There’s a legacy connotation hooked up to SIEM that has led to distributors promoting themselves as some iteration of a next-generation resolution. However is it mandatory? I’ve been struggling to search out options that may be categorised as “legacy SIEM”—that’s, SIEM with out some form of automation, response, or anomaly detection capabilities or modules.
It is smart for SIEM to accommodate all these capabilities. What doesn’t make sense is that this unsynchronized try at differentiating right now’s options from these of 2015.
Let’s have a fast have a look at what SIEM options get referred to as right now:
- Fusion SIEM
- Subsequent-gen SIEM
- Developed SIEM
- Unified protection SIEM
- Cloud-native SaaS SIEM
- “Not a SIEM” SIEM (aka, unified safety operations platform)
So, is that this an issue? Completely different takes on product names is nothing new, however on this case, it creates lots of confusion available in the market. First, these names don’t inherently imply something. Positive, some supply indications, like “cloud-native SaaS SIEM platform,” however typically talking, there isn’t any goal distinction between a next-gen SIEM and an developed SIEM.
Second, there are a number of permutations of modules which are totally different from vendor to vendor. One may supply SIEM + SOAR + UEBA, whereas one other could supply a SIEM + ASM + XDR. Whereas it’s nice to have extra complete safety merchandise, it’s possible you’ll not want or need the extra modules.
“Not a SIEM” SIEM options add one other layer of confusion, as these merchandise do all the pieces a SIEM resolution does, however they gained’t present up whenever you Google “greatest SIEM resolution 2024.” One other problem is proving to regulators for compliance functions that though what you utilize for SIEM known as a SOC platform, it’s a SIEM resolution.
So sure, I do assume that including adjectives earlier than the phrase “SIEM” is a futile train that creates extra confusion as an alternative of differentiating a product. However there’s extra.
SIEM and Safety Operations
When evaluating options, it’s essential to determine whether or not you want a “simply SIEM” or a unified software for automating your safety operations heart. I imagine that we must always hold SIEM as a standalone time period that predominantly focuses on doing what it says on the tin—data and occasion administration.
SIEM itself could be a part of a wider safety operations platform alongside applied sciences comparable to XDR, SOAR, UEBA, and ASM. Nonetheless, for a similar causes supplied above, we shouldn’t hold calling these converged options “SIEM.”
For that reason, I’ve adjusted the safety operations experiences I’ve been engaged on, particularly the SIEM Radar and autonomous SOC Radar. SIEM focuses on evaluating instruments’ capabilities with respect to data administration. We’re nonetheless together with extra elements comparable to automation and evaluation, however they continue to be targeted on the principle scope relatively than branching out to full UEBA or SOAR capabilities.
Autonomous SOC, however, is now a extra standalone strategy in comparison with its earlier SIEM + SOAR scope. It evaluates the capabilities required by a safety operations heart to handle and automate its each day actions. There may be much less deal with compliance and extra on response, orchestration, and consumer monitoring.
Subsequent Steps
To study extra, check out GigaOm’s SIEM Key Standards and Radar experiences. These experiences present a complete overview of the market, define the standards you’ll need to take into account in a purchase order resolution, and consider how plenty of distributors carry out in opposition to these resolution standards.
If you happen to’re not but a GigaOm subscriber, you’ll be able to entry the analysis utilizing a free trial.
The submit Why isn’t “Simply SIEM” Sufficient? appeared first on Gigaom.