NetWitness Platform Reviews

This solution is deployed on-premise.

It gives the capability for the incident response team to correlate logs to identify any kind of problem like malware and incidents in a general sense, both for logs and packets. I think the most important thing was that it gives the customer the capability to discover and respond to an incident. It gives customers visibility about their most important servers and devices.

Regarding the packet model, the most important thing is how easy it is to rebuild the raw data. Through one click, you can see an email that was sent even without accessing the mailbox from the user. It's easy to rebuild the raw data, especially the packet.

If we have the ability to run a dynamic analysis through malware in the same suite, it would be great to have a sandbox solution to analyze malware through dynamic analysis.

NetWitness has a malware appliance, but in terms of dynamic analysis, we need to integrate with 30 vendors. It would be great to have a sandbox produced by the RSA and the SSL appliance also.

I have been working with this solution for six years.

I have worked with ArcSight from Micro Focus. One thing to be improved in NetWitness is the capability to correlate event logs in a general sense. We have less resources in the NetWitness correlation engine compared with ArcSight.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

The RSA Netwitness packet plays a major role in identifying cyber attacks from different sources. We integrated in a very large environment, deploying it in a container corporation in India. The company has around 86 locations across the country. Another use case of RSA is for running full scans and the third use case is for blocking malware and viruses. Nowadays, people hide behind encaptured networks and use proxies to look through the door. Then they'll try to come in. 

The wireless feature is good, it tells you when to check a spot, which file it has used to encrypt, whether it is spreading and how many hosts have been infected. It's about data analysis. Looking at the network logs, it's difficult to figure out where the problem is coming from and where it's going, but those kinds of features help me a lot. The solution provides lots of automatic rules which is helpful. Technically speaking, this is a good product. 

I believe they could improve their support, there are often delays. The price of the solution could be reduced, it's very costly. 

This is a stable product. 

We're using the solution extensively in our shipping business so it is scalable. We probably have seven or eight users and the solution is in use 24/7. 

Getting technical support takes time, they get a lot of calls and we generally only get a response the following day. Cisco is better with technical support. 

The initial setup is not straightforward because of all the integrations required. It needs the aggregate data, data concentrator, defense, correlation roots, and more. 

It would help if they could provide the malware analytics in the core package as that would make the cost more reasonable. Licensing is paid annually and I believe the cost is somewhere between 12,000 - 15,000 Pounds per year. It's very high. 

I would recommend this solution. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We are using this solution for security.

The most valuable features are the packet inspection and the automated incident response.

More customizability is required, which is something that they need to improve on.

When it comes to starting a log event, there are not many options available. It is very limited.

The log and event correlation need improvement.

The threat detection capability should be enhanced.

I have been using this solution for one month.

We are using it on a daily basis and, so far, it has been stable.

We have approximately 6000 employees, which means that we have 6000 endpoints that this product is working with. It is easy to scale it up to production.

We have not had to contact technical support.

In this company, they did not use a similar solution prior to this one. Personally, I used Splunk in my previous organization. Definitely, I prefer to use Splunk because there is more functionality, visibility, and options. You can do whatever you want with Splunk.

The initial setup is not complex, and more on the simple side. Our deployment took almost five months in total.

We had assistance from an integrator and the vendor for our deployment.

We have administrators in the company who take care of administration and maintenance. The vendor was only needed for the implementation.

RSA is something that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are a solution provider and RSA NetWitness is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We also use it ourselves, They primarily use it for threat protection.

The most valuable feature is the security that it provides.

The log-related capabilities are good.

It integrates well with other risk-assessment tools.

It is not so easy to customize this product.

This product would be improved with the addition of machine learning functionality.

I have been working with this product for perhaps eight years.

Stability is not a problem with NetWitness.

We have not heard any complaints about scalability. This is generally for enterprise-level companies.

The technical support is good and our customers are satisfied with it.

We use McAfee for internal purposes.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the environment, but overall, I would say that it is quite easy. It isn't the easiest product to install, although it is not difficult, either.

They have just introduced an orchestration tool, although I don't know how it works yet.

Overall, this is a good product and I recommend it. However, I always suggest doing a proof of concept first, to make sure that it meets your needs.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is real-time threat prediction so that we can minimize the person-hours of IT security analysts.

The most valuable features are the threat prediction and network forensics. For example, if there is any malware on the network, I am able to see who received it and who clicked on it. I like this functionality the most.

The deployment of the appliance is easy, where even a non-technical person can configure it.

The SOAR (security orchestration, automation, and response) component has areas for improvement.

Technical support needs to be improved.

Integration with third-party products for industries such as the banking sector, or telecommunications, presents challenges that require help from the OEM.

Lots of competing products have vulnerability protection built into their products, and this solution would be improved by including that support.

We have been using RSA NetWitness for about 10 years.

There are no issues in terms of stability.

This solution is pretty scalable, as I am using the VM infrastructure. It can scale to whatever you need.

I am not happy with the RSA support. Sometimes they can be really annoying because it takes so long to get the support that you need.

I have used RSA enVision and ArcSight in the past. We migrated from RSA enVision because they had declared the product end-of-life and upgraded to the NetWitness platform.

The Logs component is similar to what other competitors, such as IBM, ArcSight, and LogRhythm have. What distinguishes this solution is the Packets component. It is critical and something that people should make use of.

It is easy to deploy the appliance. Anyone can mount and configure it. There is a simple, pre-built OS that they just need to mount in the VM infrastructure, and that is clearly mentioned in the documentation. It will take two or three days to deploy, at most.

The challenge comes with trying to integrate with third-party application servers. 

We deployed this solution with our in-house team.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on your use case. If you are only using it to maintain the infrastructure then two staff is sufficient. However, if you want to implement a full-fledged SOC then you will need at least four or five people.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to look at both their endpoints and circuit paths. The two components, Logs and Packets, should definitely both be considered. Even if there is an on-premises SIEM log, they can integrate it.

Overall, I feel that the product is very good and my biggest complaint is about their support.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a service providing company and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. The RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets solution is used for Event Stream Analysis (ESA), and we implement use cases based on our customers' needs. For example, suppose the security device is a Palo Alto device then at the policy level, we implement the use cases. These might be things like phishing attacks or a botnet. Most companies follow the GDPR regulations for compliance.

We have RSA NetWitness implemented in virtual appliances.

The most valuable features are the packet decoder, log decoder, and concentrator. The packet decoder is capable of collecting the flow, whereas the log decoder is capable of collecting the event. NetWitness offers a hybrid solution that collects both and also uses the concentrator.

The alert dashboard is not reflecting events in real-time. We have to refresh in order to view an alert in real-time.

Log aggregation is an issue with this solution because there are a huge number of alerts in a single instance. Compared to ArcSight or QRadar, this is a problem.

We have been using RSA NetWitness for about a year and a half.

The stability of RSA NetWitness is good. It is used on a daily basis.

The ability to scale varies from client to client, and what the client's requirements are. Sometimes the client will want to move to a lighter platform and you have to consider the many inputs related to the cloud. 

We are supporting 10 to 15 clients for this solution. 

With regard to technical support, we have found that their diagnosis makes sense but in some cases, they are very late to reply. Our clients always want to resolve the issue through us, and sometimes the support takes a long time. Because RSA NetWitness is a new product, there are many things that they are trying to find out.

Overall, I would say that the support is good.

We are using multiple tools including QRadar, RSA NetWitness, LogRhythm, and Micro 
Focus ArcSight.

The QRadar setup gave us no issues, and it also works with logs and packets.

LogRhythm fulfills the GDPR compliance.

The initial setup is good, and it is not complex.

The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the type and size of the organization. It takes two to three days to implement this solution, including all of the installation and configuration. Once the company provides the requirements then we implement as per the organizational policy. 

We implement this solution using our in-house team, although if an issue should occur during installation then we can raise a ticket with support. We have had issues with difficult deployments because of the database during installation, which has lead to using the support portal. 

The number of people required for deployment and maintenance depends on how many logs are being integrated. Suppose there are 100 or 200 logs, then 10 people will be sufficient if they focus on deployment and troubleshooting. It also depends on the timeline. If the timeline is longer then five people are enough to complete the implementation.

Many clients are not able to purchase the packet capability because there is a huge amount of data, and the cost depends on the number of EPS (Events per second), as well as the number of gigabytes of data per day. 

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider the differences between the hardware and the virtual solution. The hardware is okay, but if you have any issues and need to restart then it is easy to do this with the VM. My preference is using the VM, where they can easily increase the size of storage if necessary.

It is important to remember that ESA takes all of the main memory. The minimum requirement is 96 GB of RAM, and this is very easy to implement on a virtual machine. My advice is to implement ESA using the maximum eligibility criteria. Consider what the hardware requires are in terms of RAM and storage, and use the maximum available for ESA.

This solution has a very good dashboard with a separate tab for incidents and alerts. There is a ticketing tool as well. If the problems with the dashboard are corrected then we will not need to have any other tools. The dashboard is a very important feature for clients.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the on-premise deployment model of this solution. Our primary use case of this solution is for malware detection and for reconstruction during the incident and forensic analysis.

The web interface needs improvement because right now they have problems combining an older interface with a newer interface. They're in the middle of the process of combining the old and the new one. It sometimes confuses the user and sometimes you are not able to find the necessary information. You need to click the information and that is something that should be improved.

The data isn't a problem but you need to get used to it. You need to know where to click in order to get the results. Otherwise, you can encounter some problems.

I would be very happy if they would fix all the issues from 11.3 to the 11.4 version to have more advantages from the UEBA because the UEBA we have implemented will be the longest. If they will fully integrate the UEBA with the network data, this could be a very huge advantage and impact on the market. Right now, you have a solution like Darktrace which has the same capabilities as RSA NetWitness so NetWitness should implement the same things. They have UEBA, they have data. They should implement algorithms to digest that data and produce additional, more advanced reporting, alerting and support of internal security teams.

It's very stable if you are talking about the old version. I don't like 11.3 and I don't know 11.4, it's not actually released. It provides accurate information, quick analysis from the endpoint perspective, and quick identification of any potential malware. But the 11.3 version is a complete disaster. You cannot analyze anything. 

I am part of the maintenance team. It's me and a couple more staff members that don't work full-time on this solution. I would say around four employees are required for maintenance but not full-time. 

It's fully scalable. There is no limit. Of course, the license limits per day the number of terabytes. In my opinion, it's very flexible.

We have 10,000 users using this solution.

We do plan to increase the usage of this solution. We want to implement more monitoring of the internal traffic from specific places. We need to implement more decoders, more concentrators, and some kind of organization with the log archiving. 

Their customer service is excellent, one of the best.

I have been using Fidelis and that works. It's all the same approach, but they only gather the metadata, not the full packet capture. If you want to compare those products together, I can safely say that RSA is much better because they offer full packet capture capability. It's more scalable and more flexible.

The initial set up was not very complex. The problem is with the use cases. You need to be very careful to not become overwhelmed with unnecessary data. You need to very carefully decide what should be filtered, what you need to be taken from the network or from the logs. You need to decide whether you need YouTube traffic at all, for example, because it consumes storage. It's a huge amount of data and that data is useless. It is not relevant to malicious activity and if you want to fully get the picture of the user activity or the motor activity you can have with data without Facebook, for example.

We have a perpetual license, so the total cost of ownership is not very expensive. It's a good investment.

We have looked through the Cisco solution to expand more devices from Fidelis to cover more areas of our network. I also evaluated Symantec and I have seen FireEye but it's hard to even compare those products to RSA.

If it's possible, ask for help from primary support to help you implement at the very beginning with the fundamental alert or detection rules. This is my best advice for a customer regardless of the size and scope of the implementation. Use the support to help you with the implementation process.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

The customer that we work with uses it to gather logs from all the devices in their enterprise so that they have that single point of visibility into trace information in the environment.

The packet capture aspect of it is a valuable feature because it is quite different from a traditional SIEM solution that only carries out investigations based on captured logs. So, the capture packet also gives you specific insight into what's going on in the network, and it makes your trace investigation much more comprehensive.

The user interface is fine.

The reporting aspect could be improved. There are instances where you try to run the reports and then it does not give you the desired outcome. At times, it appears as if the reporting feature might be buggy.

You want to actually follow the trends and see how technology is advancing. I think they've done that with regard to security orchestration, automation, and response. However, I think that they could do better with the automation and response.

We have been selling RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) for 18 months now.

It is stable.

This solution is scalable.

Technical support has been quite a challenge. There are instances where you reach out to support, and the initial response is fast. When they get to experience what the problem is, we would expect them to be able to fix it on time, but then, we'd notice that there could be quite a lot of back and forth with customers in trying to get an issue resolved.

This is a situation where you have other solutions plugging into this one, so there are times when the issue being experienced has to do with another solution. So there are problems with accepting responsibility.

In general, I would rate them at 70% on technical support.

I've not been involved in initial setup, but I've seen upgrades. I think it's quite straightforward.

From a pricing perspective, I wouldn't say it's too expensive because recently, they came up with a good plan that would also work for small enterprises.

At the early stage, it was quite appliance-based, but now you have virtual machines that take away the appliance cost for customers. So, price wise, it is fair compared to the cost of other SIEM solutions.

It's a comprehensive SIEM solution. The packet capture feature is one thing that will be very beneficial for all accounts because it gives you that general visibility into what's going on even on your network. It's a great product, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten. It's way ahead of the others.