NetWitness Platform Reviews

RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are used exclusively for monitoring scenarios, insider threat analysis, and log retention.

The most valuable feature of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are the alerts and correlations tools.

RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets can improve the threat level aspect, it is lacking compared to other solutions. Whenever any hacking activity or any other threat factor occurred they used to provide the coverages very fast when comparing RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets. I heard the other three solutions, from a discussion with my team members who had experience in other solutions, they used to say that. Whenever any issues happened across the globe RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are a little bit slow improving those detection mechanisms.

I have been using RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets for six years.

Some of the RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets versions are not stable. Whenever they are releasing upgrades we were facing some issues.

The scalability could improve. RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets have some limitations in the on-premise sizing. It requires more workers to procure the hardware. It is time-consuming.

The solution is only being used by our security operations team of approximately 10 to 15 people.

When we have any critical issues we escalate them to the support of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets.

I rate the support from RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets a four out of five.

We were using RSA Ticket Analytics and now we are using RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets.

The initial setup of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets is not complicated, it is easy for us. However, there are some sizing limitations.

We did the implementation of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets in-house. We have not had any issues with maintenance. 

RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets do not have a subscription model, it's a one-time purchase. There is only a perpetual license.

When comparing the cloud security solutions, RSA feels outdated. I would advise others before choosing RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets, to do a POC process and later they can do the purchase if it fits their needs.

I rate RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets an eight out of ten.

We provide NetWitness along with Archer, and multiple sites. We are managing their security operations using this other station and Archer. A collector can work in two different ways. It can collect the logs, and it can aggregate the traffic tools from different net flow logs. When I saying "logs," I mean a log collector and when I say "packet," that means the packet or log connector. 

The stability all depends upon how well the site is set up. All these solutions are good, but the CPU and OS are the major portion of undoing the correlations. If you have a poor correlation, then you need to have less than 70 percent utilization. Then that may not be good performance. 

NetWitness is scalable. You can scale, but you cannot assume that if you are deploying it today, you could use the same hardware setup as before. You only have two or three connectors. It is not at all possible. However, 20 percent scalability is always there with Odyssey.

Nowadays, their support is a little subpar compared to other solutions. I rate RSA support six out of 10. 

Setting up NetWitness is straightforward. There are multiple connectors, including standard and specialized connectors. One purpose of the connectors is the enhanced capability integrate the custom applications. NetWitness comes with E6 appliances and application images that we use for the initial configurations and for the OS stack information. From there, you can consider the correlation rules, integrate the different log sources, and easily create correlation rules and backlog reports.

The complexity of the deployment depends on the amount and type of log sources. Are there any custom home-grown log sources for which you need to create the custom parsers? How many different logs or log lines in a home grown application? These factors might make your parser development a bit cumbersome.

The licenses are based on the ETS.

I rate RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets eight out of 10. Aside from ETS, it is the second-most important solution for maintaining compliance and how much data you need in the online logs or the offline archival logs.

The primary use case for the NetWitness Platform is within large companies, particularly in their internal security operation centers (SOCs). They utilize the platform for block collections from the entire company, including subsidiaries, enabling comprehensive security monitoring and analysis. It supports functions such as collections and correlation. Additionally, some licenses may include XDR capabilities. NetWitness stood out for many customers as it was one of the first solutions to collect blocks from endpoints, networks, and logs simultaneously, providing a unified view of security events.

The most valuable feature of the NetWitness Platform, as I've found through occasional engagements, is its Total Customer Ownership (TOC) approach. It encompasses having a unified engine and database where all collected information, including logs, network traffic, and endpoint data, is correlated and analyzed. This centralized database enables efficient analysis and correlation of security events aided by artificial intelligence algorithms. Additionally, customers can develop custom parsers to integrate new data sources into the database, enhancing its speed and reliability.

The product's licensing models are complex to understand. This particular area needs improvement. 

I have been using NetWitness Platform for seven years.

My experience with customer service and support for RSA NetWitness has been positive overall. I know individuals who are specialists in the field and attend meetings organized by RSA. These specialists support customers, including those whose partners or companies sell and implement NetWitness at their sites. Despite the cost, it has a strong reputation. I have received helpful assistance from technical support when needed, such as accessing restricted areas on their website or technology database. Even in complex cases, the support team has been attentive and supportive, ensuring I am not left alone with any issues.

Licensing models can be complex and subject to change over time. It provides tools to assist in selecting the appropriate license and usage scenarios. The trend is shifting towards subscription-based models rather than one-time payments.

I previously prepared comparisons between solutions such as IBM QRadar and RSA NetWitness. Having worked for several large vendors, including IBM, I have insights into various security platforms. IBM QRadar, while mature and feature-rich, was behind RSA NetWitness in certain aspects. RSA was among the first to collect data from multiple sources, including live network traffic, endpoints, and logs, offering a more comprehensive approach to threat detection. Both vendors eventually incorporated Extended Detection and Response (XDR) capabilities into their solutions, but RSA was an early adopter. Nowadays, it's challenging to pinpoint significant differences in functionalities among various vendors, as most deliver similar capabilities. Performance and cost considerations may vary depending on the specific use case and hardware infrastructure. Thus, a thorough evaluation is essential when choosing a security platform.

NetWitness can be highly beneficial for incident detection and response. RSA has incorporated Extended Detection and Response (XDR) functionality through collaborations and licensing agreements with other companies.

It integrates well with other tools, boasting over 600 integrations on its website. The list is continuously updated and readily accessible.

Security improvements will vary depending on the combination of integrations. It's essential to carefully assess both the list of available integrations and each customer's specific needs.

I rate it a ten out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for packets mainly and log analytics.

I don't really see any valuable features in the product. I feel that it is time to move away from NetWitness Platform. All SIEM tools have to deal with advanced use cases, and many of them are getting upgrades, but this is not the case with NetWitness Platform. NetWitness Platform has remained the same for almost four to five years. The support and RMAs offered by the product in our region have also become very bad.

From an improvement perspective, the NetWitness Platform needs to release new features and improve in areas like log correlation. The tool needs to have easier integrations with the cloud. Building a parser should be made easier in the tool.

The tool needs to have easier integrations. The tool needs to have the extra log-related suggestions. The platform and UI should be easier to use.

I have been using NetWitness Platform for eight years. My company is a customer of the tool.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult. The tool's upgrades and moving from old hardware to new hardware are difficult and time-consuming. If you have any hardware failures, as per the RMA offered by the tool, it takes a very long time to get some after-service. The product has not been working well in my region recently.

The product price was reasonable for my region and the market.

My company has a hybrid environment. I have looked at other products like Splunk and Sentinel. I am still looking around for other solutions in the market. In my company, we are having discussions to move to some other solution.

My company has had many benefits from the use of the product in the last eight years.

The tool has streamlined our company's incident response process since it serves as a log repository, which allows us to correlate events and access different technology stacks. In our company, we were able to actually find some potential attacks, so it has been very helpful.

The tool's integration capability isn't so great. In my company, we managed to integrate it with our Microsoft Azure Subscription, after which we managed to integrate it with other tools. You will face a lot of difficulties if you want to integrate it with your database monitoring tool, PAM solutions, or IAM products.

The product has done well overall for my company's teams to deal with their workflow efficiency.

I would not recommend the product to others.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

This solution is deployed on-premise.

It gives the capability for the incident response team to correlate logs to identify any kind of problem like malware and incidents in a general sense, both for logs and packets. I think the most important thing was that it gives the customer the capability to discover and respond to an incident. It gives customers visibility about their most important servers and devices.

Regarding the packet model, the most important thing is how easy it is to rebuild the raw data. Through one click, you can see an email that was sent even without accessing the mailbox from the user. It's easy to rebuild the raw data, especially the packet.

If we have the ability to run a dynamic analysis through malware in the same suite, it would be great to have a sandbox solution to analyze malware through dynamic analysis.

NetWitness has a malware appliance, but in terms of dynamic analysis, we need to integrate with 30 vendors. It would be great to have a sandbox produced by the RSA and the SSL appliance also.

I have been working with this solution for six years.

I have worked with ArcSight from Micro Focus. One thing to be improved in NetWitness is the capability to correlate event logs in a general sense. We have less resources in the NetWitness correlation engine compared with ArcSight.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I'm primarily using the solution on my client's site. 

This is a log event management tool. We are integrating this solution for the clients where it is required. Mostly we work with OEMs such as IBM, RSA, Splunk, and Micro Focus. 

With the help of these tools, you can identify any attacks or phishing activity in your network. Most of the time you are able to identify these types of attacks or activity on your firewall. When the firewall will notify the SIEM tools, it will identify which needs to be acted on immediately - unlike when you are using automation tools. With the help of automated tools, you can block those suspicious IPS or you can hand it over back to your security analyst or analyst team to take action ASAP. 

We have not evaluated this tool. It is evaluated by the client's company directly. That said, I have found it has good threat intel insights, comparatively speaking. 

From the client-side, there are economical kinds of features.  It's quite economical compared to other solutions in the market. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is very good.

We are designing reports and automated rules and processes. We are defining them in relation to this product. With the help of automated rules and processes, this product will help the team when they go to production to do operations smoothly, as, most of the time, what happens when you put manual interference into such systems, it may be delayed. This can lead to vulnerabilities. Sometimes, if a hacker enters the system, he might only have a limited time where there is a window of access, however, in that time, he'll take what he can, and even if the vulnerability only lasted for a few minutes, in that time, items can get stolen. 

Therefore, there needs to be more proactively to avoid any downtime. We're adding automating tools to help RSA Netwitness so that if anything happens, RSA can immediately shut anything down. We're in the process of configuring them and adding them in.

The initial setup is complex. There are solutions that are easier to implement.

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

The solution is reliable. I won't say great, due to the fact that, naturally, if you compare it to other products it is not that great. That said, for the operations, it is good as long as you do not violate your license. The moment you violate your license, this will cause a quite delayed reaction, at least, that is what I've seen compared to Splunk and QRadar.

While the solution isn't necessarily for small organizations, it is good for medium and large organizations.

The solution scales easily.

Technical support is very good. They try to resolve issues with the proper SLAs which are defined by them and they understand the client's requirements as well as the client's infrastructure in a better manner. I'm happy with the support.

The solution is pretty complex to set up. Comparatively, I have worked on IBM QRadar and Splunk. They are much easier to set up. It also depends on the client's infrastructure. It just needs some time and understanding to be deployed. 

Once it is deployed it requires maintenance. Whenever you work on such products, if you do not take the support or support services, it might take some time to work through some things. For some things, the documentation is not the best. Support is always recommended. If you do not buy support, it can be a disaster. 

It's my understanding that the pricing of the product is pretty good. Compared to other options on the market, it's reasonable. 

I would say it's economical, as the licensing part is always a different ball game in the SIEM tools business, as everyone is running their business in a different manner. If you go to IBM, they will charge you in a different way, for example. RSA will charge you in a different way as well, and Splunk has its own unique licensing policies. I would say it's economical. I won't say it's cheap. It is in between.

Currently, there is only one license. There aren't different licensing models. Hardware is included in the price.

I'm on the latest version of the solution. I tend to work on updated versions.

We are systems integrators. We have a partnership with RSA.

If a company decides to try out this product, they need to do the homework properly due to the fact that sometimes on the hardware side or on the software side, you may face some issues. It is better to study thoroughly the troubleshooting part and prepare properly. Only then you can go for implementation.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Our solution is utilized by customers to monitor security alerts by ingesting logs from all their assets. 

They create correlation rules to identify any potential breaches or hacking attempts and receive notifications through the dashboard.

Customers can use additional features to investigate the incident and take the necessary actions.

Prior to implementing the solution, the customers had no visibility of their assets. However, after adopting the solution, they have gained complete visibility over all their assets, including a comprehensive understanding of the network and attack symptoms. With this knowledge, they can respond to any attack and take necessary actions. Essentially, this case has empowered them with comprehensive network visibility.

In my opinion, the solution's most valuable feature is its capacity to monitor network traffic, logs from devices within the network, and network captures.

This capability extends beyond logs to include full network capturing.

I believe that integrating the solution with other products such as Oracle would be beneficial. However, I suggest that the integration process be streamlined and made more efficient to ensure a smooth experience.

It would be great to have the ability to customize reports in a more user-friendly manner.

We are resellers for the NetWitness Platform.

We have not had any issues with the stability of the NetWitness Platform, it is a stable solution.

This solution is very scalable.

We have contacted technical support. They are available. They have around-the-clock support, and they're very helpful.

I would rate them a nine out of ten. There is always room for improvement.

I have worked with Zscaler and Cisco for four or five years.

I am familiar with Elasticsearch, but I prefer NetWitness Platform as it is specifically designed as a security solution for logs, packets, and endpoints rather than a SIEM-only only tool.

The initial setup is complex. It requires some knowledge in order to set it up.

If one is the most difficult and ten is the easiest, I would rate it a three out of ten. It's quite complex.

Initially, we need to prepare the hardware boxes, whether they are physical or virtual or offered as a service. This involves imaging them with the appropriate functions for the module. Then, for network packet capture, the mirror ports must be connected to the packet capture box. Regarding logs, the configuration process involves making NetWitness boxes communicate with each other through the appropriate protocols and ports.

Following this, the next step involves configuring the log sources to send logs to the log box. This process requires the appropriate rules to be configured to initiate log transmission and generate metadata by appropriate parsers on NetWitness. After the setup, the focus shifts to building correlation rules, alerts, and other monitoring activities. These rules and alerts are crucial components for effective monitoring.

The deployment process can vary based on the specific environment and requirements, but typically it takes about one to two weeks to complete.

Maintaining the solution doesn't require a large number of resources. Typically, one or two capable resources are sufficient to maintain the solution effectively.

It's important to continuously monitor and ensure the health and proper functioning of the solution. This involves regularly checking the log sources to ensure that the logs are being ingested correctly and there are no issues such as overutilization or spikes in network traffic.

It is not a cheap product.

The NetWitness Platform may be affordable only for enterprise-level customers, as it may not be within the budget of small and medium-sized businesses.

I would advise taking your time to understand the architecture of the solution, including how the modules communicate with each other and the role of each module. It is recommended to start slowly after gaining this understanding.

I would rate NetWitness Platform an eight out of ten.

We have two customers using this solution and one of them is a banking business. We are collecting some of the security log sources. In the main use case, we are correlating rules and we are using the endpoint detection capabilities. We are utilizing RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets, to have more insights on an endpoint level.

The newer 11.5 version that my team is using has found it to have good mapping.

The multi-tenant capabilities are lagging compared to IBM QRadar.

We want the OEM to support us when we add a partner. They have to come forward and be ready to give a POC to the customer. For example, if we are identifying any customer, and the customer wants to see the POC but at that time we do not have that resource to showcase the POC or the environment. At this time the OEM should come forward and showcase the POC to the customer. Once the customer is satisfied, we will be gaining the business, as a win-win situation.

I have been using RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) for approximately two years.

The solution is reliable.

I have not tried to expand the solution.

The technical support is responsive. Professional service when it is required is expensive. I wasn't able to compare with other professional services, because we have only one tool we are using at the moment. I am not able to tell you how much other OEM professional services cost. We have heard from the support that it is expensive.

I have previously used IBM QRadar.

The installation is somewhat straightforward. For example, if they want a UBA or SOAR type of platform, then I don't have experience in integrating or installing the SOAR or UPA. If that kind of opportunity comes or a customer requests it, then we have to see. As it is now, RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) installation is straightforward.

We are on an annual license for the use of the solution.

I would recommend version 11.5, it looks good. However, we are looking for an alternative solution.

I rate RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) version 11.4 a seven out of ten.