Splunk Enterprise Security Reviews

The network department, for example, has improved its efficiency by 30%. Security relies on this for event correlation and alerts.

• The speed of the search engine

• All the types of data sources that you configure can be forwarded to Splunk.
• The ease-of-use

Cluster management can only be done via a command line. I would like them to add some GUI options for that. Permissions are not very flexible, so it would be nice to have more granular options, such as double factor authentication.

The administration of the cluster and app deployment to indexers or search
heads can be done only using ssh access and command line, there is no GUI
tools for that.

Permissions in the other hand could be improved by adding for example the
deny option to groups to see and index, etc. Also the authentication method
is just LDAP or spkunk, so some more security layers could be added as
second factor, etc

It is very stable.

It scales out horizontally.

The quality of support depends on the support and license. On the average, I would give them a rating of 6/10.

We previously used ArcSight. Splunk is at another level. It is easier, more stable, and faster.

It is very easy to set up on a standalone server. Of course, if you want a cluster, it is more complicated. In order to manage it, you need skilled people.

It is not cheap :-)

We were using ArcSight before.

My advice is to go ahead with it.

The administration of the cluster and app deployment to indexers or search
heads can be done only using ssh access and command line, there is no GUI
tools for that.

Permissions in the other hand could be improved by adding for example the
deny option to groups to see and index, etc. Also the authentication method
is just LDAP or spkunk, so some more security layers could be added as
second factor, etc

Enterprise Security has reduced our mean time to detection to results. It used to take 25 to 30 minutes and now it's down to less than ten minutes. 

Our customer has been far more satisfied with our incident response and remediation since we adopted Splunk several years ago.

Our time to value was within a few weeks to a month.

The most valuable feature is the incident dashboard, and the extensive use of correlation searches, which isn't available with a standard Splunk search package. This feature is important to me because it enables SOC analysts to do their job more efficiently and be able to investigate or mediate incidents at a faster pace.

Another benefit is the expansion of the use of ITSI, SOAR, and now Mission Control being able to holistically monitor an environment with one tool. Also with Mission Control, we have the ability to have one interface.

It's very easy to monitor a single cloud with ES solutions. I've worked with several other SIEM tools before and Splunk does it better.

Splunk's ability to predict, identify, and solve problems in real time is good. They do it better than other tools.

I am looking forward to their expansion of the use of AI. Using AI in the user interface will go a long way because one of the challenges in my organization is getting other people to use Splunk. A lot of people are averse to using new tools so if they make it even more user-friendly than it already is, I think that could go a long way.

I have been using Splunk Enterprise Security Enterprise for three and a half years. 

Stability is excellent. It is the most stable SIEM solution I've worked with.

Scalability is excellent. If you need to add more capacity, you can add more indexes, and more search heads as you need. The environment stays stable as you're doing it if you do it the right way. 

My environment is about nine indexes, four search heads, and about 800 GBs a day.

Their support is excellent. Every case I ever had to put in has been handled and resolved in a matter that I would hope for many support tickets.

I would rate them a ten out of ten because they are much more responsive than a lot of other vendors I've worked with.

Positive

There are mostly pros when comparing Splunk to its competitors because it collects data and analyzes it. It analyzes data better and in a more detailed, documented, and organized fashion than any other SIEM that I've worked with.

I have worked with Microsoft Sentinel and ArcSight.

I was involved in the initial setup with the help of their professional services. It was complex at first because my colleagues and I did not know the application that well. There was definitely a learning curve but once we started to understand how to design it the proper way and how to manage it the proper way which made things a lot easier.

It's more expensive than the other tools but it's worth it. Every penny is worth it. They do analytics better. They do security investigations better. They do everything better.

I would rate Splunk Enterprise Security a ten out of ten. I have worked with other SIEM solutions before and Splunk is the best one.

The biggest value I get out of attending a Splunk conference is getting to network with other people within my same account under my same account manager. I appreciate the ability to go to sessions about different support products that my organization doesn't use and try to help myself understand how some of these tools are used and how I could encourage my organization to use them.

It is a very well-organized solution. I find it more user-friendly than ArcSight and QRadar. I can search, and I can do whatever I need in terms of dashboards, reports, etc.

It is the best tool if you have a complex environment or if data ingestion is too huge.

The cluster environment should be improved. We have a cluster. In the Splunk cluster environment, in the case of heavy searches and heavy load, the Splunk cluster goes down, and we have to put it in the maintenance mode to get it back. We are not able to find the actual culprit for this issue. I know that cluster has RF and SF, but it has been down so many times. There should be something in Splunk to help users to find the reason and the solution for such issues.

I would also like to be able to see all the data for internal logs. When we search for internal logs, sometimes, we are not able to find some of the data. For example, when Splunk crashes or something happens, we don't get to know what happened. We tried looking into the internal logs, but we could never figure out the reason from the logs. The information is limited, and it should be improved.

We have been using Splunk for more than four years.

Its scalability is very good. Companies nowadays are totally dependent on tools like Splunk. It is widely used in our organization. We have a huge team that uses it on a daily basis. For onboarding, we have another team, and we also have a team for Splunk monitoring. We have a large amount of data ingestion per day, so our team has more than 25 people in it.

In my current company, I have seen the tickets getting resolved soon. In my previous company, which was a startup, a P1 ticket generally took 24 hours or less. They called us back and resolved it as soon as possible, but if it was a P2 or P3, I have seen them taking a month or more.

We worked with QRadar for some time, but after that, we just came to Splunk.

It is straightforward. The deployment duration totally depends on how you are working.

We have it on-premises as well as on the cloud.

We have an unlimited one, and we pay yearly, but I don't know how much it costs. Previously, I worked for a startup, and when they started building it up, it was complicated for them because they didn't have the budget for that many licenses. It was very costly for them. So, startups might find it a little bit problematic because of the licensing, but for bigger companies, there is no issue.

If it is a complex environment and data ingestion is huge where you want to ingest Syslogs or networking devices logs, you should go with Splunk. It is better than QRadar. Nowadays, the usage of AWS is growing, and that should be taken into consideration when deciding about on-premises or cloud deployment.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. I find it great. I'm very eager to do the Splunk certifications as well.

We are using it for information assurance, system alerting, and compliance. We are using its latest version.

It integrates into our VMware environment and provides infrastructure alerting and monitoring.

The ability to ingest different log types from many different products in our environment is most valuable.

It seems to have everything in terms of features. Every time I think of something, I go out to their site, and I can pretty much find it.

The biggest problem is data compression. Splunk is an outstanding product, but it is a resource hog. There should be better data compression for being able to maintain our data repositories. We end up having to buy lots of additional storage just to house our Splunk data. This is my only complaint about it.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

It is excellent in terms of performance and reliability.

Its scalability is excellent. Its users are mostly on the backside. I know there are a lot of opportunities to allow developers and engineers to access Splunk for doing different things, but we use it purely for information assurance and system monitoring. So, our engineers and IA professionals are the only ones who access Splunk. We have a couple of them, but it supports thousands of users.

We started with Splunk Light, and now, we're using Splunk Enterprise across most of our projects. It is being used extensively. It is our primary SIEM product. I'm sure its usage will increase, but that's managed at a much higher level. The company has an agreement with Splunk on how our licensing model is established.

Their support is great. I've talked to them many times.

We used InTrust. We switched to Splunk because of its flexibility and capability.

Its initial configuration is pretty straightforward. Their repository for information and help is really good, which makes it pretty straightforward. You can just go out to their site and do a search for any question. Usually, someone else would have experienced the same issue.

It took us hours. We obviously expanded it as we were building the environment because we did it from scratch, but it only took hours to get it up and running and configured to do ingestion. We then deployed more forwarders and tweaked it as we went along.

It was implemented in-house. Its maintenance is pretty lightweight, and I take care of it. I have a couple of other team members to help make changes. We have engineers who are available for adding capacity. We have a team of six or seven people to support our Splunk Enterprise.

It is expensive. I used to buy it early on, but then they combined it into a higher-up organization. They buy it for multiple systems now. Last time, I paid around 60K for it.

There is just the licensing fee. That's all.

I would advise making sure that you incorporate enough storage and processing in order to properly support the environment.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. It is definitely the best tool I've ever used, but nothing is perfect. They could do a little bit better on data compression and system resource management, but outside of that, it is an excellent product.

We use it for logging, essentially for auditing and troubleshooting errors in production and finding out what happened.

I have used the product personally for five years and at my current company for a year and a half.

I haven't had any problems with it so far.

There are a lot of plugins to integrate this. The client site login is pretty extensible and probably cost-effective. Plus, it is easy to configure.

I would like some additional AI capabilities to provide additional information about things going wrong and things going well.

It is very stable. We have not had any problems. 

We had to upgrade when it was on-premise, but then we went to cloud version, which is very good.

It is pretty scalability, even though we have a lot of logs. It runs well.

I assume that the pricing is reasonable, because if it was too costly, there are other alternatives. However, with some of the other solutions, you have to spend time on them and manage them yourself. It might also take you three times to get it right. So, Splunk may be more costly upfront, but in the long run, it saves on time and man-hours.

I would consider ELK Kibana a competitor for this solution. If you have time, and you want to do it yourself, you can save a little money going with Kibana. However, Splunk is pretty good and I would recommend an enterprise to switch to Splunk.

We mainly use the solution as a reseller. We give our users the latest version of the product. 

The solution is the market leader.

Our customers are always looking to partner with market leaders as you can't go wrong with them.

Customers can monitor cloud environments. 

The threat detection capabilities are quite fast and efficient based on my customer's feedback. 

We've used the MITRE ATT&CK feature and it's good. It's pretty standard and comparable to IBM. Most products offer this as well. 

It's good for analyzing malicious activities. It's good as an overall platform. It's good at detecting threats. It's a basic feature that is quite effective.

Splunk can help to reduce alert volume if you configure it properly.

They are a market leader in a lot of areas in terms of features and functions. 

It helped us speed up security investigations. I'm not sure of the exact percentage it helped us speed up by, however.

It has a lot of basic and standard features. 

It is a full-fledged solution that provides everything a company needs.

When it comes to malicious activities, however, it's rather overpriced. There are cheaper ways to detect.

There are quite a lot of security platforms on the market that do the same thing in a similar way at a cheaper rate. 

The pricing could be a lot lower. I'm from Asia, and they need to provide Asian pricing. They should price better for the region they are in. Once companies see the price, it puts them off. 

The integration could be a bit better. They charge for certain integrations. 

I've used the solution for about a year or more. 

It is a stable product.

The solution is used across multiple departments, not locations. That said, it would support multiple locations. 

We've had no issues with scalability. We usually have a solution that lasts three to five years and have had no issues scaling in that time.

I do not directly deal with technical support. 

We previously used many solutions, such as IBM. The implementation times are about the same. There are some ways that IBM is faster and other ways Splunk is faster. However, Splunk offers a more modern look.

The initial setup is very easy. It's quite straightforward. The process is similar to IBM. The deployment takes less than one day. It is done by a different team. I don't handle the initial implementation process.

The maintenance needed is very minimal. We have at least ten people that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

The solution is quite expensive compared to the competition. It's considered a premiere security option. 

We also looked at Dynatrace before choosing Splunk. 

I'm a registered partner of Splunk. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

We haven't used the threat intelligence management feature. We usually use another product.

The mission control feature hasn't been used. I'm not familiar with it.

For those looking for a cheaper product, I'd suggest, if they had a limited budget, to go cheaper. Likely a cheaper option that can do the same work as Splunk. At the end of the day, whether you choose a Toyota or a Rolls Royce, you get from A to B the same. The price is the differentiation. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's a good product overall. 

Our primary use case is for security but we also use it as a soft tool. It gives us an advantage over traditional SOC or security tools. We get to use the existing data in Splunk to make use of the security. 

It definitely does help with both auditing and as well as regular monitoring. SOC does more monitoring, but ES also gives you other features that are auditing-related. The dashboards are also beneficial. 

Our auditing team gets benefits from Splunk, not just ES but also from general Splunk Enterprise. It's cross-functional. 

Enterprise Security has helped us reduce our mean time to resolution by 50%. Without it, there are many manual steps. You have to go to different products to see specific things. With Splunk, you have the benefit of seeing them together in one place.

The notable events and the incident review features are the most valuable. It gives you an overall idea of what's going on in terms of security in the environment. 

I also like the automation. We write custom scripts and automate certain tasks. That's also interesting. This feature saves us time.

Splunk is capable of doing a lot in real-time with data coming in that is a terabyte in size, you can still do searches in real-time. We have correlation searches that do similar functions.

It has a lot of the features we're looking for. 

I have been using Splunk Enterprise Security for a year and a half.

It's quite stable. It's a mature product. 

We can make it as scalable as we want. We can scale it horizontally as much as we want on our cluster.

We get support when we need it. I would rate support an eight or nine out of ten. There's always learning and improvement to do. Sometimes the communication with support happens with multiple staff. They should reduce the time to resolution.

Positive

I would rate Enterprise Security a nine out of ten. Not a ten because everything has room for improvement. 

The biggest value of the Splunk conference is meeting people.

Our primary use case is for security audit log collection correlation. We wanted something that the security team could focus on versus going directly into our enterprise. We had some initial use cases to supplement our IT ops security into one product. We had a SIEM but not one that was as customizable as Splunk Enterprise Security.

The out-of-the-box capabilities that Enterprise Security offers were very helpful. We're not using it anymore because it was almost overkill. We have shifted to go back to just the core functionality. We were inundated with the amount of alerts and alarms that we could get out of it. It is also a resource hog and we didn't have the resources to support it on-prem so we're taking it offline now.

We saw the granularity that we could get from Splunk far exceeded what we already had. We had the ability to have our security team really focus on the platform and stay within the platform, but they could correlate with a variety of other stakeholders, and our stakeholders were growing. So we tried to get ahead of that and filter it in to create customizable KPIs for those user groups versus having a one-size-fits-all approach. That unique was very helpful for us to expand upon. The driving force is resources, and we were lacking those.

We use it to monitor multiple clouds. We weren't leveraging it for all of our clouds, but we have a presence in GCP, AWS, and Azure. The unity and uniformity across all of it would have been great but at that stage, we were only using it for on-prem coverage. We would like to go ahead and understand how we can implement it as a cloud solution as we are increasing our daily footprint too. We weren't really prepared to understand the workflows we already had in the CSPs or the new integrations of data lakes at a warehouse that were and are still being built out to get Enterprise Security to function off of that too. We hadn't gotten to that stage.

A lot of what we were doing was done manually in terms of vulnerability and remediation and is still being done manually now. Evolving to a stage where the alerts weren't inundating our customers and getting familiar with the product would have helped us perhaps get a bit more functionality and usability out of it. We are seeing some value out of Enterprise Security and think we can get similar results elsewhere. I think that down the road, as our understanding gets better of how we want framework requirements, Enterprise Security could come back into the picture.

I have been using Splunk Enterprise Security for around twelve months.

Stability had its drawbacks because of how much it consumes. We had to justify whether or not it was worth keeping it up. The decision was to not keep up with it.

We are only on-prem so we do manual scaling. We don't have the elasticity that we would have in the cloud which limited us. Justifiably, in order to scale up the platform, we would have to go through procurements and more hardware, which was not an option. So we were limited, and we knew that. We had done pilots and buildout but a hardware refresh cycle was coming up, we had to justify whether or not it was in the cards.

I've been working with Splunk for several years now, and I've always found them very responsive and supportive in a variety of technologies around core functionality like Enterprise Security and ITSI. 

I would rate them an eight out of ten. They have a strong team through and through from the pre-presales all the way through architectural changes and shifts that we need to do to address the customer.

Positive

We've had numerous implementations of SIEM solutions over the years. Splunk offered a lot of capabilities on top of some of our old antiquated Sentinel and Azure. We had many other products before we pursued Enterprise Security. But we weren't in a position to really go down the Enterprise Security route because we hadn't quite fleshed out what our end goal was.

We're still in the evaluation stages. Looking at Enterprise Security, given the fact that we already have an investment in Splunk, it makes sense. We would like to see it grow beyond just Enterprise Security to more of not just observability, but pro actions to utilize the source of that nature. 

We had great success potentially going into a SOAR from Enterprise Security. We hadn't quite evolved to that point yet. At this stage, it's just not really in our pipeline to pursue Enterprise Security until we get a better understanding of our requirements.

Refining those playbooks and so forth also is going to take time. We have customers who have categorically unique requirements. From a security standpoint, one group's security requirements are going to be different from some of the other teams that we have. We are trying to find that uniformity across the board. We may have to entertain multiple security solutions to meet their needs.

My role was to support a lot of the backend and the configuration of the platform as it was being established.

The level of difficulty was on par with the Splunk Enterprise core. My team was involved with a lot of the provisioning from the virtual environment and on-prem to support it. It wasn't overly complicated. Once it was up it took a lot of resources. Evaluating and seeing whether or not we could actually move it to the cloud when the core functionality still existed on-prem, we weren't willing to split them at this stage.

We would almost always have Splunk support through the deployment and configuration stages of it. It was always solid. Once we had the platform up and running, we had to consider general operations and maintenance. While the Splunk team was great and the resources are available, there is a finite amount of resources on-site.

Splunk is not cheap. That's definitely a consideration as we look at other products.

We haven't seen much time to value using the solution system but it wasn't necessarily a fault of the product. It was the cycles to maintain it and support it, to make sure it's growing correctly. We hadn't gotten to that stage. Our ROI and TCO, given the fact that its footprint is being looked at because of what it takes to maintain it in terms of resources. We have the core platform, and then we have a growing license. We're looking at how we can efficiently use Enterprise Security. It's just not there at this point.

I would rate Splunk Enterprise Security an eight out of ten. I think the rating has the potential to be higher. If we had time to flesh it out and vet some of the core capabilities of Enterprise Security and how it could benefit us over the core. Getting to that stage requires a lot more customer engagement on our side that we weren't really prepared to do because of budgetary constraints, hardware refresh cycles, and so forth. Overall, we dropped the product not necessarily because of a lack of capability, it was more along the lines that the timing wasn't appropriate for our security teams.

The biggest value I get from attending a Splunk conference is knowledge transfer. I work in the public so it's valuable having a lot of conversations with fellow colleagues who are in the public sector and hearing their hurdles. We don't want to reinvent the wheel every time, and we don't want to hit obstacles that could have been lessons learned. The conference is a really good opportunity to see what's new, what's out there, and how it can blend in with our current architecture and designs. It also helps to understand what's not going to work to be able to get ahead of it before questions come up. We can properly equip our customers and answer their questions. The Splunk conference is a good brain dump.