are one thing that I really like about Microsoft Sentinel. The second is the correlation of these alerts across multiple of these integrations. So, integrations and correlations are two aspects that I really like about the solution. I would say the solution saved me around 50% of the time. Simply, it's less of running the queries on a standard SIEM solution and more of clicking on the dashboards. So the typing time gets taken off and the loading time of getting the results back, and doing this over and over again with a typical SIEM solution, that has been absorbed, by the solution. Microsoft Sentinel does it for us. Our time has been saved in that sense.

I would say that, since the solution saved us time, and time is money, in that sense, the solution has saved us money. On the other, hand the solution's cost is such that it might have balanced out. So, I can say it saved us money in one sense, but I don't think it's because of the solution, it's because of how the processes are set up in our firm. When we find some detections primarily from Microsoft Defender for Cloud, we share it with the team and we get to know that "XYZ resource is not in use anymore," and it probably gets deleted. So, in that sense, resource getting deleted, obviously, would stop incurring the money and the extra cost that we would have been paying. In that sense, our money is saved, but I wouldn't really put Microsoft Sentinel there because if there was any other solution that would also do the same, the resource would eventually get deleted.

Microsoft Sentinel runs on top of Log Analytics. And right now, we have it just hosted in the European region, but logs get ingested from all over the world, and the logs are of all types. Such as Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Azure AD sign-in logs, audit logs, Azure activity logs, and MCAS. We stopped using MDIs. We also have AWS. From AWS, there is a couple of log types. I think it's the CloudTrail, and events around S3 buckets and Kubernetes, although we don't use Kubernetes. That is all that is configured as of now with Microsoft Sentinel.

Four people in our organization use the solution. We have a dedicated SOC team, two guys are from the SOC team: one is me, and one is another person who has experience with Microsoft 365, and two people from the cybersecurity team.

I don't think there is any maintenance required. But there is overhead administration. So far, what I have experienced, it's just about integration. If you have to get started with the integration, then that's the overhead administrative effort on your head. Otherwise, it's not much of a problem. Everything is pretty smooth and automated with regard to maintenance.

There's one guy in our organization who for some reason, doesn't really like Microsoft and its products. He thinks that it's a way for them to catch us in a net and then upsell all their services to us. But I have a different, opposing view. I think, yes, they do have their own strategy of upselling and cross-selling all their products and solutions, but I think they are pretty good when working with them with those solutions, be it Azure as a whole cloud service, or just one part of it like Microsoft Sentinel. It takes off a lot of overhead, also, in terms of when you want some support, since it's a one-vendor-based solution, they would be much more helpful to support you and give you the right resolution in comparison to having three different products from three different vendors. What happens is, more often than not, they all start blaming each other, and then there's a blame game going on, and we, as a customer, have to suffer with whatever problem we are dealing with. So, I would go with having one vendor's solution, provided the vendor is not the kind of vendor that just sees you as a cash cow.

The only advice I would give to someone is that when you are evaluating the solution, if possible, you onboard people from Microsoft so they can help you and guide you. It's their product, they know how to best use it. So you would be in a better position right from the get-go, and it would also save a lot of time and effort in case you did something wrong or you chose a bad design decision, which might end up wasting a lot of time in the future. So, one piece of advice I would say is, simply to onboard Microsoft and it won't cost you extra. I don't think it would cost you extra. If you are already using any good Azure service or Azure itself, then that could be possible with the help of the account manager and the relationship that you have already with Microsoft. 

Sentinel is Microsoft's SIEM solution, similar to QRadar, Splunk, etc. It is the primary tool used by our Security Operations Center.

Sentinel enhances our visibility by integrating with on-prem and cloud log sources. It provides visibility into any cloud environment, including GCP and AWS, not just Azure. With Sentinel, we get end-to-end coverage of all types of infrastructure. Last week, I was talking to a client who already had a SIEM solution, and they had just deployed Sentinel through us. I asked them why they wanted Sentinel when they already have an MSP. They told me their SIEM solution doesn't cover the cloud, so there's clearly a gap. Sentinel covers on-premise and all the cloud providers. It has a highly flexible ingestion method. There are seven or eight ways to ingest.

A lack of total visibility is a significant pain point for security analysts working on a SIEM solution. Furthermore, even if they have visibility, they might not be able to take remedial action because the company lacks a license or a separate SOAR solution. In that case, you need to have integration for each playbook. Sentinel addresses all of these issues out of the box. 

The SOAR component of Sentinel can automate some routine tasks. Sentinel comes with around 180 different playbooks you can execute with one click. If you face a type of incident, you can run a specific playbook or automate it to run each time the incident is triggered. These automation features make our lives easier. Analysts have to do the same tasks over and over again. It's a nightmare that makes you want to give up sometimes. You are dealing with the same incidents many times daily for many MSPs and customers. The playbook is incredibly beneficial.

It also reduces the number of dashboards we need to check, and you can create a custom dashboard. There are also several preset dashboards from Microsoft that are solution-specific. For example, if I'm using Defender for Office, it has a separate dashboard for Office that I can customize. I can also see everything from one console if I want. It's highly flexible.

Sentinel saves time because you don't need to look at multiple SIEM solutions, like IBM, Splunk, AlienVault, McAfee, etc. You need to spend time deploying those solutions, and there's a learning curve, whereas Sentinel is cloud-native. You click "next," "next," and "next," and the whole solution is deployed in the cloud in five minutes. Other parts, like integration, are native. It takes only a click to integrate all the services. Sentinel has its own agent, so it's easy to deploy the agent and start collecting logs. Overall, Sentinel requires less effort than other solutions.

It also saves us money because deployment costs less. Many SIEM solutions charge for the log forwarders deployed in the client's system. Sentinel is free. You have a VM in the cloud or on the client infrastructure, and there is just a script to turn that server into a log forwarder. 

Sentinel speeds up our response, but I don't have any hard numbers. It depends on how well you have configured it. You can go to an incident and then click on each playbook in sequence, or it can be automated to run a playbook when an incident is triggered. You don't need to go into the interface and do anything.

Sentinel proactively responds by detecting IOCs in our environment and automatically triggering an incident. The threat intelligence feed is typically based on IOCs, like malicious IP, UR, hostname, file hash, etc. However, real proactive response requires you to buy threat intel from different providers. Those companies provide you with information before an attack occurs anywhere. For example, there could be dark web forums where attackers discuss an attack on organization XYZ, and the threat intel provider informs us about that. That's an entirely different thing, but Microsoft has built-in rules for any threat intelligence matches. 

I've worked on most of the top SIEM solutions, and Sentinel has an edge in most areas. For example, it has built-in SOAR capabilities, allowing you to run playbooks automatically. Other vendors typically offer SOAR as a separate licensed solution or module, but you get it free with Sentinel. In-depth incident integration is available out of the box. 

Having all these solutions built into a single platform is an advantage. Once any malware is detected, it only takes a single click to run the playbook, and it will do the desired actions. It may be blocking an IP address or isolating a machine. 

The SOAR, UEBA, automated detection and response, and threat intelligence capabilities are comprehensive. I have 10-plus years of experience working with different SIEM solutions. This is the best by far. Everything is integrated, and there is so much flexibility, whether you're trying to customize ingestion or run custom playbooks.

Sentinel performs well when searching a large amount of data, like two months of logs. Sentinel uses underlying big data and KQL, which is highly efficient in query performance. I also like Sentinel's user behavior analytics. UEBA is another solution vendors typically sell as a separate product, but it's included with Sentinel for free. It has integration with other multiple cloud platforms, whereas most vendors lack this capability. 

When comparing visibility, we need to also compare at the company level. Microsoft doesn't only provide a security solution. They have a cloud platform with many services and security products that feed threat intelligence into Sentinel. There are many backend things that Microsoft does in cybersecurity. That is an added advantage that comes with this solution.

The native integration with the vast Microsoft ecosystem is a huge advantage. Another good aspect about Sentinel is that you can integrate all the Microsoft technologies with one click using the backend APIs. It's a seamless process because Sentinel is a Microsoft-native solution. It doesn't take much effort to do the integration.

We also use Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Cloud, and Azure firewall. Most of our customers already use some Microsoft services, so when we integrate their environments, we integrate Defender for Endpoint and Defender for Office 365. We also have Azure Activity, Azure Identity Protection, and many other solutions from Microsoft.

Microsoft products can be integrated with one click. You check a box, and it integrates with that service on the backend. You only need to set the permissions only. Integrating third-party solutions requires the same effort that would be necessary for any other SIEM solution. 

All the solutions work together seamlessly to protect our environment. For example, Defender for Endpoint detects threats on the endpoints, and you see the same alerts within Sentinel. If Defender for Office detects a malicious email, it feeds that incident to Sentinel. The whole ecosystem is integrated there.

Sentinel ingests data from our entire environment. There are seven or eight ways to ingest data. You can install agents through LogStack or do it through APA calls. There are many ways to ingest everything that's required. We have had cases of custom applications running critical services for clients who wanted to ensure they were being monitored. 

The out-of-the-box integration wasn't there, but other methods of ingesting the solution exist. We used one of the custom methods with LogStack, and we could use onboard these applications. Managed services need to have that kind of flexibility for product onboarding.

We have been working with multiple customers, and every time we onboard a customer, we are missing an essential feature that surprisingly doesn't exist in Sentinel. We searched the forums and knowledge bases but couldn't find a solution. When you onboard new customers, you need to enable the data connectors. That part is easy, but you must create rules from scratch for every associated connector. You click "next," "next," "next," and it requires five clicks for each analytical rule. Imagine we have a customer with 150 rules.

It can be a nightmare. It would be much easier if Microsoft provided a way to select all the rules you need, and you can click once to create them. I went to multiple forums to find a way to automate this. Unfortunately, the best I can do is a semi-automated method. Half of them can be automated, but you must do the rest manually. 

For now, we are doing it manually, and our DevOps team is assigned to do this. Some APIs could be used. We leverage the Azure Insights PowerShell module to do the automation part. Currently, the team is working on it, but I know from the discussion that the solution would only be semi-automated. We can't fully automate this because it simply lacks that capability. Many people in the Microsoft community have already requested this solution. Hopefully, Microsoft will implement this feature.

These solutions provide comprehensive protection, but there is always room for improvement. For example, virus removal has 98 different antivirus engines associated. Still, if you are searching for a malicious IP address or a hostname, some solutions will pick it up, and others won't. It's okay overall. I wouldn't say it isn't good enough. It does what we need, but sometimes another solution does it better. It depends on who detects it first.

I've been using Sentinel for nearly a year.

Sentinel is a cloud-based solution, so everything is handled by Microsoft. We haven't experienced any outages. With any on-premise solution, you will see downtime when there are problems or changes in the infrastructure.

Sentinel is highly scalable. It's on the cloud, so we can scale up to any level. There are two models: pay-go and commitment tier. The commitment tier is there to help reduce costs. If you're a large organization with high volumes of data coming in, Microsoft recommends the commitment tier, which will save you 40-60%. Scalability isn't a problem.

I rate Microsoft support nine out of 10. Within all Microsoft services, there is a link you can use to contact support and raise a ticket based on severity. If it's something that will impact business, they are available 24/7. Once we get a call from them, they follow up around the clock until it's closed. It isn't bad.

Positive

I've worked on Splunk, QRadar, LogRhythm, AlienVault, McAfee, Juniper STRM, etc. I started using Sentinel when I joined this company. We are Microsoft Gold partners. However, my feedback is neutral as an analyst. Compared to other solutions I've used, Microsoft is easier in terms of integration and deployment.

We've seen an ROI. Having used multiple SIEM solutions, I would recommend Microsoft Sentinel for the ROI, integration, cloud visibility, customization, etc. 

The price is reasonable because Sentinel includes features like user behavior analytics and SOAR that are typically sold separately. Overall, a standalone on-prem solution would require some high-end servers at a different cost. It is a cloud-based solution, so there are backend cloud computing costs, but they are negligible. 

The most significant cost factor is log ingestion. The best approach with any SIEM solution is only to ingest the necessary security-specific logs. You consume the EPS licenses, memory, bandwidth, and CPU. It doesn't make sense to forward and dump everything into any SIEM solution. If you are doing the architecture correctly, you send the right amount of logs.

On top of that, Sentinel provides you with a workbook that tells you which log costs how much. You can optimize that part so it's cost-effective. Its dashboard offers clear graphs and charts, showing which log sources ingest the most logs, contributing to the cost. We can easily cut 40-60% of the price if we do appropriate fine-tuning. As long as you're doing the fine-tuning regularly, it's a highly cost-efficient solution.

I rate Sentinel 10 out of 10. At the same time, I understand no solution is perfect. I've had multiple issues with SIEM solutions I've used previously. Sentinel is missing one minor feature that could be added eventually. I have no complaints about the core functionality.

A large enterprise client contacted us about replacing Splunk with Sentinel, and their team wanted a side-by-side comparison. They're pretty new to SOC, and I've been in the field for a long time, so I told them that it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison. In many instances, you won't see much difference between the two, and Sentinel might beat Splunk in certain cases.

However, the essential component they would be missing in the comparison is the ecosystem. Sentinel can leverage a huge ecosystem on the backend that Splunk or any other solution simply can't. Splunk specializes in SIEM, but Microsoft covers the full cybersecurity spectrum. When comparing solutions, customers should look at the whole ecosystem and not only product features. 

A best-in-breed strategy works for some categories of security products. For example, it was an organizational policy that we would not purchase all of our firewall-related products from one vendor. However, SIEM only does detection based on the type of logs ingested. An organization might have firewalls from Cisco, Fortinet, and Juniper. At the end of the day, these three firewall brands are feeding the logs into one security solution, which is Sentinel. It's a single pane of glass that correlates all threats across your enterprise. It doesn't make sense to have multiple SIEM solutions.

The only cases where it makes sense are in large enterprises like oil and gas. For example, they may have an IT environment and an OT environment. In the IT environment, they have one solution and a different solution in the OT environment. They are silos being managed by different teams. They may have separate budgets and decision-making processes. That's why they have different solutions. Other than that, I really don't see any reason for having two different SIEM solutions in place.