There’s a legacy connotation hooked up to SIEM that has led to distributors promoting themselves as some iteration of a next-generation resolution. However is it obligatory? I’ve been struggling to seek out options that might be categorised as “legacy SIEM”—that’s, SIEM with out some type of automation, response, or anomaly detection capabilities or modules.
It is smart for SIEM to deal with all these capabilities. What doesn’t make sense is that this unsynchronized try at differentiating in the present day’s options from these of 2015.
Let’s have a fast have a look at what SIEM options get known as in the present day:
- Fusion SIEM
- Subsequent-gen SIEM
- Advanced SIEM
- Unified protection SIEM
- Cloud-native SaaS SIEM
- “Not a SIEM” SIEM (aka, unified safety operations platform)
So, is that this an issue? Totally different takes on product names is nothing new, however on this case, it creates loads of confusion out there. First, these names don’t inherently imply something. Certain, some supply indications, like “cloud-native SaaS SIEM platform,” however usually talking, there isn’t a goal distinction between a next-gen SIEM and an developed SIEM.
Second, there are a number of permutations of modules which are completely different from vendor to vendor. One may supply SIEM + SOAR + UEBA, whereas one other might supply a SIEM + ASM + XDR. Whereas it’s nice to have extra complete safety merchandise, you could not want or need the extra modules.
“Not a SIEM” SIEM options add one other layer of confusion, as these merchandise do every little thing a SIEM resolution does, however they gained’t present up whenever you Google “greatest SIEM resolution 2024.” One other problem is proving to regulators for compliance functions that though what you utilize for SIEM known as a SOC platform, it’s a SIEM resolution.
So sure, I do assume that including adjectives earlier than the phrase “SIEM” is a futile train that creates extra confusion as a substitute of differentiating a product. However there’s extra.
SIEM and Safety Operations
When evaluating options, it’s essential to resolve whether or not you want a “simply SIEM” or a unified instrument for automating your safety operations heart. I consider that we must always maintain SIEM as a standalone time period that predominantly focuses on doing what it says on the tin—info and occasion administration.
SIEM itself might be a part of a wider safety operations platform alongside applied sciences equivalent to XDR, SOAR, UEBA, and ASM. Nevertheless, for a similar causes supplied above, we shouldn’t maintain calling these converged options “SIEM.”
Because of this, I’ve adjusted the safety operations reviews I’ve been engaged on, specifically the SIEM Radar and autonomous SOC Radar. SIEM focuses on evaluating instruments’ capabilities with respect to info administration. We’re nonetheless together with further points equivalent to automation and evaluation, however they continue to be centered on the primary scope reasonably than branching out to full UEBA or SOAR capabilities.
Autonomous SOC, alternatively, is now a extra standalone method in comparison with its earlier SIEM + SOAR scope. It evaluates the capabilities required by a safety operations heart to handle and automate its day by day actions. There may be much less concentrate on compliance and extra on response, orchestration, and consumer monitoring.
Subsequent Steps
To be taught extra, check out GigaOm’s SIEM Key Standards and Radar reviews. These reviews present a complete overview of the market, define the factors you’ll need to take into account in a purchase order choice, and consider how various distributors carry out in opposition to these choice standards.
Should you’re not but a GigaOm subscriber, you possibly can entry the analysis utilizing a free trial.
The put up Why isn’t “Simply SIEM” Sufficient? appeared first on Gigaom.
