Microsoft Sentinel Reviews

As a security engineer, I help onboard with Sentinel. I enable all the connectors and tune the analytics to minimize the number of false positives.

We're a Microsoft house and it provides very good visibility into all the threats a company might be facing. 

The connectivity and analytics are great.

It allows people to connect to different data sources under a single pane of glass.

The visibility is great in terms of having the notebook features. By using the notebook features, people can generate different graphs, which helps create greater visibility on the front end.

We've been able to integrate other products, including Defender. It's super easy to integrate them. All Microsoft products easily connect with each other. They coordinate together to help with detection and response across our network. This is critical. 

This allows me to have better visibility to understand what is happening on each endpoint.

The threat protection is pretty comprehensive across Microsoft products. Having dependable endpoints and other security tools ensures good security overall. In terms of compliance, you have a lot of data that can help ensure comprehensive information is available and transparent. 

We like that it's on the cloud.

Sentinel does allow us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem. This plays an important security role.

We can investigate threats holistically from one place. Having everything centralized makes security easier and helps us better understand what is happening. 

Sentinel's security protection helps us to better identify anomalies or erratic user behavior. It helps me minimize false positives. 

There is good automation. They do an okay job.

Consolidating into one dashboard has made it possible to have a holistic view of security. I can investigate issues and have better visibility.

Overall, the solution has saved me time. I'm not sure if I can quantify it, as I'm on the engineering side. 

The product has helped save the organization money. 

It has decreased our time to detect and time to respond. 

They only classify alerts into three categories: high, medium, and low. So, from the user's point of view, having another critical category would be awesome. That would minimize the level of high alerts and break them down so we understand which are truly critical. We should be able to prioritize more effectively. Right now, this doesn't necessarily help users to prioritize when it comes to the alert or triage.

The bi-directional capabilities are okay. However, sometimes I need to fall back on Defender for cloud.

I've been using the solution for two or three years now.

The stability is okay. I've only experienced one outage.

We have about 200 staff on the solution. 

The scalability is very good. All I have to do is enable data sources in order to expand. 

I haven't had much contact with technical support. My one experience was okay. 

I did not previously use a different solution.

The initial deployment is straightforward. The entire process was as simple as following clear steps. We basically create a workspace and push the pipeline.

As long as a person has relevant access to Azure, one person would be enough in terms of handling the deployment. 

We did a deployment in a single location, not across multiple locations. 

There is a bit of maintenance, in terms of ensuring logs are being digested. The number of people involved depends on the situation. We have two to three people who may check logs or connectors. 

We are consultants for clients. We help SMEs deploy the solution. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution, however, I cannot quantify the amount exactly.

Sentinel charges based on ingestion. If Microsoft would allow us to view the logs before ingesting something we don't want, that would make the pricing better. Sometimes we don't want to pass illegitimate data into Sentinel, yet I don't have a choice. 

It's not cheap. However, it's okay pricing.

I did not evaluate any other options previously.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'd tend to go with a single vendor over best of breed. A company like Microsoft allows everything to easily link various products together. 

If you are using Microsoft Sentinel, go for the XDR solutions as well. 

We use Sentinel to monitor logs, build alarms, correlate events, and fire up specific automation boards in the event of a security incident. 

Sentinel creates a focal point for cybersecurity incidents, so it's much easier to correlate logs and incidents to get a more comprehensive view of our security posture. Microsoft provides many educational resources, so onboarding new people is easy. 

It took us about a month to realize the benefits of Sentinel. Integrating all the Microsoft security products into the solution was straightforward. It seamlessly integrates with Microsoft Logic Apps, so it's easy to develop custom playbooks and automate many manual tasks. 

Automation has made us more efficient and effective because we're free to focus on priority alerts. Sentinel has reduced the time spent on menial security tasks by 30-40 percent. Sentinel consolidates our dashboards into a single XDR console, one of our strategic goals. We're moving all of the data into Microsoft Sentinel to create a single point of truth for security incidents.

Microsoft provides some threat intelligence for significant incidents. They provide us with remediation and mitigation controls we can implement to react to these potential threats much faster.

I like the ability to run custom KQL queries. I don't know if that feature is specific to Sentinel. As far as I know, they use technology built into Azure's Log Analytics app. Sentinel integrates with that, and we use this functionality heavily.

Threat prioritization is a crucial feature. It already has them in order, so we know we should investigate high alerts first and move down the line to the less urgent ones. 

We use all of the other Microsoft security solutions in addition to Sentinel. They all can be integrated together seamlessly to deliver comprehensive threat detection and response. 

I would like to see additional artificial intelligence capabilities. They're already working on this with new features like Microsoft Security Copilot. This will help us investigate incidents much faster. 

When we pass KPIs to the governance department, there's no option to provide rights to the data or dashboard to colleagues. We can use Power BI for this, but it isn't easy or convenient. They should just come up with a way to provide limited role-based access to auditing personnel 

I have used Sentinel for two years.

We haven't experienced any downtime, so I think Sentinel is highly stable. 

Sentinel runs on the cloud, so it scales automatically. 

I rate Microsoft's support a 10 out of 10. They can connect you with the developers, and you get answers quickly. 

Positive

I also worked with RSA enVision at my previous company. Sentinel has advantages because of its tight integration with the Microsoft ecosystem. It's effortless to set up because you don't need specific connectors. Sentinel works out of the box. It makes sense for a company that primarily works with Microsoft products to use Sentinel for security monitoring.

Sentinel runs on the Microsoft Azure Cloud, so it was easy to set up. It took about two days to set it up. You start by integrating the Microsoft security solutions using the available connectors and move on to the firewall, SysTalk databases, and application-specific logs. 

It's a bit more complicated to come up with custom rules and alarms, so that's the last part of our implementation strategy. We completed the deployment with two or three people and the help of Microsoft support. Because Sentinel is deployed in the cloud, it doesn't require any maintenance. 

Our ROI comes from automating lots of tasks. 

Microsoft Sentinel is pretty expensive, and they recently announced that they will increase the price of all Microsoft services running in Azure by 11 percent. Luckily, I'm not responsible for the financial side. For one of my clients, the estimated cost is 880,000 euros for one year. There are additional costs for the service agreement. 

I rate Microsoft Sentinel an eight out of ten. I recommend taking advantage of the virtual training before you implement Sentinel. Familiarize yourself with the product, dashboards, features, integration, etc., before you decide to use it. 

A single-vendor strategy is preferable because it's easier to integrate them. Otherwise, it can get complicated.

My customers mainly want to correlate logs so that they have a single point for their log information. In addition to correlating logs, they want to automate tasks.

Microsoft Sentinel is just a "watch tower" to get all the logs and manage threats. After that, you have the Microsoft Defender products that help to reduce threats. For example, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is an anti-virus and EDR that helps to eliminate threats on devices such as laptops and smartphones. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 enables protection for Teams, Mail, or SharePoint, and Microsoft Defender for Identity helps to reduce risk on Active Directory or Azure AD. So Microsoft Defender products are the tools for reducing threats, and Microsoft Sentinel is the tool for analyzing incidents and threats.

Each time I deploy Sentinel, it helps the client get information about the overall security of their IT system. It brings together all the logs in a single place, so it's easy to track attacks and get information about breaches.

It also eliminates having to look at multiple dashboards. If you centralize the logs, you don't need to go to the firewall to get alerts or to the antivirus console or to a network device. You get everything in a single place, which means you have incidents in a single place, and then you can have a dashboard. You can check the built-in dashboard, or you can create one on your own, and these dashboards can be refreshed automatically or you can refresh them whenever you want.

The solution is well integrated with the Microsoft environment, so if a customer has a lot of Microsoft services, such as M365 or Azure, the solution fits well in their environment. Because I deploy solutions in general, I also use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Defender for Identity, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, and Microsoft Defender for Office 365. It's really straightforward to integrate these products. You have just to check a box and all the logs from these products go to Sentinel. And if the customer has a Microsoft 365 E5 license, the Defender logs are free.

It also helps to prioritize threats across an enterprise. When you receive an alert of an incident, you can categorize it as a low, medium, or high priority. That's really important because sometimes low-priority incidents are just false positives. We need to categorize incidents to get to the high-risk incidents.

Sentinel also enables you to ingest data from your entire ecosystem and not just from the Microsoft ecosystem. It can receive data from third-party vendors' products such as firewalls, network devices, and antivirus solutions. It's not only a Microsoft solution, it's for everything. There are native connectors to get information from third-party vendors, but if you don't have a connector for something, you can get information from protocols such as syslog.

It's really important that Sentinel allows you to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. It's important to know where an attacker went. For example, an attacker could go through a firewall and then to a specific application, and you need to know where the attacker started first.

When you enable this feature, Sentinel automatically gets information about the users and devices, and you can then search for specific entities. For example, if you know that a specific user is at risk, you can enter the username and get all the information about the user: on which device he's connected, to which servers he's connected, and what he did on these devices, among other things. This ability is important to a breach.

With Sentinel, you have some built-in rules to automate tasks. You can also create your own automation based on Logic Apps in Azure. You can do what you want with scripting with PowerShell or Python. The first time you have a given incident, you do some troubleshooting and when you write up this incident you can create a knowledge base. Once this knowledge base is done, you can try to automate the troubleshooting. If you do it via automation, you can close this incident because the incident will be managed automatically with Sentinel. And that helps you to save time.

Sentinel should be improved with more connectors. At the moment, it only covers a few vendors. If I remember correctly, only 100 products are supported natively in Sentinel, although you can connect them with syslog. But Microsoft should increase the number of native connectors to get logs into Sentinel. Each time we have a connector, it eases the configuration of Sentinel, and we don't need custom deployments to get the information from a specific vendor. 

The second thing they should do is create more built-in rules for the dashboard, automation, and hunting. The first time you use Sentinel, it's not easy to use the product because, beyond the dashboards, you need to know the Kusto Query Language (KQL) to create the right requests.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for two years. I implemented the solution for a customer a couple of months ago.

There is no problem with the stability of Sentinel. It's really stable. I have never experienced an issue with accessing the product.

It's a SaaS solution, so you don't need to scale it. It scales by itself. 

If you need a multi-tenant implementation, for example, if you have a SOC and you have several customers, you can get your own Sentinel, and you can ask the customers to deploy Sentinel in their environments. You can then gather logs from several Sentinels in a single point.

I haven't contacted Microsoft for support of Sentinel, but each time I contacted them for other products, it was a bad experience. The technical support of Microsoft is a negative point because, most of the time, they don't have the answer.

I used QRadar and a Symantec solution, but that was 10 years ago.

The first deployment was not complex. The first step, when you want to connect a solution to Sentinel, is pretty straightforward. When you want to use the built-in dashboard, it's also straightforward. But once you want to do some customization, like a custom dashboard, custom automation, or custom hunting rule, it can be complex because you have to know several languages, how Log Analytics works, and how Logic Apps works for automation.

Most of the time, I deploy a single Sentinel in a single location because it is a worldwide SaaS solution. And most of the time I deploy Sentinel to be used on-premises and in Azure, and I deploy Azure Sentinel for a SOC team. I have never deployed a multi-tenant Azure Sentinel setup, although it's possible to do.

In the beginning, when a customer uses Sentinel, they cannot use it on their own. They require some assistance. That is why, after deployment, a consultant is usually onsite two days per month to add some connectors and custom rules, and to end some incidents.

Sentinel is a pay-as-you-go solution. To use it, you need a Log Analytics workspace. This is where the logs are stored and the cost of Log Analytics is based on gigabytes. You can get a discount of 10 percent if you get to 100 terabytes of data. On top of that, there is the cost of Sentinel, which is about €2 per gigabyte.

If a customer has an M365 E5 license, the logs that come from Microsoft Defender are free.

The solution is really easy to deploy compared to other solutions such as Splunk.

Taking proactive steps to prevent breaches is a default. It's not like competitors on the market. Sentinel doesn't give you advice about how to set some settings on your device to protect them from a specific breach. But you can use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for devices and it helps you to know if a device is breachable from a specific attack and how to be protected against it.

The cost and ease of use of Sentinel compared with other standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions depends on whether the customer has the whole stack, meaning an M365 E5 license. If so, they get a really good discount because all the logs from Microsoft Defender are free. But if they don't have an M365 E5 license, those logs are not free and the solution can be expensive.

We haven't evaluated other options recently because our customer wanted Sentinel. But one of the differences I see between Sentinel and competitors' solutions is in the normalization of logs. With Sentinel, normalization is done automatically, whereas with other solutions, you need time to do the normalization manually. By "normalization" I mean lining up the fields. For example, in some logs, the time is in the first field, while in other logs, the description is in the first field. You need to sort the fields, but this task is done automatically by Sentinel.

Before using Sentinel, I recommend reading the documentation and watching the YouTube Ninja Training channel. They go through all options for Sentinel. 

In addition, I recommend knowing KQL—it's a requirement—and how to automate tasks in Azure. Other than these points, Sentinel is easy to enter because if you have a native connector, it's just "next, next, next." But when you want to do customization, it can sometimes be hard to do what you want.

When you look at going with a best-of-breed strategy versus a single vendor's security stack, it depends on the strategy of the customer. Sometimes, the customer prefers to get all its security products from a single vendor because they get discounts when they do that. Other customers prefer to have several vendors for security reasons. From my point of view, there is no correct answer. If I were responsible for the security of a company, I think I would prefer to use an all-Microsoft security stack because it's easier to interconnect the solutions and you get more information as a result.

The company I work for delivers SOC-as-a-Service, so I set up Sentinel in the customer's Azure environment and then connect it to our central Sentinel through Azure Lighthouse.

Microsoft Sentinel has made it easier for us to sell SOC-as-a-Service to, more or less, any customer and not just the big ones.

A lot of our customers run Microsoft products, and integrating those with Sentinel is simple and easy. Sentinel can be quickly deployed as well.

As long as the customers are licensed correctly and have, for example, the E5 security package, then the insights into threats provided by Sentinel are pretty good.

Sentinel helps prioritize threats well. The option to dig deeper and go into the different portals is good as well.

Our customers are very happy with incidents being closed in Sentinel and across the tenant.

We are able to fetch data from almost any source with Sentinel. There are some customers who try to customize, but we try to keep it to the out-of-the-box preconfigured data connectors or to what we can find in the Microsoft content hub.

In terms of the importance of data ingestion to our customers' security operations, they only have access to what is in Sentinel. Therefore, it's pretty important for them to have all of their data stored in one location. If it's stored on-premises in Microsoft 365 Defender, then the SOC team won't be able to access that data. Giving a good analysis will then be harder.

It's very important to us to be able to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. We don't create several accounts for each customer. We utilize one account and then get insight into the Sentinel environments of different customers. It's great that we can do all this in one place.

The comprehensiveness of Sentinel's security protection is pretty good. The effectiveness of the web part of this depends on how well the customer has configured their Azure AD and what information they have included for each user, such as the phone number and the part of the organization where the user works.

One of the big issues for our customers is the need to look at multiple dashboards. Sentinel has eliminated this and made it a lot easier by having everything in one place.

Sentinel has definitely saved us time. It has also decreased our time to detection and our time to respond. We try to have an analysis ready within 30 minutes of an incident coming in.

Some of the data connectors are outdated, at least the ones that utilize Linux machines for log forwarding. I believe that Microsoft is already working on improving this.

I would like Microsoft Sentinel to have out-of-the-box threat intelligence because right now, the only option is to add your own threat intelligence.

I've been using Microsoft Sentinel for approximately one and a half years.

Sentinel has only been down once, as far as I know, as a result of Microsoft doing something with Azure Kubernetes, which affected log analytics and Sentinel. It was down for about 10 hours. Other than that, it's always been up.

The scalability is great. You can put unlimited logs in, as long as you can pay for it. There are commitment tiers, up to six terabytes per day, which is nowhere close to what any one of our customers is running.

I might be more fortunate than others, given the fact that I have easy access to Microsoft support. The only downside is that the support staff are not that technical, but there is a big community around Sentinel. I can ask the question on the forums instead, and I usually get an answer there. All in all, I'd rate technical support at eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment is straightforward. We try to utilize a baseline of analytics rules in addition to connecting any security products already owned by the customer.

We usually deploy one Sentinel per Azure tenant. Maintenance-wise, Microsoft updates the analytics rules and the engine behind Sentinel, and it may require some tuning if it creates a lot of noise. Other than that, it's pretty straightforward. Thus, in comparison to other SIEM solutions that you need to upgrade and then turn off for the functionality to be updated, Sentinel saves us time.

My colleague and I usually work with someone at the customer's location to deploy the solution.

Compared to standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions, it is easy to start off with Sentinel. For example, with QRadar there are minimum licensing requirements, EPS costs compared to how many logs are being ingested, etc.

It can become costly with Sentinel if you try to run all of the raw logs for an entire organization. If you prioritize, however, you can have a cheaper SIEM solution compared to the ones that have a starting price of 50,000 US dollars.

The pricing is based on how much you ingest, so it's pretty straightforward. There are no tiers, and you pay for what you use, unlike with other types of SIEM solutions that are usually based on tiers.

It's a great way to get insight into exactly how much you're using. If you connect a log source that utilizes too much, you could turn it off or tune it down. You could also buy tiers in Sentinel and can save money with tier commitments.

Overall, I'm satisfied with Sentinel and would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

As far as going with a best-of-breed strategy versus a single vendor's suite, Microsoft gives a pretty good solution, especially when you get the E5 security package. It gives you a good view of the security across the organization, so I don't mind going for a single vendor's suite and opting to go completely with Microsoft.

I'm currently using this solution for monitoring our SOC. I also implement Sentinel for clients.

We use Defender for Cloud, Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. They were easy to integrate. It's necessary to understand the background of the data source to integrate the devices into Sentinel. If it is cloud-based, we can utilize the GeoLogic app or Azure function to integrate the log sources or use the slot method.

These solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our enterprise. We have different EDR solutions in our environment, and we have integrated them with Sentinel. We directly monitor all of the other security devices from Sentinel.

I haven't seen many issues with integrating different products. We can set a robust error detection mechanism. If there are some issues while integrating the logs, we can do automated alerting and easily troubleshoot any issues.

There are no issues with integrating multiple-location firewalls. We have Sentinel deployed in the US and other geolocations.

There are between 15 to 20 people using this solution in my team.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

We mainly use this solution for monitoring purposes. We previously used on-premises data sources, but we wanted to integrate lots of log sources that weren't directly supported by other solutions. Sentinel provides the capability to integrate unsupported log sources. We have integrated lots of unsupported security devices with Sentinel as well.

Sentinel helps automate routine tasks and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts. Microsoft provides some very useful out-of-box automation playbooks that we can utilize in our day-to-day operations. This increases the efficiency of security analysts and our response time. We are using those solutions in our environment to do automation, increase productivity, and enhance the efficiency of our security analysts. Sentinel reduces our overall investigation time compared to other solutions.

Sentinel has helped eliminate the need to look at multiple dashboards. We can use the workbook for that. Correlating everything into a single workbook isn't available right now, but it's achievable in the future.

The solution's threat intelligence helps prepare us for potential threats before they hit and helps us take proactive steps. We have integrated one open-source solution for IOC monitoring, and Microsoft even provides the IOC data. To be proactive, we also rely on other solutions like Defender for Endpoint for detecting those threats before they actually happen.

We added IOCs into Sentinel from a monitoring perspective. If we can detect ransomware, we can prioritize that and work on mitigation.

Microsoft Sentinel saves us time. It has provided us with a very rich automation solution. We can see most of the details directly on the Sentinel site. We don't need to log in and check for different things, so it saves a lot of time for associates. It saves us about 30 to 40 minutes on average per incident.

The solution decreases our time to detect and respond. We can increase detection using dashboards. The automation and playbooks help us respond to threats if the user is compromised. We can directly reset the user's password or disable the user from the Sentinel portal by using the playbooks. We're saving about 15 to 20 minutes on our response times.

Sentinel is a Microsoft product, so they provide very robust use cases and analytic groups, which are very beneficial for the security team. I also like the ability to integrate data sources into the software for on-premise and cloud-based solutions. We can very easily integrate the devices with Sentinel. There are multiple ways that we can utilize the product. I also like how the solution processes data.

The solution helps prioritize threats across our enterprise. We can set the severity for the low and medium-priority severity incidents. Sentinel has machine learning and fusion rules, which help us effectively prioritize. Prioritization is very important for us in this security landscape because attacks are getting stronger.

Sentinel provides a lot of out-of-box analytic rules with Sentinel. It's very good at detecting threats compared to the different SIEM solutions in the market now.

Sentinel enables us to easily ingest data from our entire ecosystem. Attacks can happen from any of the devices. Even the IoT is vulnerable now. We can integrate different solutions for it. For instance, there is Microsoft Defender for IoT, which we can integrate into Sentinel. That provides a single pane of glass for security. In any SOC, we need to have multiple solutions. Sentinel is a great solution for managing and monitoring those products.

Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. We can integrate other solutions like ServiceNow with Sentinel, and we can set the bidirectional sync.

Sentinel's security protection is comprehensive. In the area of UEBA, I use the entity behavior settings of Sentinel. It provides some enhancement in security monitoring, but it still needs some improvement regarding user and entity behavior.

There is room for improvement in entity behavior and the integration site. It's a new solution, so it can include different security products in the data connector section. I've also experienced some performance issues with the runbook. It takes a lot of time to load.

In the automation section, there are some limitations.

I have used this solution for two and a half years.

It is pretty stable. I haven't had any issues in the two and a half years that I've worked with Sentinel.

The price goes up whenever we integrate more log sources, but there aren't any issues with scalability. We can increase it very easily.

Technical support is good. They're very quick to respond when we raise a case.

I would rate technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Splunk is also the leader in this market. I prefer Sentinel because it's a Microsoft product that provides a lot of free and built-in use cases.

We switched to Sentinel because it's a cloud-native solution. On-premises solutions involve managing IT databases and doing some upgrade activities, but we don't need to manage any of that in Sentinel. We can focus directly on security monitoring and detection and response.

The setup was straightforward. I worked on multiple projects before the deployment of Sentinel.

The amount of time it takes to deploy the solution depends on the client's network area, the firewall, and log sources. We have deployed the solution for user bases of 4,000 to 5,000. Deployment was completed within one month by integrating all the required processes.

We had a team of three people for deployment. I took care of the integration of the log sources, and the other two people took care of the customization.

Sentinel doesn't require much maintenance.

We evaluated Splunk and a few other solutions.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. 

My advice is that colleagues who have worked on different solutions, whether on-premises or cloud, should use the Ninja training. Microsoft provides this training directly. It is publicly available and provides a better understanding of how to utilize the solution more effectively.

I think it's ideal to go with different vendors across our environment rather than a single vendor for security purposes.

Sentinel ingests all the logs from various security products across on-premise and virtual servers. It has a lot of flexibility regarding different third parties that are not Microsoft, which I liked. We had some very, probably not as well-known systems from which it would ingest information. So it was nice to see that it was very flexible.

We have a hybrid setup with Sentinel deployed on the Azure cloud. We've got about 20 server endpoints, 400 desktop or laptop endpoints, and 1,520 network endpoints. The company has around 400 employees and a 10-person IT team operating out of one location in Alabama. 

Sentinel provides a single pane of glass for reviewing logs from disparate sources. Everything is on one XDR dashboard. We have a smaller IT team, so it's cumbersome to go to various places to get information and manage it. Having a clearinghouse of information makes it quicker to get to the critical items and resolve any problem.

Sentinel saved us time because we can find the information we need directly. It's hard to quantify that because we still need to look through lots of information. Without Sentinel, it would take about one to three hours each week to compile information from different sources.

It helps us proactively prevent threats. Sentinel is integrated with Defender and CloudApp. It gives us suggestions about best practices in security and recommends actions if it sees something within the network that seems out of line. The investigation part is thorough. We can figure out exactly what's wrong and what we need to check. Afterward, we have to go to a secondary product.

Sentinel's most important feature is the ability to centralize all the logs in one place. There's no need to search multiple systems for information. The automation capabilities are excellent and can be extended. We haven't tried to extend the automation features, but what is built in is great. 

The solution also has native integration with Microsoft Teams. It creates a Teams chat when there's an issue, so one of our analysts can look at it immediately. It can automatically flag something instead of sending an alert to an email that someone may not read until three weeks later.

Sentinel provides decent visibility, but it's sometimes a little cumbersome to get to the information I want because there is so much information. I would also like to see more seamless integration between Sentinel and third-party security products. 

When alerts appear in the Sentinel console, I can research them and see what to do, but I need to leave Sentinel and go to a second product to execute whatever I need to do. I would like to be able to fix everything within the Sentinel console.  

We used Sentinel for about six months.

We haven't had any issues with Sentinel so far. The uptime has been 100 percent. 

Sentinel is capable of handling all that we ingest. I think we've hit 80 to 100 Gigabytes so far, and it continues to scale upward. I'm pleased with it. It's a rolling scale, so it scales up as needed based on the number of logs you ingest. As long as you're willing to pay to house the data, they'll continue to scale upward with you.

We haven't had to contact Microsoft support for Sentinel yet. That worries me. Sometimes Microsoft support can be a little difficult to reach.

Sentinel was our first foray into the SIEM world. That's one reason we went back and reviewed it again this summer. We wanted to be sure we picked a good product. They mostly gave demos, so we probably didn't get the full run of these secondary products, but it at least gave us a feel for what else was out there.

Setting up Sentinel was pretty straightforward. We set everything up through Azure, and they had excellent documentation as far as integrating modules. They had scripts we could run within other environments to ingest the logs. Getting information into the system was fairly smooth. 

We had to spin up a new virtual machine for Linux because it required a Linux virtual machine within our on-premises environment to send log files. That was the biggest step I had to do. Spinning up another virtual machine is no big deal. 

We didn't pay for any implementation help. Our IT team spent a day talking through the plan. We let the server person spin up our VM and our network person got all the network stuff in place. We came back together and made sure the logs were delivered. Overall, it was a roughly two-week process of setting up and reviewing everything to ensure everything is working correctly. After deployment, there's no maintenance. It's in Azure, so Microsoft handles all the updates and server roles. It's seamless from a maintenance standpoint.

Sentinel was deployed by a four-person in-house IT team consisting of a network admin, systems admin, and a junior engineer who floated between all of us, helping out where they could. I supervised the deployment as the director. 

The jury is still out on whether we see a return, but I am pleased with the investment. Sentinel provides us with some new insights. It helps us improve our security posture with proactive measures, like informing us of best practices. 

These features helped us evaluate things within our network and cloud environments that we needed to tweak. That was a pretty helpful bonus. 

Sentinel's price is comparable to pretty much everything out there. None of it is cheap, but we didn't think we could save money by going a different route. Sentinel was part of our Azure expenditures, so it was easier to add the expense instead of having a completely separate vendor.

The licensing is straightforward because it's within Azure. There are lots of features in Azure that they gave us as a package. It's nice to do this without having to carve out special budgetary items. The flexibility was helpful. 

We looked at a couple of different solutions, including Splunk and Arctic Wolf. We primarily chose Sentinel because we had already carved out a budget within Azure for Sentinel. We could keep it within Azure and roll that into our Azure expenses versus carving out a new budget item for these other products. That was the biggest motivation.

Sentinel kept pace with the other major players in the field. We considered whether there was a better product to ingest all data. We didn't find anything new or different. 

I rate Microsoft Sentinel eight out of ten. If you plan to implement Sentinel, I recommend spending time thinking about all the sources of data you want to ingest. It's flexible in terms of how much you can ingest, but you may not want to pay that much. It might be better to only connect your critical systems to it.

If you're hesitant to adopt Sentinel, you should do a demo. The single pane of glass is nice to have. You'd really have to talk me out of that.

We have had various use cases depending on the needs of our customers.

It is a SaaS-based solution. It does not have any versions.

In traditional SIEM solutions, there is a lot of hardware, and there is a lot of maintenance around it. We require a lot of resources for administrative tasks, whereas with Microsoft Sentinel, we don't have to get into all those details straight away. We can concentrate on the use cases such as detection and start ingesting our logs, and right away, get insights from those logs. In addition, traditional SIEM solutions, such as Splunk, QRadar, LogRhythm, or ArcSight, do not support cloud-based logs much. This is where Microsoft Sentinel comes into the picture. Nowadays, everyone is moving to the cloud, and we need solutions like Sentinel to easily ingest logs and then get insights from those logs.

It has definitely helped to improve the security posture.

The in-built SOAR of Sentinel is valuable. Kusto Query Language is also valuable for the ease of writing queries and ease of getting insights from the logs. Schedule-based queries within Sentinel are also valuable. I found these three features most useful for my projects.

Microsoft Sentinel has many native connectors, which are plug-and-play connectors. You don't have to do any kind of analysis before starting. Taking Azure Cloud logs as an example, once you enable Sentinel and the connector, you start getting the logs straight away. You get a visualization within Sentinel through dashboards, which are called workbooks. So, right from day one, you can have security for Azure Cloud. If you have other clouds, such as AWS and GCP, even they can be included right away.

There is not much guidance on the in-built SOAR solution that uses Azure Logic Apps as a service. For people coming from traditional SIEM solutions, it is difficult to understand how SOAR works. Because the security teams are not from a programming or coding background, they cannot directly jump into SOAR. For Kusto Query Language within Sentinel, Microsoft provides a lot of documents and articles, and they also have a community, but when it comes to SOAR, other than a few open articles, there isn't much information. The documentation part of SOAR should be improved.

The dashboards can be improved. Creating dashboards is very easy, but the visualizations are not as good as Microsoft Power BI. People who are using Microsoft Power BI do not like Sentinel's dashboards.

I have been using this solution since October of 2019.

It is stable.

It is a SaaS-based solution. So, as end-users or customers, we don't have to think about scalability. 

Sentinel Contributor and Sentinel Responder are the primary roles of its users. Users with the Sentinel Contributor role can perform anything on Sentinel. The Sentinel Responder role is allocated to L1 and L2 monitoring teams. They actively monitor the Sentinel console for any triggered incidents and remediate those tickets.

In terms of the number of users, it is a typical SOC team, which depends on the number of incidents. We calculate the full-time employees based on how many alerts are being triggered per month. If 1,000 alerts are being triggered per month, we would need eight FTE to run 24/7 operations.

We definitely have plans to increase its usage. Microsoft is continuously improving this product, and we also have private access where we can see what features are being launched and provide input to them.

Microsoft Sentinel is a SaaS-based solution. They are improving it all the time. You can see new features every month and week. They are bringing more and more features based on customer feedback. That's one of the things that I liked the most about Microsoft Sentinel, which I did not see in other products.

I like their support. When you raise a ticket with Microsoft, you'll get a response within four hours or so. A support person is assigned who then directly reaches out to you on Teams to troubleshoot.

They send the ticket to the right team. They reach out and guide appropriately. They inform me that they are taking care of the issue, and if a meeting is required, they ask about a suitable time so that they can block the calendar. I have never encountered any issues with the support team where I had to escalate anything to someone else. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with QRadar and NetIQ Sentinel. These traditional SIEM solutions are not equipped to effectively handle API integrations on the cloud. Nowadays, most organizations are on the cloud. For Microsoft-heavy or cloud-heavy environments, it is very easy to manage and very easy to ingest logs with Microsoft Sentinel.

It was straightforward. Deploying Sentinel doesn't take much time, but the initial design required for any solution takes time. Once you have planned the design, deployment involves using toggle buttons or bars.

In terms of the implementation strategy, being a cloud solution, not all customers are there in a single subscription. There could be various tenants and various subscriptions. We have to consider all the tenants and subscriptions and accordingly design and place Sentinel.

Ideally, it takes two to three months to onboard log sources, and for implementation, three to four resources are required.

We have definitely seen an ROI. In traditional SIEM solutions, we need to have people to maintain those servers and work on the upgrades, whereas when it comes to the SaaS-based solution, we don't need resources for these activities. We can leverage the same resources for Sentinel monitoring and building effective detection rules for threat hunting.

There are no additional costs other than the initial costs of Sentinel.

We didn't evaluate other solutions.

I would recommend this solution. Before implementing it, I will also suggest carefully designing it based on your requirements.

You have two options when it comes to ingesting the logs. If you aren’t bothered about the cost and you need the features, you can ingest all logs into Sentinel. If you are cost-conscious, you can ingest only the required logs into Sentinel.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

The usual use cases would be starting from scratch, implementing Sentinel for clients, onboarding log sources, building analytical use case rules, and supporting the platform for operations.

The main benefit is the ease of integration. Having a cloud-based SIEM means scalability. We also received very good support and documentation from the vendor.

All of the features are great. In fact, when they add new features they are always valuable and interesting. There are so many features on offer.

I really appreciate that it is very well documented.

I also use Defender 365, including Defender for Endpoint. It's easy to integrate with Sentinel. In two clicks we can integrate them together.

I have experience with Defender for Cloud. I'm actually getting into the Center for Cloud right now, so I'm just Learning about it. 

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem.

It's important to have data visibility for our security operations. Sentinel enables us to investigate the threats and respond from one place. That is very important for operations. We need to be able to easily look and have visibility over what's happening.

Sentinel enabled us to automate routine tasks. It helps us automate the handling of trivial tasks related to alerts. 

With the solution, we no longer have to look at multiple dashboards. I wouldn't say it has completely eliminated looking at different dashboards. As it stands right now, there are two dashboards that we will have to look at. One is Sentinel, and the other one is a ticketing system.

Compared to what's being used, it's saved us some time overall. The ease of use and the clear documentation are helpful in that regard. Someone who doesn't know how to use it can easily go in and find out.

When it comes to ingesting Azure native log sources, some of the log sources are specific to the subscription, and it is not always very clear. Sometimes, if the individual doesn't know what they are doing, they might enable it only on one subscription and not on everything that they need to monitor.

I've used the solution for two and a half years. 

I haven't experienced any stability issues. I've experienced 100% uptime. 

I've never seen it scale up or down. If necessary, it likely happens in the background. It's not visible to clients, however, I haven't noticed any issues. 

My experience with technical support is good. It was an excellent experience. They were very, very responsive to the questions that we had. If they were not able to answer on the spot, during the call, they took it back and discussed the issue with their team. Getting an answer was fairly fast. Overall, I've had a good experience with support and I can't complain.

I'd like them even more if I was able to request support on behalf of clients without having to actually access the client's Azure or having to identify the client's tenants. 

Positive

I've used Splunk, ArcSight, and QRadar. Sentinel is excellent compared to those solutions. It could always be easier, however, it's pretty much there.

I was involved in the solution's deployment. The cloud deployment takes five minutes and is very easy. The on-premise portion on the other hand, when I first did it a year and a half ago, was a little bit more complex since it involved a lot of customization. However, now it's more streamlined.

There is no maintenance necessary. It's a managed service. There's no patching of any sort. The on-premises components may require a little bit of maintenance every now and then if they need a patch or upgrade. If there are any changes in the environment they would have to be reflected in the configurations. 

I handled the implementation myself. 

I know the price, however, I don't know how it compares with other SIEM solutions. I don't have that visibility. I overheard not too long ago that Sentinel is on the expensive side. However, there are some capabilities that are fairly new that Sentinel offers to lower the cost. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.