Microsoft Sentinel Reviews

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the automation section, there are some limitations.

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

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

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

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

I would rate technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

Sentinel doesn't require much maintenance.

We evaluated Splunk and a few other solutions.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We used Sentinel for about six months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use Microsoft Sentinel to monitor many different environments for cybersecurity incidents, and we use it as our main alerting tool to let us know when this activity happens. It also interfaces with all of our other Defender products, such as Defender for Office 365, Defender for Endpoint, et cetera.

Almost all of our solutions are based in Azure. We use Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, Defender for cloud, Sentinel, and Azure Active Directory Identity Protection.

I use the latest version of Sentinel.

Sentinel is mostly used within our security operations center and our security team. We have about 50 endpoint users.

The backbone of our organization is built on Microsoft Sentinel, its abilities, and the abilities of our Defender stack. Ideally, we'd have more data, but a lot of data and functionality are in one place. The Lighthouse feature is outside Sentinel, but it allows us to have multiple environments integrated into one and to access lots of different Sentinel environments through that. It's very easy to manage a security workload with Sentinel. 

I would like to see better integration with CICD. It should be easier to use GitHub, Jenkins, or whatever our code management stack looks like. Whether or not you use Azure DevOps, being able to manage the code you have is fairly important.

Since using Sentinel, we've experienced a faster response time and easier development features. There aren't as many hurdles to moving a configuration.

I'm not sure how long it took to realize the benefits because it was deployed before my time here. It took me about three months to get familiar with what Sentinel has to offer and how we could leverage it, so it will be about three months before you start getting proper value from it.

There are still elements of Sentinel that I haven't used to their fullest potential, like the Jupyter Notebooks and internet hunting queries.

The solution is good at automating routine tasks and alleviating the burden for analysts.

Automation has moderately affected our security operations, although there is scope for it to significantly affect SecOps. There is definitely the capability for Sentinel to do pretty much all of your first-line response, which would be a significant improvement. It's a moderate effect because we only use automation in a few areas.

There are a few different dashboards for each of the Microsoft tools. We have a dashboard for Defender, one for Sentinel, and one for Active Directory Identity Protection. It consolidated alerts in some aspects, but a lot of information is still scattered.

It's fairly good for being reactive and responding to threats and looking for indicators of compromise. Overall, it helped us prepare for potential threats before they hit.

Sentinel saves us time. The automation feature especially saves us time because we can automate a lot of menial tasks. If other businesses could do that, it would eliminate a lot of their first-line response.

Sentinel saves us about 20 hours per week, which is the equivalent of a part-time staff member.

It saved us money. It's a very cost-efficient SIEM to use and still provides a good level of coverage despite that. 

Sentinel saved us about 50% of the cost of Splunk. It decreased our time to detect and respond by about 10-15%.

The automation rules and playbooks are the most useful that I've seen. A number of other places segregate the automation and playbook as separate tools, whereas Microsoft is a SIEM and SOAR tool in one.

It provides us with very high visibility. It allows us to see a lot holistically across our environment in Azure. It integrates very well with other products like Defender.

It helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise. There are many things we can do to deal with prioritizing threats, such as having automation rules that automatically raise the priority of certain incidents. We're also able to make changes to the rule sets themselves and say, "I believe this to be a higher priority than is listed in the tool."

Prioritization is probably the most important thing to us because as an organization, we have a number of threats coming in at any moment, and each of them has its own valid investigation path. We need to know which ones are business critical and which ones need to be investigated and either ruled out or remediated as soon as possible. Prioritizing what to work on first is the biggest thing for us.

If you have the right licenses and access to all the products, it's fairly easy to integrate these products into Sentinel. Sometimes they don't pull as much information as possible, and I've noticed that there is a cross-functional issue where these tools will flag and alert themselves.

We can have it configured to create an alert in Microsoft Sentinel, but sometimes it doesn't create a bridge between them. When we finish our investigation and close the ticket on Sentinel, it sometimes doesn't go back to the tool and update that. That's the only issue that I have found with the integration. Everything else is straightforward and works well.

The solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection responses across our environment. It's probably one of the better-engineered suites. In other places, I've experienced an endpoint detection and response system that's completely different: proprietary coupled with a proprietary and different SIEM tool or maybe a different sort of tool. They are individual tools, and it can sometimes feel like they're engineered differently, but at the same time, they integrate better than anything else on the market as a suite of tools.

These solutions provide pretty comprehensive threat protection. A lot of them are technology agnostic, so you can have endpoints on Linux and Mac OS. It's pretty comprehensive. There's always a little oversight in any security program where you have to balance the cost of monitoring everything with the risk of having some stuff unmonitored, but that's probably an issue outside of this tool.

It enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem. It's difficult to ingest non-native data. It's not as easy as in Splunk because Splunk is probably the leading SIEM tool. If you have a native tool that's out of the Microsoft security stack, you can bring it into Sentinel and have an alert on it.

This ingestion of data is vital for our security operations. It's the driver behind everything we do. We can do threat hunting, but if we don't have logs or data to run queries, then we're pretty much blind. I've worked in places where compliance and regulatory adherence are paramount and having logs, log retention, and evidence of these capabilities is extremely important. One of the more vital things that our organization needs to operate well, is good data.

A lot of the alerts come in from other tools, so sometimes we have to actually use that tool to get the proper information. For example, if we get an alert through Defender for Office 365, to actually see an offending email or attachment or something like that, we have to go into the Defender console and dig that out, which is inconvenient. As an aggregator, it's not bad compared to the other solutions on the market. In an ideal scenario, having more information pulled through in the alerts would be an improvement.

A lot of Sentinel's data is pretty comprehensive. The overarching theme with Sentinel is that it's trying to be a lot of things in one. For a UEBA tool, people will usually have separate tools in their SIEM to do this, or they'll have to build their own complete framework from scratch. Already having it in Sentinel is pretty good, but I think it's just a maturity thing. Over the next few years, as these features get more fleshed out, they will get better and more usable. At the moment, it's a bit difficult to justify dropping a Microsoft-trained UEBA algorithm in an environment where it doesn't have too much information. It's good for information purposes and alerting, but we can't do a lot of automation or remediation on it straight away.

Although the integrations are good, it can sometimes be information overload. A number of the technologies run proprietary Microsoft algorithms, like machine learning algorithms and detection algorithms, as well as having out-of-the-box SIEM content developed by Microsoft. As an engineer that focuses on threat detection, it can sometimes be hard to see where all of the detections are coming from. Although the integrations are good, it can sometimes be information overload.

Documentation is the main thing that could be improved. In terms of product usage, the documentation is pretty good, but I'd like a lot more documentation on Kusto Query Language. They could replicate what Splunk has in terms of their query language documentation. Every operator and sub-operator has its own page. It really explains a lot about how to use the operators, what they're good for, and what they're not good for in terms of optimizing CPU usage.

In Splunk, I would like to see some more advanced visualization. There are only some basic ones in Sentinel.

I've been using Microsoft Sentinel for about one year, but more heavily over the past five months.

It's pretty stable. We don't have any performance or capacity issues with it.

It's scalable when using solutions like Lighthouse.

I haven't needed to use technical support yet, but the documentation in the community is very good.

I previously used Splunk. The move to Sentinel was definitely cost-based. A lot of people are moving away from Splunk to a more cost-effective SIEM like Sentinel. We also chose Sentinel because of the ease of maintenance. Splunk's enterprise security has some good queries out of the box, but if I were a small organization, I would use Sentinel because it has more out-of-the-box features.

The log collection facilities must be maintained. Maintaining the solution requires a team of fewer than five people. It mainly involves ensuring that the rules are up to date, the connectors and log collection mechanisms are working correctly, and that they're up to date. It also involves ensuring that the right rules are deployed and the automation rules are in place.

Our ROI is 50% over and above what we spend on it in terms of what we can get back from Microsoft Sentinel, everything we use it for, and the time we save.

Some of the licensing models can be a little bit difficult to understand and confusing at times, but overall it's a reasonable licensing model compared to some other SIEMs that charge you a lot per data.

There are additional fees for things like data usage and CPU cycles. When you're developing queries or working on queries, make sure that they're optimized so you don't use as much CPU when they run.

We spoke with Google about Chronicle Backstory. It looks pretty powerful, but it wasn't mature enough for what we were looking for at that time.

The only other real standalone solution I've had a good experience with is Splunk and Splunk Phantom. In terms of cost, it's astronomically different. Microsoft Sentinel can sometimes be expensive depending on how many logs you're taking, but it will never be in the same realm as Splunk. Sentinel is easy to use, but Splunk is so expensive because it's very easy to use.

Microsoft Sentinel is a better SOAR solution than Phantom. Phantom has good integrations, but it isn't really built for custom scripting. If you're going to be paying more, you would expect that to be better. Sentinel is better in that aspect. Sentinel's cost-effectiveness blows a lot of other solutions out of the water, especially if you're already in Azure and you can leverage some relationships to bring that cost down.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten. It's heading in the right direction, but it's already pretty good and mature.

If a security colleague said it's better to go with the best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor security suite, I would understand that completely. Some people see tying yourself into a single vendor as a vulnerability. It's not quite spread out, but I think you can manage a single vendor security solution if you have a good relationship with the vendor and you really leverage your connections within that business.

It's good to diversify your products and make sure that you have a suite of products available from different companies and that you use the best that's available. In terms of this technology stack, it's pretty good for what it does.

My advice is to really focus on what's possible and what you could do with the SIEM. There are a lot of features that don't get used and maximized for their purpose from day one. It takes a couple of months to properly deploy the solution to full maturity.

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

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

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

It has definitely helped to improve the security posture.

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

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

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

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

I have been using this solution since October of 2019.

It is stable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

We didn't evaluate other solutions.

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

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

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

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

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

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

I really appreciate that it is very well documented.

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

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

Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

I handled the implementation myself. 

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

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

I use Microsoft Sentinel in my work as an MSSP and as a threat detection engineer.

One of the most valuable features of Microsoft Sentinel is that it's cloud-based. I previously worked for a very long time with AXA since 2006, but Microsoft Sentinel's ability to scale virtually and budget-dependent is a huge advantage. Before that, everything was on-premise and required some forklift upgrades, and it was a bit of a nightmare.

Microsoft Sentinel is relatively expensive, and its cost should be improved. Although Microsoft has been working on providing additional discounts based on commitment tiers, it's still in the top three most expensive products out there. They are certainly trying to compete with the likes of Splunk.

I have been using Microsoft Sentinel since April 2020.

Since the time that I've been using Microsoft Sentinel, I've seen five or six serious outages. That's not uncommon with cloud providers. Generally, when it's a major outage, it's pretty catastrophic.

The scalability of Microsoft Sentinel is pretty good.

I have contacted Microsoft Sentinel's technical support a number of times, and my experience with them has been pretty good.

Neutral

Before we started using Microsoft Sentinel, we previously used Splunk and ArcSight. Having a brand name like Microsoft was one of the reasons we decided to switch to Microsoft Sentinel. I was working for an MSSP at the time, and at the start of the service, they decided to run their MSSP based on Microsoft Sentinel. So it was more of an environmental thing than a conscious decision to switch to Microsoft Sentinel.

The deployment of Microsoft Sentinel is relatively simple, but the data onboarding is the complicated part.

Two people are required for the deployment of Microsoft Sentinel.

Microsoft Sentinel's evolution, use of CI/CD, and automation capabilities have helped us see a return on investment.

Microsoft Sentinel's pricing is relatively expensive and extremely confusing. I have raised this issue with Microsoft directly. It's not an easy thing to do, especially when you consider commitment tiers, discounts, and several variables that go along with it. It would be very difficult for the uninitiated to get a true reflection because you'd need to know about the product to get a cost. Suppose I go with the online pricing calculator. In that case, I need to know the difference between analytics and basic logs. I also need to understand the implications and limitations of selecting a particular option. And that's not clear from the pricing tool. So I think from that perspective, they should democratize it and make it a lot simpler and easier to do.

The visibility that Microsoft Sentinel provides into threats is great. They got a lot of content out of the box and have an active community. I absolutely love the cluster functionality and the cluster query language. I definitely wouldn't want to go back to anything else. It's an incredible query language.

Microsoft Sentinel helps us to prioritize threats across our entire enterprise. The out-of-the-box content and behavior-analytic functionality that Microsoft Sentinel provides certainly help a lot.

There's a whole cloud stack like Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Cloud, and Defender for Cloud Apps that we interface with. I am not directly responsible for configuring and managing those different products within my company. However, we interface with each of them because we take their log data.

It was very easy to integrate other Microsoft security products with Microsoft Sentinel. The other Microsoft products I mentioned have done a great job of making it very simple to integrate. It's probably easier than all the other services. Being Microsoft products, there's a very tight integration, which is great.

I don't have any direct involvement with configuring Defender for Cloud. However, we take the logs from all the Defender suites like Defender for Identity, Defender for Cloud, Defender for Cloud Apps, Defender for Endpoint, etc.

Microsoft Sentinel enables us to ingest data from our entire ecosystem. It is more challenging regarding the on-premise stuff and unsupported SaaS services. You could leverage the available functionality, but it's certainly not as easy as the native Microsoft Cloud products it integrates with. There's a lot more to it in terms of being able to ingest data from an on-premise data source. This data is very important to our security operations.

Microsoft Sentinel enables us to investigate threats and respond holistically from one place.

The comprehensiveness of Microsoft Sentinel security protection is good. It is constantly evolving. I would like to see Microsoft add more automation, but they're on a journey to expanding their capability. I expect to see a change in that space. Since I started using the product, it has evolved, and the evolution of the product from two years ago or three years ago has been huge.

The cost and ease of use of Microsoft Sentinel against standalone SIEM and SOAR solutions are on par with Splunk in terms of costs. It's on par with what Splunk costs or slightly cheaper. It depends on how you set it up, but it's not always evident. Microsoft would prefer you to pay more than less. Certainly, from their perspective, it could probably put out more guidance on the optimization of cost. In terms of its use and functionality, it's definitely on its way to becoming a market leader. I can see that through the evolution that occurred in the last three years. There's always more and more functionality being added. I would like to see more expansion in terms of the provision of functionality in the dashboarding and work booking component. They could spend more time on expanding our capabilities. Splunk can easily plug into D3 libraries to create really good visualizations. The visualization capability within Microsoft Sentinel at the moment is somewhat rudimentary. You can always plug Power BI into it, but it's not a native product feature, and you need to buy and pay for Power BI.

From an overall management capability, Microsoft Sentinel has certainly made life easier. The introduction and addition of the CRC process are great. Historically, many SIMS haven't had that capability or ability to be integrated with the CRC system. So the automation component of that has allowed the deployment of infrastructure's code to speed up the process of the actual deployment massively in the MSSP environment. Historically, when it was on-premise, it would take two weeks to two months to get that all done. Whereas now, you can spin up a new instance and onboard all the cloud stack within a few days, which is huge.

Microsoft Sentinel has the hunting functionality. From that perspective, you could run a whole number of queries at the same time.

Microsoft Sentinel has not helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards. They need to expand that functionality.

Microsoft Sentinel’s threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps. They’ve recently introduced the Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence feed, which is a good step forward. It’s come out of the RiskIQ acquisition, which is great. However, I would like to see more native integrations with threat intelligence feeds from financial services, local country threat intelligence feeds, and CSC feeds from government institutions. They work quite closely with the government in many places already, and it would be a huge advantage to have really simple and easy integrations. They could do more in that space in terms of providing alternative threat intelligence with the ability to integrate seamlessly and easily with threat intelligence from other sources. They do already provide connectors, but it isn’t easy. In my experience working in the industry, I’ve seen a company that effectively had a threat intelligence marketplace built into it. So you could very easily and quickly select threat intelligence providers through a number of clicks and then onboard that data very quickly.

Microsoft Sentinel has helped us save time as opposed to our previous solution. Microsoft needs to add even more automation. If you look at their competitors like Palo Alto Cortex, they already have a lot more capability out of the box. Microsoft needs to expand further that out-of-the-box automation capability.

Based on previous experience, Microsoft Sentinel has decreased our time to detection or our time to respond.

Microsoft Sentinel does not need any maintenance because Microsoft does that. However, I have monitoring rules set in place to watch what's going on. For example, we've seen outages in the past, which caused delays in incident creation. There's very little out-of-the-box content to help monitor Microsoft Sentinel.

I would always go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite. The evolution of Microsoft Sentinel itself has been quite amazing to see. The solution has become more feature-rich in the last two years. I hope this evolution continues and will likely leave the others behind.

I suggest to those evaluating Microsoft Sentinel to do a proof of concept.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Sentinel a seven out of ten.