Microsoft Sentinel Reviews

Our two primary uses for the solution are incident management and threat hunting. We use Sentinel and other Microsoft security products for security investigations, threat, team, and incident management purposes. The tool is deployed across multiple departments and locations, with around 8,000 total end users.

We use multiple Microsoft security products, the full Defender suite including Defender for Cloud, Cloud Apps, and Identity, all integrated with Sentinel. 

Integrating multiple solutions is straightforward; as they are all Microsoft products, it's easy for Sentinel to ingest the logs and data connectors. The process is very simple, and we can configure log sources or data connectors in Sentinel in a couple of clicks.  

As a next-generation AI-powered SIEM and SOAR tool, Sentinel provides an all-encompassing cyber defense at the cloud scale. The solution's machine learning capabilities make threat hunting and identification rapid across the entire cloud environment.

The solution provides excellent visibility into threats; it's integrated with Microsoft's threat intelligence platform, which forwards information to Sentinel. We have robust threat detection 24/7.   

Sentinel helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise, an essential function that lets us focus on investigating and resolving high-priority incidents first. When the most significant threats are dealt with, we can move on to the medium and low-priority issues.  

The multiple Microsoft solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment; they work very well together, and we trust these products to investigate matters further. 

The Microsoft solutions provide comprehensive threat protection across our entire organization.  

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem, which is crucial to our security operation. We require the data not just from Microsoft products but also from different firewalls and other security products, including firewall proxies, web proxies, logs, etc. We can quickly integrate multiple data sources in just a few steps. 

The solution's threat intelligence helps prepare us for potential threats before they hit and take proactive steps. Sentinel's intelligent and fast threat detection allows us to respond rapidly to critical and high-priority incidents by leveraging built-in automation and orchestration tools. 

Using Sentinel gives us time savings of 30-40%.  

The solution also decreased our time to detect and respond by 30-40%. 

Sentinel is a SIEM and SOAR tool, so its automation is the best feature; we can reduce human interaction, freeing up our human resources.

The built-in AI and machine learning are excellent; they reduce the number of false positives by around 90%.

The centralized threat collection is a valuable feature. 

The solution is cloud-native, so it's faster and easier to deploy as there is no hardware or software to implement.

The product is flexible enough to deploy in the cloud and on-prem, which is an advantage over other SIEM tools.

Sentinel allows us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place, which is crucial because time management is essential during a security investigation. Having all the relevant data in one place enables security analysts to investigate and resolve quickly.   

The solution's built-in SOAR, UEBA, and threat intelligence capabilities provide comprehensive protection. The SOAR capability is excellent and better than other products on the market, reducing our dependence on security analysts, and IT takes less investigation time. We can leverage the UEBA to focus on risky users and entities first during an investigation, which is an integral part of the process. 

Compared to standalone SIEM and SOAR products, Sentinel reduces infrastructure costs by around 50% due to the cloud and reduced maintenance relative to legacy solutions. Sentinel is also approximately 70% faster to deploy than legacy solutions with the same rules. 

The solution helped to automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts. This reduced our dependency on security analysts and their workloads because the solution reduced false positive alerts by about 90%. This freed up our analysts and is the most significant benefit of automation.  

The product helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards and gave us one XDR dashboard, which provides us with greater visibility and a reduced time to investigate and resolve.  

The data connectors for third-party tools could be improved, as some aren't available in Sentinel. They need to be available in the data connector panel. 

The solution could have more favorable pricing; the cost is relatively high compared to other SIEM tools, which can be prohibitive for smaller organizations. 

We've been using the solution for over a year. 

Sentinel is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is good and responsive, but in some cases, it took a long time to resolve our issue.

Positive

We previously used IBM QRadar as a SIEM tool and switched because Sentinel is cloud-native and has more comprehensive capabilities, including SOAR capabilities. Sentinel fits our clients' requirements better, as many of them utilize the MS Defender security suite, which gives them a specific grant for free data ingestion. The solution also provides greater visibility.

I wasn't involved in the solution's initial setup, and in terms of maintenance, it's very lightweight; updates are Microsoft's responsibility, so we don't need to do anything.

Sentinel is expensive relative to other products of the class, so it often isn't affordable for small-scale businesses. However, considering the solution has more extensive capabilities than others, the price is not so high. Pricing is based on GBs of ingested daily data, either by a pay-as-you-go or subscription model.

The product saved us money, but actual savings depend on the project size, as the pricing is per GB of ingested data. Our savings are approximately 40-50%. 

We evaluated various solutions, including LogRhythm SIEM, Splunk, and Sumo Logic Security. We chose Sentinel because it's more advanced, cost-efficient has greater capabilities and fulfills our requirements better than the other products.

I rate Sentinel nine out of ten. 

To a security colleague who says it's better to go with a best-of-breed strategy over a single vendor's security suite, it's better to go with multiple vendors. This provides better visibility and avoids a single point of failure.

My advice to others considering the product is it depends on the project requirements. For larger organizations, I recommend Sentinel, as it's very advanced. However, for smaller-scale industries, Splunk and IBM QRadar are good options. For primarily cloud-based organizations with the majority of users in the cloud, then Sentinel is again an excellent choice.

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. 

We have multiple use cases based on the data sources we have onboarded, like Sophos UTM or Firewall.

We also use Microsoft Defender for cloud and Microsoft Office.

We have integrated MD with Sentinel to receive alerts. If there are any suspicious activities in any of our resources, MD will create an alert. Once an alert comes through MDC, it is converted to Sentinel.

It was easy to integrate the solutions. It took about two or three clicks. The solutions work natively together, specifically to give us coordinated detection and response across our environment.

There is a correlation with the mail-based algorithm. We have an AML model algorithm in Sentinel. It has the capability to catch the pattern of attacks and shows that to us in the Sentinel app.

We mostly have cloud-based solutions, so Sentinel gives us better security. There's a feature that allows us to capture all the data in a single console, which we can analyze from the cloud itself.

We don't have to use third-party services to check these activities. If we see that one of our accounts is compromised or anything has happened, we can remove that person from other groups.

There's a feature that allows us to see what is in a secure state and what is in a critical state.

Sentinel helps automate routine tasks and find high-value alerts. We can have a custom playbook and create automation rules through that. If there is a false positive address, we can do the automation from there. If we want an email notification based on high-activated rules, we can provide the automation rules that will notify us on Outlook or through Teams.

It minimizes our analyst's workload. Once a high activity comes up, we'll get a notification on Teams. As analysts, they will validate and send us the email or notification within 10 to 15 minutes with more valid data. If there's a playbook with the top 10 critical rules, we can create multiple playbooks and attach them with the data that we want to protect.

Once that incentive is triggered, we'll get notifications with the full details of that incentive. If high severity comes up, that email is sent to the client, and we do more analysis on that rather than wasting time on the first analysis. We can directly get into the deeper version of the automation.

If an incident comes up, we have to validate the load and find out the correlation of the users. We can focus on the advanced test rather than wasting time on the previous one. This saves five to ten minutes.

On a monthly basis, the analyst team saves at least three to four hours with automation. We have multiple rules based on our more critical test. From that perspective, analysts don't want to work more on low priorities because we'll be automatically notified of low and high priorities. We focus more on critical users where the threat is high. By focusing on what is a high priority, our analysts save five to six hours per week.

We have multiple dashboard views that allow us to see logs coming from different solutions and users who were involved in the previous incident.

The best feature is that onboarding to the SIM solution is quite easy. If you use cloud-based solutions, it's just a few clicks to migrate it.

The console is user-friendly. We have almost 120 different types of data, so the solution helps us to onboard different types of third-party services to the SIM solution. We have UB features, and the SOAR capability in the Sentinel server is also a good feature.

Sentinel's visibility into threats is very good. We have an investigation graph that allows us to see the correlation between the incident and the users. We can see if there are multiple incidents with the same IP address and if there are multiple breaches. We can correlate with the rules and check if any inside threat activities are going on with the malicious site or the malicious URL link that we have onboarded. The threat view provides good visibility.

We can prioritize threats based on our investigation assets. It's very fast. We're able to see the rest of the threat activities and how impactful they are. Based on the AML algorithm, we can get all the stages of the attack as well.

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem.

The importance of this ingestion of data to our security operations depends on the data and the type of solutions we have to onboard. We onboard our critical servers and assets to the same solution so we'll have good visibility.

We're able to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place.

We can validate the logs from where the logs have been received. By doing the log analysis, we'll be able to find them. It's a straightforward function and isn't very hard.

There's an incident pane in Sentinel. We have a query package, and we can have a deep dive alert through that, or we can have a deep look into the log. From the console itself, we have a great view of our threats and the current phase we're in.

We have multiple source features. There are between 20 to 30 in addition to data. Microsoft provides custom features through which we can connect with third-party solutions and correlate the incident. For example, if we have multiple incidents, we can use the SOAR capabilities and correlate them with multiple third-party threats. It's an easier way of understanding whether or not we have a malicious bug.

We can see how much time our analysts have taken to raise the ticket and how much time they have taken to resolve the issue assets. We can create a dashboard for that. They're able to notify us within five or ten minutes for high priorities. For the medium priorities, it is 10 to 12 minutes. Our detection time for low priorities is within three hours, but our team still performs under 15 to 18 minutes.

If we want to use more features, we have to pay more. There are multiple solutions on the cloud itself, but the pricing model package isn't consistent, which is confusing to clients.

We have been using this solution for almost two years.

The stability is very good.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I would rate technical support a six out of ten. Technical support doesn't understand the features well enough. They will give us links to reference, so we go through those links as a team or Google the solution. We reach out to them if we can't find the solution, but they provide us with the same links and URLs that we've already referred to. It's a hassle because it wastes a week and a half of our time. Their solutions and response time aren't very good.

Neutral

The setup is based on our data sources. We have a segregated timeframe of two payments. It depends on the client or who is doing the operation. Onboarding on the cloud is pretty easy. It takes just a few clicks from migrating the data sources to getting the logs.

For an on-premises or third-party software servicer, it will take more time and troubleshooting to do the setup. It won't be hard if you have a good team for the onboarding process. It can be complicated initially, but the rest of the timeframe will involve fine-tuning the logs and creating the custom rules based on your requirement.

It doesn't require a lot of maintenance. It's pretty simple. We just had to play with it for a couple of months.

We haven't seen any financial ROI.

Sentinel is the best solution that we use. It's a pay-as-you-go model. We can fine-tune the features we want and choose if we want to remove logs. We can also segregate logs, which helps us minimize costs. Sentinel provides free Office 365 and Azure-based logs without pricing assets. When it comes to the third-party solution or our server logs, we just have to do the fine-tuning of the logs.

The pricing isn't very high. It depends on the number of logs you have. If you're expecting to ingest 50 to 60G in a day, but you're only ingesting 20 to 25G per day at first and you have a good team to analyze the logs, then you can segregate the ingestion at under 15G.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

It's very user-friendly. The only issue is that Microsoft's technical support isn't very good. If you have a good team who can onboard the resources to the solution, then you'll be happy with the solution itself.

For us, it's better to go for multiple solutions rather than a single suite because we cannot strictly trust one client. If you only have one cloud-based solution, it's better to use Sentinel to secure it. It's helpful to have a good team that can do the monitoring and onboarding smoothly. You can go with one solution if you have a trusted partner. If you don't, then I would use multiple solutions.

You should purchase the features that Microsoft provides. It's a configured network, so they will correlate with the end resources, RMD, and receiver identity. The fusion-based algorithm rule will detect advanced multistage attacks to stop the attack.

We use Sentinel for our SOC operations. We set up analytics rules and SOAR playbooks. Sentinel covers our entire security operation. It is deployed across multiple locations and covers around 4,000 users.

Sentinel gives us alerts, identifies vulnerabilities, and helps us remediate issues. Some of it is automated, but we also do manual remediation through the ticketing process. We have integrated Sentinel with ServiceNow, so the alerts are routed to the engineers.

Sentinel has reduced our mean time to resolution, one of our KPIs, by about 30 to 40 percent and enabled us to identify vulnerabilities faster. The co-pilot capability saves us a lot of time, too. We're also doing mapping with the MITRE framework, improving our MITRE coverage. We started to see results after the initial deployment and configuration. It took about two or three months. It's an ongoing process, but we realized the benefits within three months. 

The solution correlates signals from native and third-party sources into a single incident. Before implementing Sentinel, we used multiple tools to investigate and remedy vulnerabilities. Having that single pane of glass has significantly increased the efficiency.

Sentinel has improved our overall visibility. We get data about user behavior and correlate it. It also gives us alerts about network vulnerabilities. Having a single pane of glass and one consolidated security tool allows us to capture multiple layers, from the endpoints to the servers. One solution gives us visibility into all the layers. 

The SOAR playbooks are Sentinel's most valuable feature. It gives you a unified toolset for detecting, investigating, and responding to incidents. That's what clearly differentiates Sentinels from its competitors. It's cloud-native, offering end-to-end coverage with more than 120 connectors. All types of data logs can be poured into the system so analysis can happen. That end-to-end visibility gives it the advantage.

Sentinel's AI and automation capabilities make our SOC team's job easy. When logs come into Sentinel, the AI engine analyzes, contextualizes, and correlates them. The AI is correlating the data from multiple log sources and giving us alerts. We depend on that. We also perform automated remediation based on our SOAR playbooks. 

I would like Sentinel to have more out-of-the-box analytics rules. There are already more than 400 rules, but they could add more industry-specific ones. For example, you could have sets of out-of-the-box rules for banking, financial sector, insurance, automotive, etc., so it's easier for people to use it out of the box. Structuring the rules according to industry might help us. 

They could also add some more connectors. Sentinel has 120 connectors, including most of the essential data ones, but they could add some more legacy connectors.

I have used Microsoft Sentinel for three years.

Our SOC team relies on Sentinel from end to end, and it has been quite stable. It's always up, and we've never had any issues with the connectors.

Scalability isn't a problem because we have an Azure environment, and Sentinel is native.

I rate Microsoft support nine out of 10. They resolve our tickets within an acceptable time frame. That is pretty much okay for us.

Positive

Initially, we used Splunk, but I've mostly worked on Sentinel at this company. It was a company decision. Splunk works well in an on-premise or legacy environment, but our entire digital estate shifted to the cloud, so it makes more sense to move to Microsoft Sentinel because we moved to Azure.

Our deployment went smoothly. We spent about three or four months setting up the entire thing, and it all went according to plan without any undue complications. About three months of that was the configuration phase, and we had a transitional month before starting operations. 

The implementation steps included enabling Sentinel, setting up Log Analytics Workspace, and connecting the data connectors. After that, the logs started flowing in. Next, we created the analytic rules and remediation use cases. The deployment team included seven full-time staff. After deployment, Sentinel requires some ongoing maintenance when we add new analytics rules or log sources. We have one engineer responsible for that.

We see an ROI. Our efficiency increased once we created the initial set of analytics rules and SOAR automation, and we review our automation use cases every six months to find more ways to save money. It comes out to roughly a 10 percent return annually on a three-year contract.

I am not involved on the financial side, but from an enterprise-wide use perspective, I think the price is good enough. We have bundled pricing with Azure Monitor Log Analytics. We would be using Log Analytics Workspace even if we didn't have Sentinel, and we would need to pay a separate license for IBM QRadar or Splunk. It optimizes costs when we use both in our digital estate. 

We considered IBM QRadar. 

I rate Microsoft Sentinel eight out of 10. It's a plug-and-play solution, so you can start seeing benefits quickly using the out-of-the-box analytics rules and use cases. Of course, you need more time to create custom use cases and playbooks, but it's simple to get started. It might be challenging to migrate from a legacy system because you may have trouble connecting to the old data, but this is the best tool for a greenfield deployment. 

Our organization is an SSP, a service provider for manual threat detection and hunting. We use Microsoft Sentinel for threat detection. We have a few clients using Microsoft Sentinel, and we provide SOAR services to them.

Having the ability to respond holistically from one place with Microsoft Sentinel is very useful. We don't need to log into different security consoles. It is less hectic and reduces our time to respond and resolve the issue.

The solution has helped improve our organization by detecting and hunting threats. The solution also correlates alerts from other solutions, such as Defender, Office 365, and other Endpoint solutions. Microsoft Sentinel has automated responses that help us reduce the number of analysts required for example, from ten to six because most of the tasks are done automatically.

The solution's automation of routine tasks helps us automate the finding of high-value alerts by reducing the manual work from 30 minutes down to three. 90 percent of the work is done by Sentinel which runs the playbook and provides us with all the data required to make a decision quickly.

The solution has helped eliminate the need to use multiple dashboards by incorporating SIEM plus SOAR into one convenient location. We don't need to log into each of the solutions individually. We can directly correlate the alerts and incidents from our Sentinel console. Sentinel reduces our time because we don't need to check multiple tabs for multiple solutions. All the information required to investigate and make a decision can be found in the solution's panel view.

We don't have any out-of-the-box threat intelligence from Microsoft, but with the integration of some open-source solutions and premium sources, Microsoft Sentinel helps us take proactive steps before threats enter our environment.

We have custom rules created to check IPs or domains for potential threats. Whenever an IP or domain is visible in our logs, the solution will automatically correlate with the threat intelligence feed and create an alert. If we skip the correlation portion and an alert has been created for a malicious IP or a malicious domain, the solution can check the reputation in different reputation sources such as a virus portal, or threat recorded future, and it will auto-populate the information for the analyst which helps us prepare for potential threats.

The solution has definitely saved us 90 percent of our time. Microsoft Sentinel reduces our time to detect, respond, and resolve incidents. Most of the incidents are detected automatically and we just need the data to make a decision. We don't have to go look for different clues or reputations over the internet or use other solutions.

Microsoft Sentinel has saved us from incurring costs related to a breach by protecting us.

The solution detects incidents and alerts us in real-time based on custom rules that we create or the out-of-the-box rules that are part of Sentinel. The information that auto-populates when we run the playbook reduces our response time in most cases because all the relevant data required for our investigation is provided on the incident details page.

Logic apps, playbooks, and dashboarding are all valuable features of this solution. 

Microsoft Sentinel prioritizes threats across our organization because the solution allows us to correlate using multiple solutions including Defender.

Integrating Microsoft solutions with each other is very easy. The integrated solutions work together to deliver coordinated detection and response in our environment.

The solution enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. We can write AQL queries and also create rules to detect the alerts. In the event that we don't have rules, we can proactively hunt through KQL queries.

The workbook based on KQL queries, which is the query language is very extensive compared to other solutions such as QRada and Splunk.

The solution requires no in-house maintenance because it is all handled by Microsoft. We only need to monitor the updates.

The playbook development environment is not as rich as it should be. There are multiple occasions when we face problems while creating the playbook. 

The cost is not straightforward and would benefit from a single charge model. 

The UI is not impressive, we need to train our analysts to conduct the investigation. Unlike IBM QRadar which has a different UI for searching, there is no UI where we can conduct searches with Sentinel. With Sentinel, all our searches require a KQL query, and if our analysts are not familiar with KQL queries, we have to train them. 

The data ingestion can use improvement. There are a few scenarios where we have experienced a delay in data ingestion.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

Sentinel is quite stable because it's a SaaS-based offering, so we don't have to worry about our stability. The solution is available 99.99999 percent of the time. The only time we have an issue is if there is a problem with the Azure portal. Microsoft handles the stability well.

We can scale the solution as much as we want, and with a few clicks, we can increase or decrease capacity.

We currently have four engineering teams that handle the deployments and use case development as well as a SOAR team that consists of ten technical people who all use the solution.

Microsoft Sentinel support is really good. They respond quickly to our requests and they try to resolve our issues as soon as possible. From my experience, Microsoft has the best support.

Positive

For SIEM, we previously used IBM QRadar and Splunk Enterprise Security. For SOAR, We have used IBM Resilient, Palo Alto XSOAR, and D3 SOAR, which is a new tool. D3 SOAR is a startup based in Canada and we used it for POC, but we have not used it in production. Sentinel is a SaaS-based solution. There is less administration required and with a few clicks, we can deploy Microsoft Sentinel, whereas, with other solutions, we have to build everything from scratch. There are other SaaS-based solutions but Sentinel is one of the most popular and because a lot of organizations are already using Microsoft and Azure products, Sentinel is the best compatible solution.

The initial setup for Sentinel is straightforward and the best I have worked with to date. We are able to deploy within half an hour and we only require one person to complete the implementation. 

The implementation was completed in-house.

From a cost perspective, there are some additional charges in addition to the licensing. Initially, the cost appears expensive, but over time, the solution justifies that cost. The cost is not straightforward, but instead really complex. We are charged for data ingestion as well as data leaving the environment. We are also charged for running playbooks and for logic apps. Compared with SIEM solutions, whose cost is simply based on EPS or data storage, Microsoft Sentinel's cost is complex. Over time we can predict what the cost of using the solution will be. Other standalone SOAR tools have fixed licensing and their cost is simple. We don't need to pay for each command we run or each integration we have or each automation we do. With Microsoft Sentinel, there is a cost associated with each of the connectors that we use in our playbook. Every time we run that playbook, there will be charges, but the charges are minimal unless we run the playbook repeatedly, then over time the cost shoots up.

We occasionally test POC and we are still evaluating other solutions.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

My impression of the visibility into threats that Microsoft Sentinel provides is that the solution is not perfect, but since it is part of Microsoft Workspace, Microsoft already provides so many services to clients, and Microsoft Sentinel is one of them. If we are already using Azure and other services from Microsoft, then Sentinel is easy to implement and use compared to other similar solutions. If I was not using Microsoft Solutions, then I can use other solutions, such as IBM QRadar or Splunk, and when it comes to XSOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR is a much better solution.

We use multiple solutions from Microsoft within our organization including Defender and Endpoint. We have integrated Endpoint with Defender and Microsoft Security Center to receive alerts.

Microsoft Sentinel has out-of-the-box support for up to 90 percent of solutions where we can find a connector to ingest the data directly, but for the remaining 10 percent, we need to write custom tables.

The ability to ingest data is the backbone of our security. If we don't ingest the data, we won't be able to perform anything at all in SIEM. SIEM is based on data ingestion. Once the data is ingested, then on top of that data, we can monitor and detect or hunt, whatever we want. We can create a reporting dashboard, but the data needs to be there.

Microsoft Sentinel's UEBA is quite capable. For SIEM, Splunk and IBM QRadar are slightly better than Sentinel, but Sentinel is catching up fast. The solution has only been in the market for two or three years and has already captured a large share with increasing popularity. For SOAR, Palo Alto XSOAR is much better than Microsoft Sentinel because Sentinel is a SIEM plus SOAR solution whereas Palo Alto XSOAR is a SOAR-focused solution only. What Microsoft Sentinel provides is one solution for SIEM plus SOAR, where we can detect and also respond in one place.

Currently, we have one environment based in a US data center, but we have the ability for multiple solutions in multiple regions within Azure, and we can integrate them using a master and slave configuration that will allow us to run all the queries from the master console.

Using a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor suite is fine if we have a SIEM solution, a SOAR solution, or an Endpoint detection solution until a time when they are no longer compatible with each other and we can not integrate them. If we can not integrate the solutions it becomes difficult for our teams to log into and monitor multiple solutions separately.

I definitely recommend Microsoft Sentinel, but I suggest basing the decision on proof of concept by gathering the requirements, security solutions, and additional log source devices an organization has before using the solution. There are multiple solutions available that may be more suitable in some cases.

We use Microsoft Sentinel for centralized log aggregation and security management. Our environment uses a variety of security products to strengthen its security. This has made it difficult for the SOC team to analyze logs from different consoles and products. To ease the team's workload and help them prioritize events and attacks, we decided to acquire a centralized console. We chose Sentinel because it provides a centralized console where we can ingest and analyze logs. The logs that Sentinel analyzes add value.

Sentinel's threat visibility is good. It has analytics and threat detection capabilities that we can add to our own playbooks. We can use the predefined log analytics to create our own custom rules. Using these custom rules with predefined logs further improves our environment's security posture.

Sentinel helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise. When we have a lot of alerts and incidents, it is better to understand if they are false positives, because the SOC team sometimes wastes time on false positives, which are not very relevant. We must prioritize positive alerts, which should be given the highest priority. In order to solve this problem.

The manufacturing environment I work in is not very critical, so a simple attack is unlikely to have a major impact on the business. However, data is important in any business, and a data breach can damage our reputation. Therefore, it is important to have a good security posture to avoid threats. Threats and attacks can happen even with the highest level of security. Therefore, we look for products that can give us visibility into our environment and help us to proactively solve problems. Microsoft proactively identifies threats and informs its peers and partners. This allows us to take action to assess the impact of these threats on our environment. By taking proactive measures, we can prevent threats from harming our environment.

We also use Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Microsoft Defender for Identity. We have integrated these solutions with Microsoft Sentinel, and their logs are ingested by Sentinel. We do not incur any costs for ingesting Office 365 logs because Microsoft provides a free login exchange for Microsoft Office 365 and, I believe, for Defender as well into our Sentinel for analysis.

Our Microsoft products work seamlessly together to provide coordinated detection and response in our environment. We use a lot of Microsoft products, and it is best to use them in the same environment. This makes integration and collaboration easier. We also have licensing agreements that give us discounts when we use multiple products together. For example, we use Microsoft 365, OneDrive, and security products. We are also migrating our workloads to Azure. We have already migrated many workloads to Azure, and we are in the process of migrating the remaining workloads. We are heavily dependent on Microsoft, so we believe it is best to use one cloud provider. This makes it easier to manage different services. Additionally, Microsoft provides us with a lot of help and benefits, which can save us money. Cost is one of the factors that businesses consider, and IT is a major investment for businesses. Even though our business is not in the IT industry, IT plays a vital role in driving the business forward. Therefore, our organization needs to ensure that their IT investments are having a positive impact.

The comprehensiveness of the threat protection provided by our Microsoft security products is good. They have a large number of predefined indicators of compromise and a comprehensive team that monitors threats around the world. We receive notifications and newsletters from Microsoft whenever a new threat emerges. When an organization does not have experts on its team, it is very difficult to identify zero-day vulnerabilities or attacks. This makes it difficult for them to identify and mitigate these threats. Microsoft, on the other hand, proactively identifies threats and informs its teams and partners so that they can mitigate or prevent them in their environments.

Sentinel allows us to ingest data from our entire IT ecosystem, including network devices, servers, endpoints, and firewalls. This is important because if we are not monitoring all of our devices, we cannot know what threats they are facing or what attacks they have already been subjected to. Sentinel scans every device in the environment because it is difficult to see how many devices are compromised by a threat when we have an inventory of thousands of devices. This is why we need a centralized console where we can ingest all of our important logs and correlate them to identify threats. We need to know when our environment has been attacked by zero-day vulnerabilities. If we see that two devices have been affected, we still do not know how many additional devices the attack has compromised. This can only be known if we have all of our logs in our console. Sentinel provides us with a valuable capability: we can simply identify the source, user, or affected machines, and Sentinel will tell us how many machines have already been compromised and how far the threat has spread. This information allows us to isolate or quarantine the affected machines so that they cannot access more of our environment or steal more data.

We can react and respond holistically from one place with Sentinel.

The best part of Sentinel is its built-in SOAR, user and entity behavior analytics, and threat intelligence capabilities, which collaborate with the SIEM. Other products typically sell these capabilities as separate products. When we automate tasks, we reduce the team's manual effort. Whenever we detect an attack or need to provide analytics, we generate a lot of events and alerts. If we don't correlate these events and automatically resolve them, repetitive tasks will have to be performed by team members. This is not an efficient use of resources. Repetitive tasks can be automated by writing scripts and putting them into the system. Sentinel correlates events and creates incidents for us. These incidents can be resolved by scripts, such as by informing users that their IDs have been compromised and they need to reset their passwords or their IDs will be blocked. This saves SOC time so that they can focus on more important tasks, such as detecting and responding to threats that are already impacting the environment. Sentinel's features help organizations reduce manual and repetitive effort.

Sentinel has helped our organization by providing seamless collection and correlation of all logs. It is important to correlate logs into alerts and then to incidents, as this prevents the team that receives the alerts from becoming overloaded. Sentinel's analytics capabilities are also beneficial, as they allow me to easily perform searches and analyses of incidents. I do not have to spend much effort to determine the source of an incident, its impact, or how far it has spread through our environment. Additionally, Sentinel's automation features, such as its playbooks, templates, and integrations, help us to reduce manual effort.

Automating routine tasks that help find high-value alerts reduces the cost and workload of our SOC team. We have created several automation use cases by discussing them with multiple stakeholders and analyzing how frequently we receive the same type of incident alerts. When we receive the same type of incident alerts, we can correlate them and create scripts or automate solutions to resolve them. This helps to reduce the team's workload and headaches. We have already incorporated this automation into our SOC processes. If an incident is created, it is automatically resolved without any user or machine interaction. If we receive an alert that the resolution failed, some team members investigate the cause, such as a missing or disabled user ID or a technical system issue.

Automation has reduced our manual tasks, saving us around 30 percent of our time so that we can focus on more important tasks.

Previously, when I joined the organization, they were using Splunk on-premises and other security tools, such as Trend Micro and Darktrace devices, to collect logs. The security operations center team had to log into each console to see the logs, investigate them, and determine how to mitigate the alerts. This process was slow and inefficient, especially in the event of a critical attack. Sentinel provides a centralized console for log collection and analysis which helps the SOC team respond to alerts more quickly and reduce the impact of threats.

Microsoft Sentinel helped us eliminate the need for multiple dashboards by providing a single XDR dashboard. They have data connectors that can integrate with different security tools because they partner with other security companies to provide us with the functionality we need to integrate into our environment. Microsoft is at its best when we can integrate with our peers and security companies that are bringing new features to improve our security posture. We can then integrate these features with Sentinel, benefit from them, and ingest our logs into Sentinel as well. We no longer need to log in to multiple security tools; we can simply go to Sentinel, view the incidents and alerts that are being generated, and take action.

The automation feature is valuable. There are many events that happen, and we require manual effort from our SOC team to mitigate each one. When we started automating tasks, it helped us to reduce the time it takes to react to attacks. Attacks may not be able to penetrate our environment as easily because of this. Therefore, I believe that Sentinel's automation is the best.

The integration is not that difficult. The configuration is simple, but the data connector documentation is lacking in useful information. If Microsoft improves the documentation, we will be able to see how to complete the integration from start to finish. In the past, we have encountered problems during the integration process because the documentation was incomplete. For example, we recently deployed Microsoft Defender for Identity with the help of our Active Directory team. Initially, they told us that only a few ports were required, but later they said that more ports were needed. Our environment did not allow these additional ports, and we were not aware of this requirement. This delayed the project and caused frustration for our team members. The customer also expected the project to be completed sooner, but unexpected firewall rules and undocumented configuration requirements prevented us from doing so. We had to open a case with Microsoft for assistance, and we were eventually able to resolve the issue.

The playbook is a bit difficult and could be improved. For those who do not have a deep understanding of playbooks or programming languages, it would be better to have extensive documentation and information available online. When I started working with Sentinel, there were times when we had to refer to the documentation to get information about the configuration or implementation steps. If we encountered errors in the implementation, we had to rely on the internet to figure out how to fix them. The information available online is not that comprehensive and does not cover specific maintenance tasks. If the documentation were improved a bit, and the playbook and automation were made easier to use, it would be a great benefit for technical users.

The AI and Machine Learning can be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel for over one year.

I have not seen any downtime with Sentinel. Sentinel is stable.

Sentinel is highly scalable. We can easily integrate more devices without any effort. Microsoft has a large data center, and they are always ready to add our devices.

Microsoft technical support has declined in quality over the years. I have only been using Sentinel for a year, but I have experience with Microsoft technical support through Azure and other Microsoft products. In the past, we were able to resolve tickets quickly with minimal back-and-forth. However, recently, the quality of support has degraded. We had a few critical cases that directly impacted production, but Microsoft did not assign their senior engineers to these cases. This wasted a lot of our time, as we had to explain the problems to multiple support representatives.

Neutral

We previously used Splunk SOAR in conjunction with Trend Micro and Darktrace to ingest logs, but we switched to Sentinel because it is more seamless.

The initial setup was successful. The configuration is not difficult. There were some challenging areas. However, we had access to free tools and a Microsoft contact who was always available to help us if we encountered any knowledge gaps. When setting up Sentinel for the first time in our environment, we always have an expert with us to assist with the setup, as not everyone has extensive knowledge of implementing the product. The expert is there to help us with the implementation if we get stuck on a step.

We decided which devices and types of alerts or information we wanted to ingest. At that time, we were not using automation. Our environment was in poor condition, and we were not utilizing the automated features of Sentinel. We only required the basic features of Sentinel, which were to ingest logs from the devices we were interested in, correlate them, analyze them, and integrate them with our service tools and alerting. For alerting, we used ServiceNow as our ticketing system. We would receive a ticket from ServiceNow for the SOC team, and then the SOC team would investigate and mitigate the issue. However, as time went on, the number of events increased, and the time it took to investigate them also increased. If we did not automate our environment, we would have to keep increasing the size of our SOC team or the number of SOC members to handle the workload. We could not meet the priority requirements. That is when we proposed using some of the automation features to help with low-priority alerts.

The deployment required three to four people. I joined the team for the implementation phase. So, by the time I joined, a lot of decisions had already been made, and a low-level plan had been decided upon. This was a low-level design and plan that we had to follow.

We had help from our Microsoft representative for the implementation. This contact was provided to us by Microsoft from the initial trial period all the way through the implementation.

Currently, given our use case, the cost of Sentinel is justified, but it is expensive. It is not so cheap that any organization can afford it. However, if an organization has a requirement for good security posture and can invest in security tools, they should have at least a decent budget to afford Sentinel. Sentinel does offer good features, such as SIEM, SOAR, and automation. However, we need to monitor our budget because ingestion can increase at any time and exceed our budget. We can set alerts to notify us if our budget is increasing significantly on a monthly or yearly basis. We can then control our budget by adjusting what we ingest. We can ingest any amount of data because there is a lot of data flowing in. However, some data is not necessary to ingest because it is not valuable to our analytics. Therefore, being careful about what data we ingest through Sentinel will help us stay within our budget.

We evaluated IBM QRadar and Splunk. Splunk has been in the market for a long time and is trusted by many organizations. While it was once a leader in its field, it does not seem to be keeping up with new features and automation. However, I am not aware of their current state of development.

We saw good features in both Splunk and QRadar, but QRadar had more features that were relevant to us. However, we are moving more towards the cloud. Previously, we had on-premises infrastructure, but we migrated to Azure when a new management team came in.

When we evaluated Microsoft Sentinel, we found that it had good functionality and met our requirements. We also liked that it is a cloud-based solution, so we do not have to worry about underlying hardware, features, operating systems, or management. We simply need to configure the application, which is relatively straightforward. We also do not need to make any upfront capital expenditures.

However, we need to consider the cost of ingesting logs into our environment. Microsoft charges for the amount of data ingested per day, so we need to keep our costs within budget.

QRadar is more complex and difficult to configure than Sentinel. Sentinel is easy to expand. If we add new devices to our environment, we can simply connect them directly to Sentinel. We do not need to worry about additional hardware or configuration.

Overall, Sentinel is a good choice for us because it is cloud-based, easy to configure, and scalable.

I would rate Microsoft Sentinel an eight out of ten.

Whether to use separate SIEM and SOAR solutions or Microsoft Sentinel depends on each organization's specific needs. All SIEM and SOAR tools are expensive because they provide essential security features. Organizations with the resources to pay for these features may choose to purchase Sentinel or another SIEM or SOAR solution. However, small and medium-sized businesses may not be able to afford these tools. Instead, they may choose to use a third-party service provider that already has a license for an SIEM solution such as QRadar or Sentinel.

Sentinel ingests data from over 1,500 endpoints, including technical devices, Windows devices, and Linux devices in our environment.

There is no maintenance required on our end. Microsoft is doing everything for us. We only have to have our configurations in place.

Before using Sentinel, organizations should clearly understand their use cases and requirements. They can take a trial of Sentinel and collaborate with Microsoft to create use cases that demonstrate the value of the investment. Because there are thousands of SIEM and SOAR tools on the market, organizations should evaluate multiple solutions to see what benefits they offer. They can then create use cases for each solution in their environment and take trials to implement them. Organizations should compare the solutions based on visibility, budget, and additional features. Anyone who is considering using a SIEM or SOAR solution should evaluate multiple solutions. Budgeting is very important.

I'm an IT consultant, and I use Sentinel with two of my clients to monitor all their security signals and get alerts when things are happening that might be suspicious.

The fact that the solution helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts has made it possible for me to provide security operations. If I didn't have automation, I wouldn't be able to do that. Nobody is going to pay me to sit and stare at a screen for eight hours a day. But with the automation built in to let me know about and fix things, it becomes viable. The automations have an email option, and all the alerts show up as emails in my inbox. I'm busy with other things, and I'm not looking at Sentinel all day. And the automation in those emails is available to deal with things automatically. Automation is incredibly important.

Sentinel gives me one XDR dashboard. In terms of security operations, it's improved them and makes it easy for me to do my job.

It saves my clients time, on the order of 30 percent.

It also saves costs for me and my clients. If we didn't have Sentinel in place, and they were to get compromised, it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars due to ransomware, a BEC scam, or another type of attack. Without Sentinel in place, that could be a very big cost.

And it decreases the time it takes to detect and respond by days, if not weeks.

My clients are small businesses, and mine is also a small business. Traditionally, even the concept of using a SIEM in most small businesses was unheard of. It was an on-premises product, and you needed to install servers, and most normal IT consultants wouldn't even look at it because it would be very complex for them. The standout feature of Sentinel is that, because it's cloud-based and because it's from Microsoft, it integrates really well with all the other Microsoft products. It's really simple to set up and get going. You don't have to set up a server or do a lot of configuring and setting up storage. It just lives in the cloud, you turn it on, and connecting most things to it is really easy.

It's fantastic when it comes to integration with other Microsoft products. It's so easy. I've been in IT for 30 years, and integrating products was, up until a few years ago, something we would never want to do. It was so hard, we wouldn't want to touch it. We would have to write custom code and configure things. It was just horrible. Now, it's literally a couple of sliders in the interface, and you're done.

And once these solutions are integrated, they work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across my clients' environments. I follow this space very closely, but I am not an expert in any other solution. Still, at least for my clients, with the threats they are facing and the alerts we get from the real world, Sentinel's detection and response are very comprehensive.

Sentinel enables you to ingest data from the entire ecosystem. I have integrated some non-Microsoft products with Sentinel, and, predictably, it's not as simple as one click because these are third-party products. But it is definitely quite easy. For cloud products and services, it's still very simple. It might be three or four clicks. But for on-premises products, it's a bit more work.

My clients also use Defender for Cloud, and its bi-directional sync capabilities are very important. It makes things much easier.

Sentinel provides a clear view into the threats that are coming in, and, compared to what I had before, it is night and day. I heard somebody say on a podcast, "The solution we had prior to Sentinel was like a dark room and you had a torch, and you could shine the torch in different directions and see some things. Having Sentinel, combined with Microsoft 365 Defender, the XDR solution, is like turning on the lights and seeing everything." I completely agree. That's exactly what it feels like.

Another incredibly important factor is the solution's ability to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. Again, as a small business, I wouldn't have the time and energy to look in several different places. I need one place where it all shows up, and that's what Sentinel provides.

And with built-in SOAR, UEBA, and threat intelligence, the comprehensiveness of Sentinel's security protection is good.

Given that I am in the small business space, I wish they would make it easier to operate Sentinel without being a Sentinel expert. Examples of things that could be easier are creating alerts and automations from scratch and designing workbooks. All of those are available as templates and community-produced content, but doing all that from scratch and keeping it up-to-date, is not easy. Because I have lots of other things on my plate, it would really improve things for me if they would make it more accessible for small businesses and non-experts.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel since it was in public preview, so that's at least three and a half years.

It's a very stable solution—rock-solid.

It's also very scalable.

I have only ever contacted them about Sentinel once, but I have certainly dealt with Microsoft support in various ways. Their response time is pretty good. But they have a difficult time providing good support, at the level that would cause me to give them a higher score than six out of 10, because things change so fast. And it's so much wider than it used to be 10 years ago. There's so much to cover, and that's difficult for them.

Neutral

We used ESET for one client, but it wasn't a SIEM, it was just endpoint protection. We replaced that with Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Identity, Defender for Cloud Apps, and Sentinel. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

The initial deployment is very straightforward. It took me four or five hours to set it up.

The product itself, obviously, does not require maintenance, but the alerts and rules require work.

Sentinel is fairly priced and pretty cost-effective. Compared to on-premises solutions, Sentinel is very cost-effective.

It's certainly possible, if you're not careful about what you connect, to shoot yourself in the foot by ending up with large data sources being ingested that cost you a fair bit of money. You do need to think about what data sources you actually need, which ones will lead to the detection of actual attackers, and how much of that data you need. You also have to consider how you're going to store it, because Sentinel has different levels. You don't have to store it all in the expensive "this will give me alerts" tiers. But, as I said, my clients are small businesses. They certainly don't have a budget for anything expensive, and they're very happy with the costs.

Do a proof of concept. It's really easy to set up and get started. You don't have to turn everything on to start. Do a small proof of concept, get familiar with it, and you'll see how easy it is.

Does it help prioritize threats across the enterprise? The short answer is, "Yes, it does." The slightly longer answer is that it is not a set-and-forget solution. And no SIEM is. You do need to configure Sentinel and fine-tune it. I have a calendar reminder every two weeks to go back in and make sure the right analytics rules are in place and change the ones that need changing, et cetera. It does prioritize threats, but it's not an automatic process that you never have to worry about again.

Sentinel's threat intelligence doesn't really help with proactive steps. The threat intelligence has indicators of compromise, such as IP addresses, URLs, and file hashes. They get detected, but that's not really proactive. Perhaps it's "proactive" in the sense that somebody else has figured out that those things are bad and let the system know. But Microsoft 365 Defender does the proactive part because it has threat intelligence in it. It will tell you, "A new threat that we have a report on seems to be targeting your type of client." That's proactive, but Sentinel isn't proactive. Meaning, if you read about a threat and then protect yourself before that threat reaches you, Sentinel doesn't really do that.

In the debate about best-of-breed versus a single-vendor security solution, if you pick best-of-breed individual security solutions and you have to integrate them, now you're an integrator. And that is hard. It's not easy to integrate different security products. And that's why, at least for my clients, Sentinel and Microsoft 365 Defender have been a huge shift. They're so easy to integrate. My clients could license separate products and then try to integrate them to get the same level of integration, but that would never work.

We use Sentinel to manage data based on data connectors and log sources. We have to build the use cases. I create policies and periodically fine-tune them. There are a lot of cloud applications for that, like Microsoft Active Directory, Office 365, and Microsoft Identity Protection.

For instance, when a privileged account's password is changed frequently, it should trigger an alert and will create an incident. Another use case is the ability to summarize all DB activity.

We also use Defender for Endpoint, and I have experience with Defender for Cloud and Microsoft Identity Protection.

The cloud-native solution covers an entire IT organization. It could be located in China, Russia, Pakistan, or India. It doesn't matter.

This solution is mostly deployed on the cloud. The solution is used across our entire organization. There are more than 1,000 end users.

The solution increases security. It also reduces complexity because we can monitor everything from a single solution. We can manage a firewall, servers,  connected DOS, etc. Even if it's a third-party application, we can manage it.

The solution helps automate routine tasks and find high-value alerts. For example, we can create analytical rules and build the use cases so that any suspicious incoming traffic is blocked.

The solution has eliminated the need to look at multiple dashboards. Everything is accessible from a single dashboard.

Our team is currently being trained on how to use threat intelligence to help prepare and take proactive steps for potential threats before they hit. If there are any zero-day vulnerabilities, Microsoft will update the platform, so that all of the organizations that use Sentinel will have coverage. 

I like the KQL. It simplifies getting data from the table and seeing the logs. All you need to know are the table names. It's quite easy to build use cases by using KQL.

Sentinel provides visibility into threats. It provides anonymous IP and URL detection in our environment. We can easily get the logs.

It helps prioritize threats in the organization. We can build analytic rules. Microsoft Sentinel provides a lot of alternative use cases, but we have to prepare them.

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem because it's a cloud-native SIEM. We can integrate everything into Sentinel. In any organization, log management is an important aspect. For auditing and compliance, an organization has to validate the logs.

Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place. There's an incident option that allows us to view information about a specific instance, an anomaly, and activities that have happened in the last 24 hours. It will show the specific incident, the host, the time, and what the user is accessing. It shows everything in a single pane, which is very useful.

There's a lot of technical documentation for automation. It's easy to understand. You can build it according to your needs. You can automate playbooks. You can integrate a number of digital platforms into your environment.

The performance could be improved. If I create 15 to 20 lines for a single-use case in KQL, sometimes it takes more time to execute. If I create use cases within a certain timeline, the result will show in .01 seconds. A complex query takes more time to get results.

I have used this solution for two years.

The solution is very stable. We haven't experienced any outages so far. There is a failover function. If a region has an outage, there is backup support, which is advertised in the software on SIEM.

The solution is scalable.

I would rate technical support as nine out of ten. 

We previously used Splunk. We switched because of the cost.

I wasn't involved in deployment. Maintenance isn't needed often.

Sentinel saves us time. KQL is fast. The response of the query output is quick compared to other products. We can create a lot of automation in that particular environment, which reduces the workload for a lot of false positives. 

Logic App allows us to create mini-automations. XOR plays a huge role in Microsoft Sentinel. It automates soft operations workloads.

The solution saves us time by 75%. By using automation instead of working on a specific incident for 30 minutes, it takes a maximum of five minutes. 

This solution saves us money. Microsoft offers discounts if you purchase GB per day.

Sentinel decreases the time it takes to detect and the time it takes to respond by 70%.

In a protected cloud, Microsoft is quite manageable. It allows you to pay as you go. If you're replacing cloud resources, you'll eventually have thousands of virtual machines, but you'll be able to pay for only 500 virtual machines.

The pay-as-you-go model is beneficial to customers.

My organization tried an open-source platform, but it didn't give a proper output, so we compiled some other solutions. We prefer Microsoft products, so we went with Sentinel. 

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. 

To a security colleague who says it's better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single-vendor security suite, I would say that if you have a single-bundle security solution, you can cover all of your security needs in an IT organization. It's beneficial for support, makes data visibility clearer, and improves security. I would recommend a single-bundle security solution as a better way to go for deployment.