HPE ArcSight vs IBM Security QRadar SIEM

 Post from http://infosecnirvana.com/clash-titans-arcsight-vs-qradar/

ArcSight vs QRadar

Subject	ArcSight	QRadar
Product Birth	Year 2000, ArcSight SIEM came into the market and incidentally this was the only product they have worked on. In 2011 HP bought them	Year 2004-2005, Q1 Labs entered into the SIEM market modifying their NBAD platform (QFLOW) and in 2012, IBM bought them.
Logging Format	CEF – Common Event Format	LEEF – Log Event Extended Format
Underlying DB	Oracle till 2012, then combination of MySQL, PSQL etc.	Proprietary based on Ariel Data store and probably Ariel Query Language (AQL)
Vendor Support	ArcSight supports more than 400 vendors with their CEF certification program	QRadar supports more than 250 vendors with their LEEF certification program
Portfolio	Log Correlation – HP ArcSight ESM Log Management – HP ArcSight Logger Identity Correlation – HP Identity View Intelligence Feeds – HPRepSM Threat Detection – HP ArcSight Threat Detector Response and Action – HP ArcSight TRM	Log Correlation – IBM QRadar Console Log Management – IBM QRadar Log Manager Network Forensics – IBM QRadar NBAD (using QFlow) Intelligence Feeds – IBM X-Force Vulnerability Management– IBM QRadar VM (with dedicated Scanner) Response and Action –  IBM QRadar Incident Forensics for Response only
Identity monitoring	ArcSight has a separate feature calledIdentityView (separate license) to provide the identity perspective of events occurring in ArcSight. It integrates with Identity solutions (AD, Oracle) to keep track of user activity regardless of the account being used. It assigns risk scores to users based on their activity, and can graphically represent this activity and compare it to others with similar roles.	QRadar does not have the capability similar to Identity View, however, it does integrate with Identity solution to provide user information in the offenses created.
Network Behavioral Analysis	ArcSight does not natively collect flow data however, it can obtain Netflow data from other devices such as routers, etc. The Netflow data provides visibility only up to layer 4 (no application visibility)	QRadar due to its origin as a NBAD product has powerful Network Behavioral Analysis (NBAD) capability through its QFlow appliance (Network Flows data including Layer 7 flows, Jflow, Netflow, IPFIX, SFlow, and Packeteer’s Flow Data Records can be collected and processed). This would allow us to review application and network flows and assess it for anomalous traffic, persistent threats etc.
Vulnerability Management	ArcSight can integrate with Vulnerability scanners and gather Scan reports for correlating vulnerability information with the security events collected.  However, it is more of a data aggregator in the case of VM tools.	QRadar has a Vulnerability Management product (QVM). This has all the features comparable to ArcSight, however, IBM has upped the ante in this space by including a Scanner in the product that can actively scan hosts if enabled with QVM license. This provides security analysts to gather real time information if they choose to from the same SIEM console.
Dynamic Risk Management	ArcSight does not have any risk management capabilities. However, it can integrate with commercial risk management products to provide basic correlation	QRadar has a Risk Manager (QRM) product that collects Network configuration information and provides a risk modeling capability to assist in understanding the extent of impact of a configuration change in the network. This is akin toSkybox, Algosec or RedSealand perform in similar capacity
Log Collection	Agent Less – Using Connector Appliance. Logger Appliance can also serve as Log receiversAgent Based – Software Install on Servers for all types of log collection	Agent Less – Any QRadar Appliance, Console, All-in-One Combo boxes, Event Collector etc. can collect Logs remotelyAgent Based– Connector software available for Windows. For others, Agentless is the only option.Flow Collection – By default any appliance can collect flow data, however, dedicated Flow Collectors are an option in QRadar.
Log Management	Separate Log Management Software, Appliance which is different from the ESM appliance. They have a Express version which combines both but in general HP Logger fills the space of a dedicated Log Management appliance	Same software, same appliance can behave as all in one SIEM + Log Manager or dedicated Log Manager or SIEM depending on License added. There is no distinct product differentiation as in ArcSight family.
Event Transmission	Events from the source are sent in clear text to the SmartConnectors, however, all further upstream communication happens encrypted. Compression and Aggregation can also be employed in the ArcSight ecosystem from the connectors onwards.	Events from the source are sent in clear text, however, communication between QRadar Appliances happen using encrypted SSH tunnels. However, compression happens on Appliance at event storage level and does not happen in event transit.
Handling EPS bursts	ArcSight uses large buffers to cache events in case of an EPS burst. Once the buffer is filled, the Queue starts to fill. Once the queue overflows, events get dropped. But the burst EPS can be sustained for longer periods of time compared to QRadar.	In QRadar, Each event type has a memory buffer, once the EPS exceed the licensed level and the buffer is filled, all new events are queued and processed on a best effort basis. However, this burst EPS is not sustainable for longer periods of time as with ArcSight. So even though it can take burst EPS during times of attack, it is not sustainable.
Filtering	ArcSight provides the ability to filter or modify events at the collection and logging level to eliminate the events that are not of security value. This can be as close to event source as possible using SmartConnectors	QRadar provides capability to filter using Routing rules. However, for field based filtering (where only one field from the log needs to be omitted during parsing) can’t be done in QRadar.
Aggregation	Log Aggregation can be done based on any field combination. This is really useful when it comes to toning down on the high volume logs of network firewalls and proxies etc.	Log Aggregation or Coalescing in QRadar terminology happens at the event collection layer based on the source IP and user only and not on customizable field combinations
Data obfuscation	ArcSight allows for obfuscating any field at the log collection level using SmartConnectors. This is very powerful when monitoring confidential data in logs.	QRadar does provide Obfuscation abilities using a custom Regex Based, Key Based Obfuscation config. This will allow for encrypting a field, based on the Regex Match when event is processed.
Custom Log Collection	Require development of customized configuration files. However, ArcSight Flex Connector SDK is  a very powerful tool to build custom connectors and parsers. Also, the ArcSight community shares knowledge about custom connectors and hence more help available in case you want to develop on your own.	QRadar has two parts of custom log collection capability. For supported logs or generic logs, it can update/develop parsers using the “Extract Custom Property” feature. However, if a new log source is to be integrated, then it is through customized configuration files which is much harder to create, test and maintain. Also, help to develop on your own is scarce so Professional services is mandatory.
Scalability	ArcSight is really scalable such that it can support multi-tier Correlation Engines, multi-tier Loggers, Connectors etc. and also have effective peering.	QRadar scales very well horizontally at the Log Collection layer, however at the Correlation layer it does not scale as well as ArcSight. This is a challenge in large and distributed environments.
High Availability	One of the long standing issues of ArcSight is HA. It does not have a true HA capability. It supports failover routing at the Collection layer but does not have any thing at the correlation layer.	QRadar has the most simple to setup HA configuration ever. This allows sync of two Appliances in true HA style.
Multi-Tenancy	ArcSight has always been the SIEM product of choice for MSSP vendors. The main reason being the ability of the product to delineate events based on customers so that monitoring can be efficiently  performed in a MSSP environment. It maps IP addresses to customer names and network zones to avoid overlap.	QRadar did not have the feature until recently (I think v7.2 and above) and was one of the reasons it had very poor Multi-Tenancy support. However, the new feature with “Domain” based categorization provides ability to support MSSP environments. Maturity is yet to be achieved but it’s a step in the right direction.
Out-of-the-box use cases	ArcSight’s out-of-the-box use cases are very light compared to and only include limited Multi-Device/Event correlation use cases.	QRadar comes with a comprehensive set of basic out-of-the-box use cases for various threat types  such as malware, recon, dos, authentication and access control, etc. Also, several of these use cases are Multi-Device/Event types.
Customizable dashboards and reports	ArcSight reporting system includes over 350 standard report templates that address common compliance and risk requirements. The report design system is similar to what you would find in a BI solution, though not as complex. Support for charts and graphs is available, and templates can be customized through Velocity. Reports can be scheduled and distributed automatically by e-mail.	QRadar provides over 2000 report templates relevant to specific roles, devices, compliance regulations and vertical industries. Only basic report customization is available. However, if advanced report customization is required, QRadar reporting seems limited. However, majority of the customers using QRadar are happy with the out-of-the box reports.
Case management	ArcSight has a built-in case management system that allows the association of events to cases, limited workflow, and the ability to launch investigation tools (anything that can run from a command-line) directly from the console. Cases can contain analyst notes and customizable fields.	QRadar  provides a rudimentary case management capability through its Offense Management. Offense Management provides basic features such as open, close, assign, and add notes. Additional events cannot be added to Offenses. This is in stark contrast to ArcSight which has full blown case management system built in.
User portal	ArcSight requires a java client to provide most of its functionality, but also provides a web interface primarily for business users.	Provides all functionalities for security event monitoring and threat content development through web based GUI
User licenses	Individual console licenses should be purchased for each user to perform investigation/monitoring	Additional user licenses are not required to be purchased
Pricing	Pricing is based on number of log sources and total log size per day	Pricing is based on EPS. Linear incremental cost for scaling the solution is based on tier based EPS licensing.

Pattern Discovery	ArcSight has something called a Threat Detector tool. It basically runs a set of search queries on real time data and provides patterns detected. If interesting monitoring patterns are detected, they can quickly be converted to Use Cases. This is basically useful if you want to create new use cases and you don’t know where to start	QRadar does not have anything similar to Pattern discovery.
Compliance	ArcSight has compliance packages that can be purchased to aid in providing compliance specific alerting, reporting etc. However, these are priced separately.	QRadar has more than 2000 reports grouped based on Compliance requirement which should mostly satisfy compliance needs

LOCKY WITH A NEW ANTI-VM TRICK

Locky developers have used the break in activity to develop some new features for their ransomware. Locky e-mails came back in full force on 21 June, 2016 and now contain virtual machine (VM) and analysis tool countermeasures.

One of the new tricks involves new encryption of the payload that is downloaded by their Javascript downloaders. This prevents analysis tools from analysing the executable from the network traffic. Once decrypted, Locky now also requires a command line parameter in order to run correctly. This second technique prevents sandbox environments from knowing how to run the executable.

But one of the more interesting techniques exploits a tiny discrepancy between a VM and a real machine.

DETECTION OF VIRTUALISATION

When Locky returned on June 21, we saw that it is now using a new mechanism to detect the presence of a VM. We have not quite seen this specific method previously, although the conceptual basis is not a new one.The malware will calculate how long it takes to perform two Windows API calls, GetProcessHeap() and CloseHandle(). It will then compare the ratio of how long it took to execute the first API versus the second API. This is then compared to a known ratio of at least 1:10 that is more likely to indicate a real machine rather than a VM. On a real system, CloseHandle() should be at least 10 times quicker on average to execute when compared with GetProcessHeap(). However, due to how VM products may virtualise the Thread Environment Block (if they are not using hardware acceleration features) GetProcessHeap() may take a lot longer to execute as compared to a real machine.The APIs have been carefully chosen by the developer of the code, who clearly has a very good understanding of fundamental VM behaviour. The mechanism is not perfect however, and may both fail to detect a VM and also result in some false positives on real machines. This is somewhat mitigated by making 10 attempts to pass the ratio threshold. The Locky developers may be aware of this and willing to lose a certain percentage of real victims in order to extend their possible window in which their malware will remain undetected.