Comparing ArcSight and LogRhythm in File Integrity Monitoring

Summary:

File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) is crucial for detecting unauthorized modifications to critical files in systems like ArcSight and LogRhythm. PCI requirement 11.5 mandates organizations alert personnel about such alterations. LogRhythm uses agents on endpoints and servers to detect changes at scheduled intervals, but it has limitations including the need for manual identification of critical files to monitor, extra charges for FIM monitoring beyond SIEM, and limited OS support (Windows, Linux, Unix). ArcSight, in contrast, employs native auditing modules without agent deployment, offering real-time detection with low system impact, detailed audit settings, broad OS support, and seamless integration. It also excels in handling PCI compliance requirements more effectively than LogRhythm. However, the document also notes limitations in ArcSight's data storage (short-term only), meta data handling (limited fields and retrieval procedures), accessibility (no web client interface), and dashboard features (only one per user).

Details:

File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) is a security practice that involves monitoring changes to critical files on systems like ArcSight vs LogRhythm to detect unauthorized modifications. PCI requirement 11.5 states the need for organizations to alert personnel about any unauthorized modification of system or content files, with particular attention to those files not regularly changing but whose alteration might indicate compromise. LogRhythm employs a method where agents are installed on endpoints and servers, polling these devices at scheduled intervals to detect changes in file integrity. However, the approach has limitations such as requiring manual identification of critical files to monitor, charging extra for FIM monitoring beyond SIEM charges, and only supporting Windows, Linux, and Unix operating systems. In contrast, ArcSight uses native auditing modules within the OS without agent deployment, making it a more scalable solution that supports various operating systems. This method offers advantages like real-time detection of file changes, low system impact (no agents), detailed granular audit settings, and better support for different operating systems. The text compares LogRhythm agents with ArcSight in terms of file change event detection. LogRhythm agents display events like file changes as individual alerts, while ArcSight provides a comprehensive alert for each file change from any operating system (OS). Key differentiators between the two include broader support for various structured and unstructured data collection across multiple OSs without trade-offs, patented technology for business intelligence at your fingertips, seamless integration with other technologies, and market leadership in SIEM solutions. ArcSight excels in handling PCI requirements better than LogRhythm, offering a unified search interface, up to 100K events per second capture rate, pre-packaged content for compliance (PCI, SOX, IT Governance, ISO/NIST), and optimized centralized management across distributed environments with common taxonomy. It also has the advantage of being FIPS and CAC compliant. In contrast, LogRhythm solutions have limitations such as only supporting a few dozen devices, single-layer normalization for data collection, and limited scalability in data handling. These factors suggest that ArcSight is generally considered superior due to its broader capabilities, compliance offerings, seamless integration, and market position in SIEM solutions. The text provided outlines certain limitations of a particular system, primarily focused on data storage, accessibility, and visualization capabilities. Here's a summarized breakdown of these constraints: 1. Data Storage Limitation: The system is designed to store short-term data exclusively, typically within a timeframe of 30 to 90 days. This implies that long-term historical data or extensive datasets are not adequately supported by this platform. 2. Meta Data Handling: A limited number of meta data fields (approximately 50) are maintained for longer term use but require restoration procedures before any search operations can be conducted. This indicates the system's inability to provide immediate access to all stored information without specific retrieval processes. 3. Accessibility: The platform does not offer a web client interface, which means it cannot be accessed remotely from anywhere in the world. Users are confined to using only the console application provided by the system. 4. Dashboard Features: There is an extremely limited number of dashboards available per user - specifically, only one dashboard can be utilized at any given time. This severely restricts users' ability to visualize and monitor multiple aspects or metrics in a consolidated manner. These limitations highlight that the platform may not support robust data management, remote operations, extensive visual analytics, or long-term archival requirements effectively without additional tools or adaptations for broader information handling capabilities.

Disclaimer:

The content in this post is for informational and educational purposes only. It may reference technologies, configurations, or products that are outdated or no longer supported. If there are any comments or feedback, kindly leave a message and will be responded.