Vectra AI Reviews

One of the biggest things is the visibility of stopping or identifying any infection as soon as possible. In this case, if someone downloads something malicious to their workstation, we have a number of controls in place. However, it wasn't so much the endpoint. It was the spreading of a worm type scenario or a WannaCry type thing. Anything that could potentially spread after the initial infection, which is where we wanted to come in and get that visibility.

It was key for us to have something that we could use for identifying as soon as possible, which would be call center initiated. That was probably our biggest thing: To push it in that direction, as we're a regulated company from the FCA. They drive us continually for improvement and behavioral analysis. Network analysis sort of falls into that bucket.

We already have a SIEM, which some people would argue gives us a lot of that visibility. It doesn't tend to give it the focus that we need. From Vectra, we get a lot of alerts of, "This is happening," or, "This is unusual." This is a lot easier than waiting for a couple of logs to come in, then a bit of AI logic at the back of it to potentially push it in that direction. It's very much for us to get a view of a potential attack, then deal with it as quickly as possible. To pinpoint where it's coming from, and where it is going to go.

One of the biggest things that I wanted to ensure is that it covered our call centers because that is where I see my biggest risk. So, I was really key on getting sensors across all geographic locations within the UK and in all of our small communication rooms.

It is all on-premise. We have a number of call centers spread around the UK. We look at all east-west traffic, as well as north-south. It all goes into our brain in our data center. We do have some branches out in Azure, but we're waiting on the new plugin that they are trying to develop. We are just starting in on our cloud journey and most of our infrastructure is in still private cloud. We haven't really gotten to the point where we have public cloud.

We're up-to-date, but I don't know the exact version number that we are on.

The key improvement for us were:

1. The additional monitoring 24/7, and using the high fidelity alerting from Vectra rather than SIEM, This was our biggest change. We have managed to leverage that rather more than our SIEM, which just throws out loads of spam. 
2. The FCA requirements to build on behavior monitoring.
3. The use case of the call center with its high turnaround of staff who are perhaps not as clued in or engaged in our user awareness program as they could be. 
4. Lack of end user deployment is another big improvement. We wanted something that was easy to deploy, or get up and running really quickly. It took a couple of weeks to rid of the alerts that we didn't want, but the actual involvement from the network teams was minimal, which was really good for us because we just don't have the resource to spend a lot of time trying to configure devices.

We use the solution’s Privileged Account Analytics for detecting issues with privileged accounts. Although I haven't seen a huge amount of alerts. We have a quarterly QBR, and they mentioned it the day before the QBR and noticed an alert pop up.

One of the key things for us is we have an annual pen test (an internal one), that's not as involved as a full red team. But, it's enough for the pen test to sit with the SOC guys, then we put the different tool sets together, what they're doing, and how that reacts to our Vectra,  SIEM, and endpoint AV. To see what picks up where, so it gives us an ability to check those tool sets that we have.

From a Vectra point, it will pick up a number of different things. But, it will also miss a number of different things. That's how pen testers work. They work covertly. So, it's really good for us to see what we can do and what we can't. Then, that feedback goes back to Vectra. We say, "Okay, well why didn't we pick up this?" They'll come up with a reason or they'll take it away and find something out about it. That's really good and a nice part of the service. We get to check to make sure the tool sets are working, but we also provide feedback and they're very open to that type of feedback.

I believe the solution has increased our security efficiency. It's hard to prove without having a direct attack. But, I get challenged about ransomware from my board, to say, "How do we defend against ransomware?" That's a big topic. One of the key things was when Vectra went in, it saw a developer run a script, which essentially changed the names for a number of files and put a different extension on, but they were doing some development type work. That's how their script ran, and it identified that as ransomware, which is a great thing to say. 

Although there was no encryption or malice involved, it did create new files, rename files, and delete old files, which essentially is what ransomware does anyway. It followed the same sort of logic to it,  I can report that back. "We do have some protection. It wouldn't stop it. But we could limit the amount of damage that it may do." 

I don't know about other companies, but I get the feeling most people look to identify rather than block. We're not a high-end bank. We are not going to stop people working. We're going to investigate what they're trying to do. That's just our risk appetite. We have to work. Unless it's absolutely 100 percent, we won't stop them. We would just look at it afterwards. So, all our alerting, we don't have any orchestration at the back of it to say, "Okay, if this happens, then I'm going to play that port in a firewall or I'm going to drop that from there." We won't do that. Humans will all be part of that process. We'll get a call, then we will make a crisis management team decision, etc. That's how we operate.

If, for instance, our AV doesn't pick it up. I think that is where Vectra will come in. So, if somebody gets infected and maybe hasn't picked it up. That's where, if that worm spread and our endpoint signatures weren't up-to-date, they went into zero day, and nobody knew about it. Vectra would give us that opportunity. It would potentially give us something that would say, "Well, this is not normal. This machine does not communicate with all these other machines like it is now." That's where we see it coming in. It gives us that extra chance to stop a disaster before it happens, or at least limit the amount of potential output of damage that that an incident can do.

Zero days are always very difficult. If the AV vendor doesn't know about it, it's not going to be able to tell me about it, stop it, quarantine it, or do anything. Having a tool set like this, which monitors network traffic for anomalies, it gives us that chance. I can't say that it definitely will pick it up, but there's another opportunity for us to reduce the amount of damage that can be done.

It gives us the point of where something is happening, which is the key thing for us. (I know that there is a back-end recall, which probably gives a lot more data, but we don't use that.) We then leverage our SIEM product to provide us logs from those specific sources that it's talking about, giving us that information. It is the accuracy of: It is happening here and on this particular host, then it's going to here to this particular host. It's that focus which is probably the most advantageous to us.

The logic behind Vectra's ability to reduce alerts by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign for investigation grows with severity, as there are additional alerts around that particular host. This is a useful feature rather than spamming alerts. But, we've never really had an issue with a lot of alerts. We really do triage our alerts quite well and have a good understanding of what does what. 

One of the key advantages for us is we define a 24/7 service around it. We use far more of Vectra alerts than we do with our SIEM product because we understand that when we get an alert from Vectra we actually need to do something about it. You can't really say you don't get false positives, as the action has happened. It's whether we consider that action as a concern rather than a SIEM that sort of gives you a bit of an idea of, "That may be something you're interested in." Whereas, Vectra says, "This has happened. Is this something you would consider normal?" I think that's the bit that we like. It just says, "Is this normal behavior or isn't this normal?" Then, it's up to us to define whether that is or isn't, which we like. 

The solution provides visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the internet gateway, because we do east-west traffic. So, it looks at the entire chain across there. We're fortunate enough not to be in a position that we've seen a meaningful attack. When we do have pen testers come in, we can see quite clearly how they pick traffic up and how it develops from a small or medium alert to go to higher severity, then how it adds all those events together to give more visibility. 

The solution does a reasonable job of prioritizing threats and correlating them with compromised host devices. We use that as how we react to it, so we leverage their rating system. We are reasonably comfortable with it. At the end of the day, we actually spend a lot of time and effort to tweak it. It's never going to be right for every company because it depends on what your priorities are within the company, but we do leverage what they provide. If it is a high, we will treat it as a high, and we will have SLAs around that. If it's a low, we'll be less concerned, and the events that come out pretty much lead to that. The events that we see and the type of activity going on, it makes sense why it's a low, medium, or high. Just because a techie has done a port scan, that doesn't mean we need to run around shouting, "Who has done this?"

When we originally put it in, it was really quite interesting to see. Picking up the activities from the admin user and what they were doing, then going, "By the way, why have you done that?" Then looking at a scan and going, "Well, how did you know that?" So, it's sort of cool to pick up that type of stuff. We tend to trust what it tells us.

Room for improvement depends on how their strategy and roadmap develops, as they have a lot of third-parties that they integrate with, e.g., more orchestration around what alerts and what to do with afterwards. They don't pretend to be working in that space. That is a third-party type activity.

There are always the little things that they could do a bit better, like grouping or triage filters. Clearly, they've taken that onboard and developed those over the course of the last 18 months to two years to put these additional functions in. My guys are constantly saying, "Oh, it'd be useful to do this and useful to do that."

The solution has not reduced the security analyst workload in our organization because we still need to SIEM. Unfortunately, while Vectra, for us, is a brilliant tool for network investigations, giving wonderful visibility, it doesn't go the whole way to replace our SIEM that is needed for compliance. So, I still have the same amount of alerting and logging that I did before. It gives us more defined ability to see incidents, but it doesn't give us enough information to satisfy a PCI or 27001 audit. 

I have been using this solution for about two years.

Interestingly enough, when we first got Vectra, we had a number of problems with it. The guys were all over the solution trying to fix it. It turned out to be a hardware issue. I think they ended up changing their supplier. They just ripped everything out and put a load of new equipment in. This was identified about three months after it being here. 

These things happen. There's not a lot you can do about it. However, they were really good and didn't make any excuses, apart from, "It can only be the hardware," which it was. Once they put the new hardware in, everything went really well.

Very few people are required for maintenance. We just generally run the alerts now. I have a guy spend probably less than an hour a day, maybe less than that, putting out fires and alerts. Then we investigate that, depending on its severity. The actual hardware maintenance is nothing. We'll just keep an eye on it or get an alert if an interface has gone down.

One of the biggest things that we wanted to implement was something that was easy to do. Our problem, as well as I'm sure a number of other companies, is the amount of resources to install these new technologies, then how the resource center operates and uses these technologies. It's great having all these additional add-ons here, there and everywhere, but my team is quite small. So, it had to be quite easy. It has to be quite focused. Hence, we went with Vectra.

At the moment, we have a hardware brain and are not near the limit of that. To go from that, I think Vectra was looking at some sort of applied solution, but it would then be a change. So, we're down to limitations of the hardware. I always say, "If we bought a massive company, we would probably have to redesign and architect the solution." At the moment, they made sure that we have some growing room. 

Our purchase was a one time thing for the entire company, otherwise we would be leaving ourselves exposed. Just this week, I took a Vectra device up to a new company that we purchased and stuck it in there. It is really that simple. We'll probably end up with a bit of traffic because we will see a lot of new servers and workstations that we have to do triage around.

We have probably 3,500 to 4,000 users across the UK. My team is quite small. I have a couple of guys who are cyber-related.

The technical support is brilliant and really responsive. That is probably down to the fact that they are a small company. Their guys respond instantly, normally within the day that they have somebody online and having a look at it, or they're putting it away and the communication is excellent. They will say, "Okay, we'll put it back to the developers," and then they give us updates, which is really efficient.

Vectra is growing at the moment. They support us very well. They do seem to rely on key people. Would my service be the same if they got rid of our technical manager? I don't know. They are a small, close family team, which is really good. Whether that would change when it's a few key people left, I don't know. But I know they are growing as a company as well, so let's hope they scale it in proportion to their customer base. Only time will tell. Other companies I've got at the moment grew too quickly in the services and service suffered as a part of that.

It isn't a tool set to replace a current tool set. It's just an additional feature. For me, it has only increased our workload, but that's because we had nothing there before.

We did not previously have a network monitoring solution. We have a toolset that does event log monitoring, but nothing across the network itself. I think we have basic flow visiblity, and the network team use that. However, there is no real way of investigating individual network packets, then using them for anything in particular.

The initial setup was easy. We have multiple sites, so we had to go around and travel to different sites. However, the actual brain was conifgured in a few hours. Once it was up, it was up. The network guys did nothing after that point. My guys probably spent a couple of days, over the course of a month just tweaking it. Then, it gradually goes down as we get a new server pop up, which might add a bit of additional alerting. Once we get a handle on that, then it comes down to something really quite manageable.

The priority for us was to get the main call center up and running at the start. We needed the brain up and do the implementation to see the east-west traffic in our call center. Then, we brought on additional sites, depending on the size around the UK, as we monitored it. 

We used the Vectra guys for the implementation. Our technical engineer came in, going into the data centers with our network engineer (or remotely), then set it up.

For the actual deployment within the data center and around the sites, just two people were needed one form each company. After that, it was the configuration of the alerting which took one of the SOC guys suing Vectra for reference.

They provide us a health check and provide us with recommendations on what we need to do every quarter, which is perfect. There is nobody else who does that. That is probably part of the advantage of being a smaller company. 

Once every quarter, they'll put health and safety in, and say, "Alright, these are the new functions. This is what you need to turn on. That's not quite working. Those haven't fired. You might want to look at removing those." This is really good to see, because I get a lot of vendors, who once they've sold you a technology, they don't really care. They go, "Yep, there you go." They don't look at what you installed, how you've installed it, provide any recommendations, or look at how it's performing. 

This provides me the assurance my SOC guys are doing a good job, we are on top of any changes and the assurance we are getting the most of the solution.

Vectra has pretty much forced this upon us, which is really good because everyone is very busy. Before you know it, the months turn to years and disappear. 

ROI is a difficult one for security tools. You can argue that if you don't see anything where you did investment, this is the reason to have good security tools: not to have an incident. You only really know when bad things happen, and you're in the middle of it. Otherwise, it's doing what it needs to do to stop or identify an issue in the first place.

We are running at about 90,000 pounds per year. The solution is a licensed cost. The hardware that they gave us was pretty much next to nothing. It is the license that we're paying for. I think if we outgrow our current hardware, then we will have a look at bigger hardware or some sort of distribution. I'm sure they have a number of different options for larger companies. I don't see that being a major issue for us in the next three to five years.

We don't have complete visibility because we don't have all of that metadata surrounding it. Sometimes there might be more metadata before, it might be something afterwards, or there might be something missing, but we accept that because we don't have the funds to pay for the additional functionality that it can provide its a trade off.

When we started off, apart from money, we had to look at behavioral analysis. We weren't sure where we wanted to go with the solution, whether we wanted to look at the endpoint or network. So, after a RFI, to define which direction we wanted to go, we thought that we would go down the network analysis route.

Because we have call centers, there is normally a high turnover of staff. The jobs themselves are quite intense and people move around quite a lot, it was key for us to get some visibility in what those guys are doing. We thought, "Although we do a lot of user awareness and logging, this is probably where our weakest link is." It was a case of somebody potentially clicking on a malicious link, some sort of phishing attack which was probably, or is probably, going to cause us the most pain.

We looked at Darktrace and there was another option that dropped out. So, we looked at the main players in that area. We decided on the behavior analysis for network, then we took the top three: Vectra, Darktrace, and another solution. 

It came down to Darktrace and Vectra. Darktrace looked much prettier than Vectra, unfortunately the support that we'd heard about and reviews that we read, led to, "Here's the new tool set. Off you go". This is what we didn't want. We wanted somebody to hold our hand, then give us the support we needed to ensure we get the best out of the tool set.

It obviously comes down to price as well and we feel we picked the best product that fitted us. We did quite a lot of due diligence on both. I went to different places that got both installed and got references from both. I firmly believe that both products would have done the job well. However, the support from Vectra along with their customers' references to say how good it was, I think we made made the right decision.

People do a lot more than we actually see. Looking at the test and development guys, sometimes they do things that they don't understand. So, they will do it because it works. The actual things that are behind the scenes are the sort of things that happen, and they don't really understand. If there's something that's really complicated, they're people that have initiated it that don't really know what it is. That is always a problem, because in our sort of company, we have a lot of developers who are doing a lot of coding and things like that, but they're not 100 percent on all the other things that they affect, such as the supporting applications underneath it. 

They are making a change on one particular app, but it's using the other apps underneath it to develop that and push that across to something else. All these extra, different steps that they are completely oblivious to where we go, "Actually, you've just done this." They go, "Well, I don't know, I just ran the script over here. I don't know why that would happen." But, it'll do a LDAP lookup or connect to a share. Those are the sort of things that you get a lot of visibility from people who don't understand. So, that can become tricky. That's pretty much par for the course for a lot of security tool sets. Where you have a couple of people who know one particular aspect, but don't really understand everything that's going on. To be fair, IT is a big area. You can't expect everyone to know everything of everything, not when you're not working in a massive IT structure, and the security team is a small department.

You need to be quite key on your business case and what you're expecting from it. Be 100 percent sure on your use cases. It's an excellent tool. It doesn't create a huge amount of overhead, but it is a tool that you need to keep on top of. The more you keep on top of it and get it right at the start, the easier it will make your life going forward. Don't just stick it in, then leave it to whirl away as a lot of people do. You have to spend that bit of extra time, and it's not huge amount of time, and leverage other teams. 

The way they do their customer success is really good. There's nothing bad that I've got to say apart from the costs, but nothing's free, is it?

It has to be up there with my favorite security tool set at the moment. I am quite lean on scores, but the solution is definitely nine (out of 10). If I look at all my other security tool sets, this is the one that my guys value the most.

We need to move our whole data traffic over the core switches. We also want to secure our network and have it integrated into our vCenter and into our Active Directory.

We have 18,000 IP addresses, and in Recall, we have uploads from about 250 GB per day.

One year ago, we found notebooks that were compromised with Emotet. Vectra saw that the client performed search requests to the Active Directory for a keyword root and contacted domains that are known for Emotet.

Vectra AI also found that a notebook had permanent contact with a domain outside our network.

We often use the new feature to create PCAP files from the whole data traffic. It makes it much easier to find network problems such as whether the server is responding to a request. It has nothing to do with security, but it helps a lot to find other problems.

Vectra AI helped improve our mean time to identify. For example, the Sophos client doesn't recognize anything, and without Vectra AI, we wouldn't be able to identify problems. It does it quickly.

We use the Sidekick MDR service. It's very important to us because it gives us another layer of security and a second pair of eyes. We have learned a lot from the Sidekick.

For S&D account scans, it would be easier if Vectra AI could triage with users. If a client uses a lot of accounts, then it could indicate that these accounts are benign, for example. That would help a lot.

I've been using Vectra AI since 2020.

We have not had any problems with stability.

Vectra's technical support is very fast. They have been able to resolve the tickets I created very quickly. I would rate technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment is easy. You have to give them an IP address, plug it into the switch, and then get started.

We have seen an ROI. The cost of security breaches outweighs the cost of Vectra AI.

Vectra AI is not a cheap solution.

We evaluated Vectra AI and CyberSense and did POCs with both. We observed that Vectra AI was better because we can see everything. CyberSense uses a different technology. For example, it creates an Active Directory that isn't used. If someone connects to this Active Directory or starts requests, then we will get an alert. However, we think Vectra uses a better way because we can see more. It also has better technology.

Overall, I would rate Vectra AI at ten on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best.

The key challenges are employee weakness, getting alerted as soon as possible on our network and infrastructures to anything suspicious that is happening, and policy-type enforcement.

The challenge that it tends to solve is visibility. We put a lot of controls in place for what we suspect will be a risk. However, something like Vectra gives us more visibility and confidence that we have a better understanding of what is actually happening, rather than just the things that we have already planned for.

We adopted an Office 365 add-in with the product that looks over the Office 365 suite and data traversing that platform. In the future, we see this as a valuable asset that we already have in place to be able to better monitor that type of detection of information. We don't have an environment where there are many true positives, which is good. That has been consistent across the old and new. Our detections have usually been benign or more configuration-based rather than some sort of attack. Because it provides more context and raises things in a way that make it more actionable, it does help you understand the anomaly on a deeper level because it is not just a log that is being forwarded on and has context around it. Vectra AI does do a good job of providing the model information upfront about how its detections work, which is helpful.

We have an external SOC and most of the data or detections from Vectra now flows to them. The final design is that they are the recipient of those alerts in parallel with us. We also receive them directly at times, depending on the criticality. What it does for us is it improves the information and context that they are getting upfront, which means less questions for our internal IT team about what these assets are and what they are doing. Because the analysts at the SOC have more information to work from, it has reduced wasted time and improved the path that we are taking to a resolution, if there is a problem. It is more straightforward when you are getting quality information upfront about what you are actually investigating and why you are investigating it, rather than just, "This particular activity was detected on the network. Go and work out everything about it," Vectra gives you some context around it and a little bit of direction when you see these things, e.g., this is potentially what could be causing it. This improves workflow, reduces wasted time, and makes everyone's life a little bit easier.

It has given us an increased level of confidence in our information security that we have a tool like Vectra to back up some of the incidents that could take place, knowing we are going to get them detected as quickly as possible and identified to us. Nowadays, with threats on ransomware and information security types of techs, we believe that Vectra does give us a greater level of confidence that we will be able to detect those more quickly. If they do occur, we can shut them down more quickly, preventing further risks or damage to our systems or infrastructure.

Vectra AI provides visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It spells that out quite clearly in each detection. It is not just in the detection. You can look at detections individually, which are essentially individual events. Also, when you are looking at an asset that has multiple detections attached to it, you can see where those sit in the lifecycle of an attack. This gives you an idea of how far Vectra thinks that it has progressed. Having the ability to know where you are in an attack helps you prioritize things a bit better.

The solution correlates behaviors in our enterprise network and data centers with behaviors that we see in our cloud environment. In terms of a specific example, it links cloud identities to on-prem identities. This is something that we have never really had before, because we didn't have that visibility in our cloud environment. Now, it improves the visibility that we have of our security operations as a whole. Rather than sometimes viewing these things in silos and objects as individual objects, we are now viewing them as what they are, which is people undertaking action in our network and the pathways that they are taking to get to certain resources. By combining the cloud and on-prem data, it gives us context and helps us to get a proper view of what is actually going on.

An attractive thing about Vectra AI is the AI component that it has over the top of the detections. It will run intelligence over detections coming across in our environment and contextualize them a bit and filter them before raising them as something that the IT team or SOC need to address. 

While the device itself is deployed on-prem, the hybrid nature of what it can monitor is important to us.

Its ability to group detections for us in an easier way to better identify and investigate is beneficial. It also provides detailed descriptions on the detection, which reduces our research time into what the incident is. 

There are also some beneficial features around integration with existing products, like EDR, Active Directory, etc., where we can get some hooks to use the Vectra product to isolate devices when threats are found.

On a scale of good to bad, Vectra AI is good at having the ability to reduce alerts by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign for investigation. My frame of reference is another product that we had beforehand, which wasn't very good at this side of things. Vectra AI has been a good improvement in this space. In our pretty short time with it so far, Vectra AI has done a lot to reduce the noise and combine multiple detections into more singular or aggregated alerts that we can then investigate with a bit more context. It has been very good for us.

There is a level of automation that takes place where we don't have to write as many rules or be very specific around filtering data. It starts to learn, adapt, and automate some of the information coming in. It works by exception, which is really good. Initially, you get a little bit more noise, but once it understands what is normal in your environment, some of the detections are based on whether an action or activity is more than usual. It will then raise it. Initially, you are getting everything because everything is more than nothing, but now we are not getting much of that anymore because the baseline has been raised for what it would expect to see on the network.

We use the solution’s Privileged Account Analytics for detecting issues with privileged accounts. Privileged accounts are one of the biggest attack vectors that we can protect ourselves against. This is one of the few solutions that gives you true insight into where some of those privileged accounts are being used and when they are being used in an exceptional way.

We have found that Vectra AI captures network metadata at scale and enriches it with security information. We have seen that data enriched with integrations has been available and implemented. This comes back to the integration of our EDR solution. It is enriching its detection with existing products from our EDR suite, and probably some other integrations around AWS and Azure. In the future, we will see that improve even further. 

One of the core features is that Vectra AI triages threats and correlates them with compromised host devices. From a visibility perspective, we can better track the threat across the network. Instead of us potentially finding one device that has been impacted without Vectra AI, it will give us the visibility of everywhere that threat went. Therefore, visibility has increased for us.

I would like to see data processed onshore. Right now, the cloud components, like Office 365, must be processed on servers outside of Australia. I would like to see a future adoption of onshore processing. 

I have been using it for two to three months.

We have only a few months of history with it, but the solution has been rock solid. I don't think it has gone down yet.

We have the ability to add agents in Azure and AWS Cloud if we want, but we still haven't made a decision yet. We can also add more agents or sensors on-prem with the VMware virtual machine that they provide. It is scalable in that way, but at some point, you will hit the limit of the device.

One of the selling points for us was, down the track, we can just add additional agents to the box from other sources without the need for additional licensing costs.

Internal to the business, there are only two users. External to the business (the SOC), there could be a team of up to 10 people who are watching alerts day-to-day as well as using the product and logging into the product to better identify what those alerts are. Being the owners of the system, we use it when we are triggered by alerts about something significant.

We have a small IT team with fewer than 10 staff, where there are only one to two information security focused staff. We leverage an external SOC, i.e., a third-party.

Vectra AI has enabled us to do things now that we could not do before. We are able to give our SOC a tool that can both reduce their time and potentially allow them to do more on our network. Potentially, they will look into isolating the threat a lot quicker. They can use some of the integrations to turn off endpoints when a threat, which is significant, is detected.

Through the different phases of deployment that we have gone through so far, we have been mainly assigned one technical resource to assist us with everything from beginning to end. He has been very knowledgeable and responsive. I can't say anything really negative about him. 

In terms of the ongoing support, we haven't had to leverage it much yet. We are now in the production phase, so we have been handed over to the main support desk, but I haven't had to use them yet.

Through deployment, the technical support was very responsive. I think every question that I asked, if it wasn't able to be answered, got passed onto someone who could then come back with something. I think they were pretty upfront as well when the solution couldn't do what we were after. We were told that they would go away and check, then they would come back with an answer about whether what we were asking for could be done. It has all been pretty good so far.

We already had a solution like this one in place, which was another competitor's product, where the three-year contract for that product was up. We wanted to retain the level of detection that the product provided, but adapt to the way our network had changed over three years to adopt a more hybrid cloud technology. This device sits on our internal network watching for any threats to our internal network. It looks at our Office 365 threats as well.

We were previously using DarkTrace. We went to the market for reasons of maturity over time for our network. We wanted to further adapt this product to a hybrid working model. We wanted it to be able to adapt to cloud technology that we were adopting. We also wanted something commercially competitive. After three years, they came back asking for a 20% increase in their renewal fees, which wasn't acceptable.

One of the main things that Vectra has brought to the table for us, over what we were previously using, was the ability to combine our on-prem packet data that we were watching with the cloud data that we needed to start including. We have one system monitoring a hybrid environment, rather than having separate systems for separate environments. That is a key thing that Vectra does that others might not. It comes back to visibility with network monitoring.

For critical alerts, there has been a huge reduction compared to our previous solution, approximately 80% less. What our previous tool would mark as high, we wouldn't, and Vectra AI aligns with that. Vectra gave us some classifications of the threats, where our previous tool would just trigger high risks on a lot of things that to us, as a business, were not high risk. This is because of fundamentally the way that Vectra looks at detections compared to the way that our previous product did. Every detection was its own entity within the previous one. Whereas, with Vectra AI, it is all about combining the detections and getting a more complete picture. When you are looking for more than just one indicator of compromise, and you are not viewing these things in isolation, you start to realize that one indicator oftentimes doesn't mean critical. That is what Vectra does pretty well.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had the existing competitor already in place, and it was architected in a pretty similar way. Someone without a device like this one in place would need to spend a little bit of time on the setup. However, that is not so much about Vectra as it is with the type of device that it is. No matter which device does this sort of thing, when you put it in place, you will need to set certain things up.

We unboxed the device, plugged it in, and it pretty much turned on. We didn't have to do much at all. Then, there was the config after the fact, which was all supported.

The initial deployment really only took a couple of weeks to get it to the point that we were relatively comfortable with what we were receiving. In terms of getting the box plugged in, that took a day. Then, we finished the whole deployment phase of it. which was to fine tune some of our detections and config. That has really been finalized in the last few weeks.

Vectra was extremely easy and quick to get into place. It was able to run inline with DarkTrace while we were evaluating it. Also, the implementation was not heavy in any way.

We went through a proof of concept with Vectra. We had already identified our functional requirements for the product and entered into our proof of concept arrangement with Vectra to assess that they could achieve all the functional requirements that we had.

The support for deploying it was ready to assist further, if needed, with the deployment. In our case, it was very straightforward. It was very quick to implement. The support that they gave us week-to-week kept us moving. They were also able to implement it in line with us.

Development and maintenance needs a tenth of a staff member. We mostly handle this ourselves. To be effective with the alerts that you are getting, you need security staff or people who are dedicated to this kind of thing. It is one thing to maintain and deploy the device.

It is another thing to action the information that the solution is giving you. We outsource that, so we don't do it in-house.

The capturing of network metadata at scale reduces the time of investigations when researching incidents. Instead of having to look over multiple tools, that data can be somewhat aggregated, from a Vectra perspective. The time to detect and understand a threat has been reduced.

Vectra AI has reduced the time it takes us to respond to attacks. The amount of time depends on the specific detection or circumstance around it. Some things have been raised previously, then we would have good knowledge about what that detection meant and how to investigate it effectively. Other times, a detection might be viewed as more novel, where there may not be the immediate skills in place to investigate it effectively, whether that is the security team or me. There is a whole lot of research that needs to go into this to make sure that you have the knowledge to actually verify whether a thing needs to be dealt with.

Vectra AI provides you this information very well, with more context around the detection. Someone with a more general knowledge of some of these things can look at all the factors rather than just the detection to make a determination of how risky it is and how you might start investigating it. For example, with autodetection in an account, if it was just that detection, then your initial response might be to lock that account out. However, if you get a bit more context about it and can see what other activities were happening on the same asset around the same time, then you might not lock that account. You might just reach out to that user, and say, "Hey, what was this about?" because you are not so concerned about an immediate threat.

There is ongoing maturity from our security strategy, which this solution introduces. Down the track, we could look to extend this from an agent perspective to our cloud platforms in a more rigorous way than what has already been implemented. It gives us increased confidence over time as we do get these detections and alerts that are valid, so we are able to accurately resolve and stop them quite quickly. That is where we will see the bigger benefit. It will tick something and alert us as quickly as possible, then we can get to it and shut it down as quickly as possible. That means our security maturity is only strengthening, and we can respond and have visibility over events in the future.

The return on investment was passed over to our SOC. They were using our previous tool, DarkTrace, and now they are using Vectra. There will be a lot less in future reports because there will be a lot less that they are actually investigating.

From a pricing perspective, they are very commercially competitive. From a licensing perspective, just be conscious that some of their future cloud solutions come with additional subscriptions. Also, if you're outside of the US, you will get charged freight for the device back to your country. I tried to negotiate getting rid of this, but unfortunately, it just wasn't something they would take off the table.

I would like to see ways they can look to bring out new cloud functionality without introducing additional costs for them as additional subscriptions. They're about to bring out their AWS add-in, which has an additional cost. So, I would like to see them start to roll that into the product, as opposed to having it be offered as a separate subscription service. Because the more that that happens, the more it goes away from the core functionality of the product if we are just buying a lot of separate cloud processing pieces doing different functions. Why is that not being made as part of the core product?

They also have some additional threat hunting tools that I would like to at least consider leveraging, but the cost is just prohibitive.

After deploying this solution in our network, it began to add value to our security operations straightaway. We ran the Vectra product in line with DarkTrace and were watching the alerts from both. Because I was sometimes getting exactly the same detections on both platforms, the Vectra information was actually assisting me in understanding what DarkTrace was doing and what it was warning me about. Straightaway, I started to get a better understanding of the alerts that we had been receiving for a long time.

It pays to evaluate the market regularly on products like this. The industry and platforms change very rapidly, and there is always new technology coming out. Three years ago, these guys wouldn't have probably been around or been looked at. Now, they are. Therefore, going out to the market and actually assessing our existing investment, against what is out there today, was very worthwhile.

For EDR, we are using CrowdStrike.

The visibility of your threats will be easier to understand with Vectra AI. It provides you with a centralized dashboard of those threats and alerts. It gives you detailed descriptions for quicker research into what the identified threats and alerts are. It will integrate with existing products you may already be using. Overall, it reduces a lot of time spent on chasing false positives.

Right now, we are leveraging the on-prem appliance and the Office 365 Cloud component. We want to look to the future around potentially extending this to further parts of Office 365 and cloud environments, like Azure and AWS.

We haven't adopted Power Automate into our environment as of yet.

I would rate this solution as eight and a half out of 10.

Vectra was deployed to give us a view of what is happening on the user network. It helps us to check what is being done by users, if that is compliant with our policies, and if what they're doing is dangerous. It covers cyber security stuff, such as detecting bad proxies, malware infections, and using packet defense on strange behaviors, but it can also be used to help with the assessment of compliance and how my policies will apply.

We also use Vectra to administer servers and for accessing restricted networks.

There are on-prem modules, which are called Cognito Detect, the NDR/IDS solution, which captures traffic. We also have the SaaS data lake, and we also have the Cognito Detect for Office 365, which is a SaaS-type sensor within the O365 cloud.

If we didn't have Vectra and the Detect for Office 365, it would be very difficult to know if our Office 365 was compromised. We tried, in the past, to do it with a SIEM solution consuming Office 365 logs and it was really time-consuming. The Office 365 Detect solution has the exact same "mindset" as the Detect solution for networks. It's almost like we can deploy it in the fire-and-forget mode. You deploy the solution and everything is configured. You have all the relevant alerts out-of-the-box. If you want to, you could tweak, configure, contextualize, and rewrite the parser, because some things might be out of date,  and customize the solution. For a big company with a large team it might be feasible, but for small companies, it's an absolute showstopper. The Detect for Office 365 gives us a lot of visibility and I'm very pleased with the tool.

We use three services from Vectra: Cognito Detect, Detect for Office 365, and Cognito Recall, and we are leveraging all these services within the SOC team to have proper assessments. We even use these tools to prepare the new use cases that we want to implement into our SIEM solution. Recall stores all the metadata that is brought up from Cognito Detect at a central point, data-lake style, with an elastic stack and a Kibana interface available for everybody. Using this, we can try to see what are the general steps.
Without this, I would not have been able to have my SOC analyst do the job. Creating a data lake for cyber security would be too expensive and too time-consuming to develop, deploy, and maintain. But with this solution, I have a lot of insight into my network.

An additional thing that is very convenient with the Recall and Detect interfaces is that you can do use cases involving individuals in Recall and have them triggered in Detect. For example, we found ways to track down if users are trying to bypass proxies, which might be quite a mess in a network. We found a type of search within Recall and have it triggering alerts in Detect. As a result, things can be managed.

It's so efficient that I'm thinking about removing my SIEM solution from our organization. Ours is a small organization and having a SIEM solution is really time-consuming. It needs regular attention to properly maintain it, to keep it up and running, consume all the logs, etc. And the value that it's bringing is currently pretty low. If I have to reduce costs, I will cut costs on my SIEM solution, not on Vectra.

The solution also provides visibility into behaviors across the full life cycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the internet gateway. It provides a lot of insight on how an attack might be coming. There are multiple phases of an attack that can be detected. And there is a new feature where it can even consume intelligence feeds from Vectra, and we can also push our own threat-intelligence feeds, although these have to be tested. The behavioral model of the Detect solution also covers major malware and CryptoLockers. I know it's working. We tested some cases and they showed properly in the tool. I'm quite reassured.

It triages threats and correlates them with compromised host devices. One of the convenient things about Detect is that it can be used by almost anybody. It's very clear. It's quite self-explanatory. It shows quadrants that state what is low-risk and what is high-risk. It is able to automatically pinpoint where to look. Every time we have had an internal pen test campaign, the old pen test workstation has popped up right away in the high-risk quadrant, in a matter of seconds. To filter out false positives it can also provide rules that state, "Okay, this is the standard behavior. This subnet or this workstation can do this type of thing." That means we can triage automatically. It also has some features which aren't so obvious, because they are hidden within the interface, to help you to define triage rules and lower the number of alerts. It looks at all your threat or alert landscapes, and says, "Okay, you have many alerts coming from these types of things, so this group of workstations is using this type of service. Consider defining a new, automated triage rule to reduce the number of alerts."

To give you numbers, with my SIEM I'm monitoring some IDS stuff within my network. Everything is concentrated within my SIEM. From my entire site, IDS is giving me about 5,000 more alerts than my Vectra solution. Of course it will depend on how it is configured and what types of alerts it is meant to detect, but Vectra is humanly manageable. You don't have to add something to make the triage manageable, using some time-consuming fine-tuning of the solution, requiring expertise. This is really a strong point with Vectra. You deploy it, and everything is automatically done and you have very few alerts.

Its ability to reduce false positives and help us focus on the highest-risk threats is quite amazing. I don't know how they made their behavioral or detection models, but they're very efficient. Each alert is scored with a probability and a criticality. Using this combination, it provides you insights on alerts and the risks related to alerts or to workstations. For example, a workstation that has a large number of low-criticality alerts might be pinpointed as a critical workstation to have a look at. In fact, in the previous pen test we launched, the guys were aware that the Vectra solution was deployed so they tried some less obvious tests, by not crawling all the domain controllers, and things like that. Because there were multiple, small alerts, workstations were pinpointed as being in the high-risk quadrant. This capability is honestly quite amazing.

And, of course, it has reduced the security analyst workload in our organization, on the one hand, but on the other it has increased it. It reduces the amount of attention analysts have to pay to things because they rely on the tool to do the job. We have confidence in its capability to detect and warn only on specific things of interest. But it also increases the workload because, as the tool is quite interesting to use, my guys tend to spend some time in Recall to check and fix things and to try to define new use cases. Previously, I had four analysts in my shop, and every one of them was monitoring everything that was happening on the network and in the company on a daily basis. Now, I have one analyst who is specialized in Vectra and who is using it more than the others. He is focusing on tweaking the rules and trying to find new detections. It brings us new opportunities, in fact. But it has really reduced the workload around NDS.

In addition, it has helped move work from our Tier 2 to our Tier 1 analysts. Previously, with my old IDS, all the detection had to be cross-checked multiple times before we knew if it was something really dangerous or if it was a false positive or a misconfiguration. Now, all the intelligence steps are done by the tool. It does happen that we sometimes see a false positive within the tool, but one well-trained analyst can handle the tool. I would say about 20 to 30 percent of work has moved from our Tier 2 to our Tier 1 analysts, at a global level. If I focus on only the network detections, by changing all my IDS to Vectra, the number is something like more than 90 percent.

It has increased our security efficiency. If I wanted to have the same type of coverage without Vectra, I would need to almost double the size of my team. We are a small company and my team has five guys in our SOC for monitoring and Tier 1 and Tier 2.

It reduces the time it takes for us to respond to attacks. It's quite difficult to say by how much. It depends on the detections and threat types. Previously, we had an antivirus that was warning us about malicious files that were deployed on a workstation within one year. Now, we can detect it within a few minutes, so the response time can be greatly enhanced. And the response time on a high-criticality incident would go from four hours to one hour.

The most valuable feature for Cognito Detect, the main solution, is that external IDS's create a lot of alerts. When I say a lot of alerts I really mean a lot of alerts. Vectra, on the other hand, contextualizes everything, reducing the number of alerts and pinpointing only the things of interest. This is a key feature for me. Because of this, a non-trained analyst can use it almost right away.

It's very efficient. It can correlate multiple sources of alerts and process them through specific modules. For example, it has some specific patterns to detect data exfiltration and it can pinpoint, in a single area, which stations have exfiltrated data, have gathered data, and from which server at which time frame and with which account. It indicates which server the data is sent to, which websites, and when. It's very effective at concentrating and consolidating all the information. If, at one point in time, multiple workstations are reaching some specific website and it seems to be suspicious, it can also create detection campaigns with all the linked assets. Within a single alert you can see all the things that are linked to the alert: the domains, the workstation involved, the IPs, the subnets, and whatever information you might need.

The key feature for me for Detect for Office 365 is that it can also concentrate all the information and detection at one point, the same as the network solution does. This is the key feature for me because, while accessing data from Office 365 is possible using Microsoft interfaces, they are not really user-friendly and are quite confusing to use. But Detect for Office 365 is aggregating all the info, and it's only the interesting stuff.

We are still in the process of deploying the features of Detect for Office 365, but currently it helps us see mailboxes' configurations. For example, the boss of the company had his mailbox reconfigured by an employee who added some other people with the right to send emails on his behalf, and it was a misconfiguration. The solution was able to pinpoint it. Without it, we would never have been able to see that. The eDiscovery can track down all the accesses and it even helped us to open an incident at Microsoft because some discoveries were made by an employee that were not present in the eDiscovery console on the protection portal from Office 365. That was pinpointed by Vectra. After asking the user, he showed that he was doing some stuff without having the proper rights to do so. We were able to mitigate this bit of risk.

It also correlates behaviors in our network and data centers with behaviors we see in our cloud environment. When we first deployed Vectra, I wanted to cross-check the behavioral detection. After cross-checking everything, I saw that everything was quite relevant. On the behavioral side, the Office 365 module can alert us if an employee is trying to authenticate using non-standard authentication methods, such as validating an SMS as a second factor or authenticating on the VPN instead of the standard way. The behavioral model is quite efficient and quite well deployed.

Vectra is still limited to packet management. It's only monitoring packet exchanges. While it can see a lot of things, it can't see everything, depending on where it's deployed. It has its limits and that's why I still have my SIEM.

I am in contact with the Vectra team, if not weekly then on a monthly basis, to propose improvements. For the time being, the main improvement I can see would be to integrate with more external solutions. Since Vectra provides an API, that  should be quite easy to handle. For example, we're using an open source ticketing system within our team and I want to have it handled properly by Vectra. We'll go forward on that with the API. 

Another area for improvement that I have pinpointed is that the Office 365 solution and the Detect solution cannot match the same users. That means we have two "different worlds" currently, the world from Office 365, which is bringing alerts based on users' emails and email addresses. And we have the network world, which is bringing an Active Directory view. On the one hand we are seeing emails or email addresses, and on the other hand we are seeing things like logons on to the domain controller. From time to time, it does not match and the tool cannot currently cross-check this info and consolidate everything. I would like to be able to see that detection related to one workstation and covering a user: what he is using, what services he is using, and what he did with his Office 365 and configuration. That would help. 

Another major feature would be to have all logs pushed to Cognito Detect, and all these logs should be also pushed to Recall. Currently, within Recall, I can't call up the Office 365 detections and I would love to do so. 

The last point would be an automated IoT threat feed consumption by the tool.

I have been using Vectra for two years.

The stability is absolutely flawless. The last time it was rebooted was almost two years ago. 

The only thing we have seen was some interruption in log feeding to the Recall instance, the SaaS solution. I had a quick call with a product manager in Europe and he was very keen to share information about this issue and willing to improve it.

So, within two years we have faced one stability incident. This incident lasted less than two hours and it was not on the monitoring solution but more on the data lake solution.

The scalability is very good. From the financial perspective, we are not limited by the number of sensors. We can deploy as many virtual sensors as we want. The key factor is the IP addresses that are being monitored. In terms of technical scalability, we have one brain appliance, one very big sensor, and multiple virtual sensors, and I don't see any limits with this solution.

We are currently using all the things that it's possible to use in this solution. One thing I like with Vectra is that it's updated very frequently. Almost every month new features are popping up: new detections, new dashboards, new ways to handle things. That's quite good. I work with our SOC team so that they can use everything right away.

The tech support is surprisingly good. We had questions, we faced some slight issues, and we always got very quick answers. Things are taken into account within a few minutes and answers usually come in less than two hours.

To deploy Recall, which is the data lake in SaaS, or to deploy the Office 365 sensor, it was effortless. It was just a quick call and, within minutes, everything was set up.

It was set up the same way the solution is behaving. It's a turnkey solution. You deploy it and everything works. The configuration steps are minimal. It's exactly the same for the SaaS solution. You deploy the tool and you just have to accept and do very basic configuration. For Office 365, you have to grant rights for the sensors to be able to consume API logs and so on. You grant the rights and everything is properly set up. It's exactly the same for Recall. It was a matter of minutes, and not a matter of days and painful configurations.

In terms of maintenance it is very easy and takes no time. It's self-maintaining, aside from checking if backups have properly ended. And in terms of deployment, when we add a network segment, we have to work a bit to determine where to deploy the new sensors, but the deployment model is quite easy. The Vectra console is providing the OVA to provide a virtual sensor for deployment. It can also automate the deployment of the sensor if you link it with vCenter, which we have not done. But it's very easy. It's absolutely not time-consuming.

If I compare the deployment time to other solutions, it's way easier and way quicker. If I compare it to my standard IDS, in terms of deployment and coverage, it's twice or three times better.

We were in contact with Vectra a lot at the beginning to plan the deployment, to check if everything was properly set up. But the solution is quite easy to set up. The next decisions we had were focused on how to enhance the solution: what seemed to be missing from the tool and what we needed for better efficiency.

The guys from Vectra were more providing guidance in terms of where the sensors needed to be deployed and that was about it.

We had a third-party integrator, Nomios, that provided the appliances, but they did not do anything aside from the delivery of appliances to our building. Our team took the hardware and racked it into the data center on its own. With just a basic PDF, we set up the tool within minutes. The integrator was quite unnecessary.

Nomios are nice guys, but we have deployed some of other solutions with them and we were not so happy about the extra fees. We were not the only ones who were not happy about that. We tried to deploy the ForeScout products with Nomios and it was quite a mess. But they have helped us with other topics and they have been quite efficient with those. So they are good on some things and on other things they are not good.

It's ineffective to speak just about the cost of the solution, because all the solutions are costly. They are too costly if we are only looking at them from a cost perspective. But if I look at the value I can extract from every Euro that I spend on Vectra, and compare it to every Euro I spend on other solutions, the return on investment on Vectra is way better.

ROI is not measurable in my setup, but I can tell you that Vectra is way more cost-efficient than my other solution. The other solution is not expensive, but it's very time-consuming and the hardware on which it's running it's quite expensive. If I look at the global picture, Vectra is three or four times more cost-efficient than my other solution.

The pricing is very good. It's less expensive than many of the tools out there.

I evaluated Darktrace but it wasn't so good. Vectra's capabilities in pinpointing things of interest are way better. With Darktrace, it is like they put a skin of Kibana on some standard IDS stuff.

Vectra enables us to answer investigative questions that other solutions are unable to address. It provides an explanation of why it has detected something, every time, and always provides insights about these detections. That's very helpful. Within the tool, you always have small question marks that you click on and you have a whole explanation of everything that has been detected: Why has it been detected and what work is the recommended course of action. This approach is very helpful because I know that if I ask somebody new, within our team, to use Vectra, I don't have to spend months or days in training for him to be able to handle the solution properly. It's guided everywhere. It's very easy to use.

Do not be afraid to link Vectra to the domain controller, because doing so can bring a lot of value. It can provide a lot of information. It gets everything from the domain controller and that is very efficient.

You don't need any specialized skills to deploy or use Vectra. It's very intuitive and it's very efficient.

We are in the process of deploying the solution’s Privileged Account Analytics for detecting issues with privileged accounts. We are using specific accounts to know whether they have reached some servers. It's quite easy with all these tools to check whether or not a given access to a server is a legitimate one or not.

We don't use the Power Automate functionality in our company, but I was very convinced by their demonstration, and an analyst in my team played with it a bit to check whether or not it was working properly. These are mostly advanced cases for companies that are using Office 365 in a mature manner, which is not the case for our company at the moment.

In our company, less than 10 people are using the Detect solution, and five or six people are using Recall. But we are also extracting reports that are provided to 15 to 20 people.

We've introduced Vectra AI to our clients and had it in proof of concepts with other technologies like Darktrace for network detection and response.

Vectra AI can bring the ability to detect intrusion on the network more so than legacy IDS tools. It goes beyond just doing sample packet capture as Corelight does and provides value to the customer regarding their reporting and what the tool is doing.

The solution's marketing is not good. It probably needs to refresh its branding because a lot of it is confusing. People see it as an expensive tool for what it actually does.

I have been working with Vectra AI for five years.

With tools like Vectra, the more you want to scale, the more you have to ingest, and the higher your costs are. So scalability can be there, but it also comes with an increased price.

The solution's customer support is fairly strong.

Vectra AI didn't have a SaaS model until recently. Companies don't like deploying something complex that'll turn customers away. From what I understand, Vectra AI is somewhat complex in its deployments.

The technology is strong, but everything around the technology outside of support is weak. Vectra AI needs to find a way to make it more cost-effective for customers to compete with some of the other tools on the marketplace that customers are buying. Vectra AI should do sample packet captures for clients with different use cases. They're trying to forcefully push their tool on the market when the market wants something else.

Overall, I rate Vectra AI a five out of ten.

We wanted to have an additional layer of protection. We have the standard IDSs and were looking for solutions that provide additional security features.

We are still in the deployment phase and hope to be in production mode soon.

I like the way that Vectra AI focuses on the internal network. Nowadays, most of the attackers are already inside, and they can be inside for many years before they start attacking. With normal monitoring, it's quite difficult to find them.

Vectra AI checks the behavior of the systems. It's much better than, for example, McAfee IDS, which also has some behavioral capabilities. With Vectra AI, it is possible to get some more hits.

What is most important for us is to have one place where we can manage a few brains because we are based on a zero-trust network. As a result, each customer needs to have a separate brain. For the SOC team, we need to have one place where the SOC analyst can go to visit the website and from that site manage all of the customers. Right now, Vectra AI doesn't have this capability, and I would really like to have this feature.

We have been using it for almost two years.

So far, the stability of Vectra has been good compared to that of McAfee IDS. I really like the automatic updates because I am the security engineer and responsible for the tools. I have less work to do, which is really nice.

In the beginning, when we had less throughput, the stability was quite nice, but now, we are reaching 25 GB of throughput. The current device is only capable of 20 GB. I do see some slowness, but I believe that it will be solved by the new brain.

To scale, you would need to know the data center and its average throughput to order the correct brain. We have around 13,000 IPs right now, but we're still growing. The only limitation I see with Vectra AI in terms of scalability is that we cannot have one place to manage all of the brains. Besides that, it's quite straightforward; at each site, we need to have a brain, a physical or virtual one.

Regarding technical support, I am in direct contact with a few people at Vectra. I enjoy cooperating with them. However, it hasn't gone that well with a ticket I created. We had to contact them after waiting for a few weeks. Overall, I'd give technical support a five out of ten.

Neutral

In the beginning, we had some problems because of a misunderstanding between my company and Vectra. During that time, it was quite challenging, but nowadays, everything is straightforward for us. For example, I'm planning the implementation of the new data center, and it's quite straightforward.

We have already deployed all of the sensors and brains. We are waiting for B101 because we need to have a bigger brain and also want to have one on standby. Once we receive the brains, we will deploy integrations with Vectra.

The pricing and licensing are quite straightforward because they're based on IP licenses. As a result, they are easy to count.

From a deployment and operations perspective, it's quite nice. Therefore, I'd give an overall rating of seven out of ten. However, I look forward to increasing the rating when we move into the production phase and see the real output from Vectra AI.

We wanted something to understand what's happening on the network of the company, and we wanted something to protect us against attacks and cyber activities. We wanted visibility into our network and all the threats that we're facing.

It has helped improve our mean time to identify, but I don't have the metrics on time savings because we didn't have anything for that previously.

It hasn't had any effect on the productivity of our organization’s SOC, but it has had a great effect on security.

In terms of the effect of Vectra AI Attack Signal Intelligence for empowering security analysts within our organization to take intelligent action, we are looking at the right risks and nothing more. We save some time for sure, and we empower our security with it. Previously, we couldn't see anything, but now, we are seeing some of the things, and we have already stopped some attacks with it.

The automatic filtering that they provide is valuable. The logic inside that makes some detections instead of us is very useful. We are confident that if we are just looking into it and there is nothing, nothing could happen. That's great.

It's simple to implement. It's simple to analyze. The dashboard is very smart and clean. It's very easy to check something. There are a lot of tools to analyze the detections. It's great.

We got two problems that couldn't be solved because of the philosophy of the product. We are using SMB 3.0, which is an encrypted protocol. When we get some alerts or something, we cannot go deep into the protocol to see what's wrong because it's encrypted. We need to decrypt the protocol in another way, which is quite difficult. We might go back to SMB 2.0 just for this reason, but that's not a good solution.

We did some penetration tests and tried to get some hashes or encrypted passwords from Active Directory. Those hashes didn't provide alerts into Vectra. Vectra doesn't survey them, which is quite problematic because it's a very common attack. They said that it's not the only aspect that would come with that kind of attack, but when somebody tries to get a lot of hashes, we would like that there is an alert because that seems like the start of an attack.

For the hashes issue, it could be very easy for them to make the improvement. They can just change a rule, and that's it, but for encrypted protocols, it could be trickier.

We have been using this solution for two to three years.

There is no problem with stability. Sometimes, alerts can come later. For example, for Office 365, we got the alert one day late, but the problem was coming from the Microsoft side.

We just have one, and that's enough for our needs. Its scalability is good for us because we just have one with multiple probes at the same cost, so that's fine for us.

Their support is very good. They have knowledgeable people with great knowledge of cyber security and cyber risks. I'd rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

We weren't using any solution before. We went for Vectra AI because we wanted something to have visibility. We were completely blind to what could happen on the network. With Vectra AI, we aren't so blind.

We stopped some attacks. An attack could cost a lot more than the cost of Vectra. For example, we got an attack before that cost us $100,000. So, Vectra's cost is not so high. The cost of an attack could be worse. If we got encrypted data, it could be worse because we would have to stop the factory, which would cost a lot.

Its cost is too much. It's an investment that we can afford. It's a lot, but it's worth it.

We evaluated Darktrace and one more solution. We also evaluated some SOC and SIEM systems, but we found Vectra AI to be better in comparison to other solutions. It was simple to implement and analyze.

I'd rate Vectra AI a 10 out of 10.

We use Vectra AI to detect incidents because we have offices in 50 countries and 30 to 40 sensors around the world.

We want to be able to have a sensor or a foothold in as many offices as possible, and Vectra AI helps us achieve that goal.

Vectra AI helps us to have more visibility in terms of what happens in our network and the network at large. It increased our understanding and our ability to respond and clean up.

In terms of valuable features, I like the ability to record the traffic and the metadata in the traffic. I also like the ability to rewind the past and be able to understand what happened. Some of my colleagues like the ability to investigate incidents.

Vectra AI has had a positive effect on the productivity of our company's top teams. They use it a lot to understand what's going on. However, we still need to teach people how to use it to its full potential because it's quite a complicated product.

The Sidekick MDR service is quite important to our organization’s security monitoring and management. The Sidekick team is able to give us the ins and outs of what's going on with some incidents. They are able to triage and help us to focus on a particular part of detection. They also gave us advice on how to configure some parts of the product. The two people I worked with from the MDR service are really good at what they do, and it's quite nice to work with them.

The UI/UX and detection could be improved. More detections of specific security events could be useful. We've had a few incidents that were not detected by Vectra. The teams are working on it right now, but more detection is always better.

Vectra AI is quite good at threat detection, however, it cannot respond to threats and attacks in real time by itself. It has to have plugins with other components, such as EDR or other software, to be able to respond properly. By itself, Vectra AI cannot do much, but it's powerful enough to pilot other software.

I've been using Vectra for nine months now.

Vectra AI's stability is quite good.

Scalability-wise, we have many sensors, and Vectra AI seems to handle them all very well.

We have 30,000 devices across 50 countries with close to 2,000 offices. It's an enterprise-scale environment, and Vectra AI has not had any issues.

The engineer who deploys Vectra at my company seeks perfection, and he wasn't happy with everything. However, Vectra's technical support staff handled all of his requests quite well. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product is quite good, and we have a good relationship with the customer success managers and other teams as well.

Overall, I would rate Vector AI an eight on a scale from one to ten with ten being the best.