I posted a commentary a while ago on a post by Raffy, who discussed the differences between IT Search (or Splunk, as they are the only folks I know who are trying to make IT Search a distinct product category) and SIEM. Raffy posted a clarification in response to my commentary. What I was pointing out in my original post was that all vendors, SIEM or Splunk, are loading the same standard formats – and what needed to be maintained was, in fact, not the basic loader, but the knowledge (the prioritization, the reports, alerts etc) of what to do with all that data. And the knowledge is a core part of the value that SIEM solutions provide. On that we seem to agree. And as Raffy points out, the Splunk guys are busily beavering away producing knowledge as well. Although be careful — you may wake up one morning and find that you have turned into a SIEM solution!
Sadly the concept of the bad “parser” or loader continues to creep in – Splunk does not need it which is good. SIEM systems do, which is bad.
I am reasonably familiar with quite a few of the offerings out there for doing SIEM/log management, and quite frankly, outside of perhaps Arcsight (I am giving Raffy the benefit of the doubt here as he used to work at Arcsight, so he would know better than I), I can’t think of a vendor that writes proprietary connectors or parsers to simply load raw data. We (EventTracker) certainly don’t. From an engineering standpoint, when there are standard formats like Windows EVT, Syslog and SNMP it would be pretty silly to create something else. Why would you? You write them only when there is a proprietary API or data format like Checkpoint where you absolutely have to. No difference here. I don’t see how this parser argument is in any way, shape or form indicative of a core difference.
I am waiting on Raffy’s promised follow-on post with some anticipation – he states that he will explain the many other differences between IT Search and SIEM, although he prefaced some of it with the Splunk is Google-like and Google is God ergo…
Google was/is a gamechanging application, and there are a number of things that made them unique – easy to use, fast, and the ability to return valuable information. But what made Google a gazillion dollar corporation is not the Natural Language Search – I mean, that is nice but simple “and” “or” “not” is really not a breakthrough in the grand scheme of things. Now the speed of the Google search, that is pretty impressive – but that is due to enormous server farms so that is mechanical. Most of the other early internet search vendors had both these capabilities. My early personal favorite was AltaVista, but I switched a long time ago to Google.
Why? What absolutely blew my socks off and continues to do so to this day about Google is their ability to figure out which of the 10 millions entries for my arbitrary search string are the ones I care about, and providing them, or some of them, to me in the first hundred entries. They find the needle in the proverbial haystack. Now that is spectacular (and highly proprietary) and the ranking algorithm is a closely guarded secret I hear. Someone once told me that lot of it is done around ranking from the millions of people doing similar searches – it is the sheer quantity of search users on the internet. The more searches they conduct the better they become. I can believe that. Google works because of the quantity of data and because the community is so large – and they have figured out a way to put the two together.
I wonder how an approach like that would work however, when you have a few admins searching a few dozen times a week. Not sure how that will translate, but I am looking forward to finding out!
– Steve Lafferty