Most Helpful Review
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
The most valuable features are file activity monitoring and registry activity monitoring.
It has a lot of features. It has file integration monitoring.
The solution's most valuable features are the graphical user interface and the reporting.
It has reduced the time it takes to respond to attacks. That comes back to the proactive point. It makes us able to lower down in the kill chain, we can react now, rather than reacting to incidents that happened, we can see an instant, in some cases, as it's being implemented, or as it's being launched.
One of the most valuable features is all the correlation that it does using AI and machine learning. An example would be alerting on a host and then alerting on other things, like abnormal behavior, that it has noticed coming from the same host. It's valuable because we're a very lean team.
The solution provide visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It makes our security operations much more effective because we are now looking not just at traffic on the border, but we're looking at east-west internal traffic. Now, not only will we see if an exploit kit is being downloaded, but we would be able to see then if that exploit kit was then laterally distributed into our environment.
Vectra produces actionable data using automation. That has helped us. It's less manpower now to look at incidents, which has definitely increased efficiency. Right now, in a lot of cases, our mean time to detection is within zero days. This tells me by the time something happened, and we were able to detect it, it was within the same day.
The dashboard gives me a scoring system that allows me to prioritize things that I should look at. I may not necessarily care so much about one event, whereas if I have a single botnet detection or a brute force attack, I really want to get on top of those.
It gives you access, with Recall, to instant visibility into your network through something like a SIEM solution. For us, being able to correlate all of this network data without having to manage it, has provided immediate value. It gives us the ability to really work on the stuff where I and my team have expertise, instead of having to manage a SIEM solution...
The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day.
One of the most valuable features of the platform is its ability to provide you with aggregated risk scores based on impact and certainty of threats being detected. This is both applied to individual and host detections. This is important because it enables us to use this platform to prioritize the most likely imminent threats. So, it reduces alert fatigue follow ups for security operation center analysts. It also provides us with an ability to prioritize limited resources.
It would be helpful if there were more guidance provided for integrating with unsupported devices.
It should have better mitigation with other solutions and be tightly integrated with other solutions. It has to be improved.
The search feature needs to be improved.
The false positives and the tuning side of it is something that could use improvement. But that could be from our side.
It does a little bit of packet capture on alert so you can look at the packet capture activity going on, but it doesn't collect a whole lot of data. Sometimes it's only one or two frames, sometimes it does collect more. That's why they have the addition of their Recall platform, because that really does help expand the capability.
Some of their integrations with other sources of data, like external threat feeds, took a bit more work than I had hoped to get integrated.
I would like to see a bit more strategic metrics instead of technical data. Information that I could show to my executive management team or board would be valuable.
I'd like to be able to get granular reports and to be able to output them into formats that are customizable and more useful. The reporting GUI is lacking.
Some of the customization could be improved. Everything is provided for you as an easy solution to use, but working with it and doing specific development could be worked on a bit more in the scope of an incident response team.
One thing which I have found where there could be improvement is with regard to the architecture, a little bit: how the brains and sensors function. It needs more flexibility with regard to the brain. If there were some flexibility in that regard, that would be helpful, because changing the mode of the brain is complex. In some cases, the change is permanent. You cannot revert it.
You are always limited with visibility on the host due to the fact that it is a network based tool. It gives you visibility on certain elements of the attack path, but it doesn't necessarily give you visibility on everything. Specifically, the initial intrusion side of things that doesn't necessarily see the initial compromise. It doesn't see stuff that goes on the host, such as where scripts are run. Even though you are seeing traffic, it doesn't necessarily see the malicious payload. Therefore, it's very difficult for it to identify these type of host-driven complex attacks.
Pricing and Cost Advice
The pricing is nice when compared to other products in the industry.
Licensing is on a yearly basis. It's not expensive compared to its competitors.
We have a desire to increase our use. However, it all comes down to budget. It's a very expensive tool that is very difficult to prove business support for. We would like to have two separate networks. We have our corporate network and PCI network, which is segregated due to payment processing. We don't have it for deployed in the PCI network. It would be good to have it fully deployed there to provide us with additional monitoring and control, but the cost associated with their licensing model makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy.
At the time of purchase, we found the pricing acceptable. We had an urgency to get something in place because we had a minor breach that occurred at the tail end of 2016 to the beginning of 2017. This indicated we had a lack of ability to detect things on the network. Hence, why we moved quickly to get into the tool in place. We found things like Bitcoin mining and botnets which we closed quickly. In that regard, it was worth the money.
The license is based on the concurrent IP addresses that it's investigating. We have 9,800 to 10,000 IP addresses.
There are additional features that can be purchased in addition to the standard licensing fee, such as Cognito Recall and Stream.
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.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable features are file activity monitoring and registry activity monitoring.
Top Answer: The pricing is nice when compared to other products in the industry.
Top Answer: It would be helpful if there were more guidance provided for integrating with unsupported devices.
Question: I'm building a next-gen AI powered threat intelligence platform. What's missing from existing solutions?
Top Answer: I that feel there are two old problems still there in the market: 1-Vendors don't talk to each other. 2-Whoever is focusing on endpoint is missing the network and human side and the opposite is also… more »
Top Answer: The two platforms take a fundamentally different approach to NDR. Corelight is limited to use cases that require the eventual forwarding of events and parsed data logs to a security team’s SIEM or… more »
out of 37 in User Behavior Analytics - UEBA
Average Words per Review
out of 49 in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software
Average Words per Review
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 36% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Also Known As
|LogRhythm CloudAI, LogRhythm UEBA||Vectra Networks, Vectra AI NDR|
LogRhythm UEBA enables your security team to quickly and effectively detect, respond to, and neutralize both known and unknown threats. Providing evidence-based starting points for investigation, it employs a combination of scenario analytics techniques (e.g., statistical analysis, rate analysis, trend analysis, advanced correlation), and both supervised and unsupervised machine learning (ML).
Vectra® is the leader in network detection and response – from cloud and data center workloads to user and IoT devices. Its Cognito® platform accelerates threat detection and investigation using artificial intelligence to collect, store and enrich network metadata with the right context to detect, hunt and investigate known and unknown threats in real time. Vectra offers three applications on the Cognito platform to address high-priority use cases. Cognito Stream™ sends security-enriched metadata to data lakes and SIEMs. Cognito Recall™ is a cloud-based application to store and investigate threats in enriched metadata. And Cognito Detect™ uses AI to reveal and prioritize hidden and unknown attackers at speed.
Learn more about LogRhythm Enterprise UEBA
Learn more about Vectra AI
|Tribune Media Group, Barry University, Aruba Networks, Good Technology, Riverbed, Santa Clara University, Securities Exchange, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association|
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider20%
Mining And Metals Company22%
Financial Services Firm11%
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider23%
No Data Available
See our list of .