Securosis

Research

Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? (new series)

Mike and I are launching our next blog series today, one we know is pretty timely from the conversations with have with organizations almost every day. The reality is that many organizations have spent millions and years trying to get productivity out of their SIEM – with mediocre results. Combined with a number of the large players being acquired by mega IT companies and taking their eyes off the ball a bit, most customers need to start asking themselves some key questions. Is it time? Are you waving the white flag? Has your SIEM failed to perform to expectations despite your significant investment? If you are questioning whether your existing product can get the job done, you are not alone. You likely have some battle scars from the difficulty managing, scaling, and actually doing something useful with SIEM. Given the rapid evolution of SIEM/Log Management offerings – and the evolution of requirements with new application models and this cloud thing – you should be wondering whether there is a better, easier, and less expensive solution to set your needs. As market watchers, we don’t have to be brain surgeons to notice the smaller SIEM and Log Management vendors innovating their various ways to relevance – with new deployment models, data storage practices, analysis techniques, and security features. Some vendors are actively evolving their platforms – adding new capabilities on top of what they have, evolving from SIEM features into broader security management suites. Yet there are others in the space basically “milking the cash cow” by collecting maintenance revenue, while performing the technical equivalent of “putting lipstick on a pig”. (Yes, we just used two farm animal analogies in one sentence.) You may recognize this phenomenon as the unified dashboard approach for hiding obsolescence. Or maybe “Let’s buy another start-up with a shiny object!” … to distract customers from what we haven’t done with our core product strategy. Let’s face it – public company shareholders love milking cash cows, while minimizing additional research and development costs. Security companies (especially those acquired by mega IT) have no problem with this model. Meanwhile customers tend to end up holding the bag, with few options for getting the innovation they need. From our alarmingly consistent conversations with SIEM customers, we know it’s time to focus on this dissatisfaction and open the SIEM replacement process up to public scrutiny. Don’t be scared – in some ways SIEM replacement can be easier than the initial installation (yes, you can breathe a sigh of relief), but only if you leverage your hard-won knowledge and learn from your mistakes. Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? will take a brutally candid look at triggers for considering a new security management platform, walk through each aspect of the decision, and present a process to migrate – if the benefits of moving outweigh the risks. In this series we will cover: Platform Evolution: We will discuss what we see in terms of new features, platform advancements, and deployment models that improve scalability and performance. We’ll also cover the rise of managed services to outsource, and deploying hybrid configurations. Requirements: We’ll examine the evolution of customer requirements in the areas of security, compliance, and operations management. We will also cover some common customer complaints, but to avoid descending into a customer gripe session, we’ll also go back and look at why some of you bought SIEM to begin with. Platform Evaluation: We’ll help walk through an in-depth examination of our current environment and its effectiveness. This will be a candid examination of what you have today – considering both what works and an objective assessment of what you’re unhappy about. Decision Process: We’ll help re-evaluate your decisions by re-examining original requirements and helping remove bias from the process as you look at shiny new features. Selection Process: This is an in-depth look at how to tell the difference between various vendors’ capabilities, and at which areas are key for your selection. Every vendor will tell you they are “class leading” and “innovative”, but most are not. We’ll help you cut through the BS and determine what’s what. We will also define a set of questions and evaluation criteria to help prioritize what’s important and how to weigh your decision. Negotiation: You will be dealing with an incumbent vendor, and possibly negotiating with a new provider. We’ll help you factor in the reality that your incumbent vendor will try to save the business, and how to leverage that as you move to solidify a new platform. Migration: If you are moving to something else, how do you get there? We’ll provide a set of steps for migration, examining how to manage multiple products during the migration. Don’t assume that SIEM replacement is always the answer – that’s simply not the case. In fact, after this analysis you may feel much better about your original SIEM purchase, with a much better idea (even a plan!) to increase usage and success. But we believe you owe it to yourself and your organization to ask the right questions and to do the work to get those answers. It’s time to slay the sacred cow of your substantial SIEM investment, and figure out objectively what offers you the best fit moving forward. This research series is designed to help. Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.