Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Analytics

4/26/2012
04:47 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Logs Still Tough To Decipher, SANS Survey Says

More organizations employ log management and SIEM tools, but are still struggling to sort the bad traffic from the good

More organizations are using log event management and Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) products, but they are struggling to distinguish between suspicious and normal traffic, according to the SANS 8th Annual Log Management Survey.

Some 58 percent of organizations surveyed by SANS employ a log management tool for gathering and analyzing logs, and 37 percent are running a SIEM. Around 22 percent say they collect logs and then process them with a SIEM, according to the survey of 600 IT professionals, which was sponsored by HP Enterprise Security, LogLogic, LogRhythm, Sensage, Splunk, Tripwire, and Trustwave.

"The data suggest that respondents are having difficulty separating normal traffic from suspicious traffic," said Jerry Shenk, author of the SANS report. "They need advanced correlation and analysis capabilities to shut out the noise and get the actionable information they need. But first they need to get more familiar with their logs and baseline what is normal."

Interestingly, some 22 percent of the respondents say they have "little or no" automation for their logging and analysis, with no plans to remedy that. "The most common reasons given for not automating include lack of time and money ... resources that are closely intertwined. Respondents cited two additional reasons: the lack of management buy-in and insufficient time to evaluate the options available in different SIEM and log management products," according to the SANS report.

More than 80 percent say they collect logs mainly to look out for attacks, while 65 percent say they do so for forensic analysis and correlation, and 58 percent for preventing security incidents. Also important for logging is to help detect advanced threats, according to 54 percent of the respondents, and for meeting compliance (55 percent).

They are gathering logs mainly from Windows servers, which account for about 85 percent of the respondents, followed by security devices (more than 80 percent), networking devices (nearly 80 percent), and networking and security systems (around 70 percent). There were some other less-obvious devices being logged as well: "Some of the new items included 'Control systems for physical plant/operations' with eight percent, 'Access controls for physical plant' with 17 percent, and 'Cloud-based or outsourced services/applications' with eight percent," according to the report.

How much time do organizations spend analyzing logs? Some 35 percent spend "none to a few hours a week," the survey found.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
NXLog
50%
50%
NXLog,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/30/2017 | 11:06:41 AM
Pending Review
This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
JCharles
50%
50%
JCharles,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/9/2013 | 4:28:10 PM
re: Logs Still Tough To Decipher, SANS Survey Says
So most organizations either don't own a Log Manager / SIEM or for those that do, they can't run it to it's full potential. Why ? because they're too complicated, time consuming & expensive. But thankfully there are solutions out there that aren't like Secnology.
News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "The truth behind Stonehenge...."
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-27886
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
rakibtg Docker Dashboard before 2021-02-28 allows command injection in backend/utilities/terminal.js via shell metacharacters in the command parameter of an API request. NOTE: this is NOT a Docker, Inc. product.
CVE-2016-8153
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8154
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8155
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8156
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.