Monitoring Cloud Servers with QRadar

Posted on Updated on

Cloud computing is an inevitable upward trend. Companies are looking for all the benefits cloud computing, such as cost effectiveness and scalability, but they may be neglecting the need of event monitoring in a cloud environment.

Configuring a SIEM solution to collect events from servers in a cloud environment may be simpler than you think. Cloud servers are still servers, meaning that they produce logs and events as any in-house server. In this post we will be discussing few strategies and architectures to consider when planning a QRadar implementation with servers in the cloud.

The first scenario is when you have just few servers in the cloud (less than 15% of your environment, or less than 500EPS coming from the cloud). A easy approach for this scenario can be simply configuring your cloud servers to send logs to your existing in-house QRadar collector (Figure 1). This can be accomplished by using a VPN between your cloud environment and your datacentre, or by configuring your firewalls to allow your cloud servers to send logs directly to your in-house collector. The benefits in this case are the fact that is a very easy setup and there’s virtually no costs. The downside on this design is that if your server generate a high number of events, your firewall/VPN could be overloaded.

Figure 1: Cloud servers sending logs directly to internal SIEM collector
Figure 1: Cloud servers sending logs directly to internal SIEM collector

The second scenario is when you have a substantial amount of servers in the cloud (between 30%-40% of your environment, or less than 5000 EPS). In this case, if you try to send all your events directly through a firewall or VPN you may overload the border network devices of your environment. The recommended approach in this case would be implementing a virtual collector/processor in your cloud environment (Figure 2). The cloud servers would send logs to your virtual collector/processor, which will parse the data locally and compress it before sending to the in-house SIEM collector.  This architecture benefits from the fact that you will have an increased EPS capacity. Also, if your VPN dies or if the network is unstable you don’t lose events due to the fact the collector buffers the logs locally. In other hand, this architecture will have an extra cost (the additional collector) and, even with the traffic being compressed, it still may affect your firewall/VPN performance in case you’re monitoring a large quantity of servers.

Figure 2: Virtual collector in the cloud.
Figure 2: Virtual collector in the cloud.

The third scenario is when most of your servers are in the cloud. In this case, a good approach would be having QRadar collectors (or even your whole QRadar infrastructure) deployed on the cloud, as seen on Figure 3. In this way, your border network devices will not be overloaded by logs sent from cloud servers to your internal SIEM. A similar approach would be having “QRadar as service”, which is a service from IBM where all the SIEM infrastructure is taken care by the IBM team. The advantages of having SIEM as a service is that you don’t need to worry about the SIEM maintenance and there’s little to none setup effort. The disadvantages is that your data will be stored in the IBM cloud environment, which for some companies may not be adequate.

Figure 3: Cloud SIEM solution or QRadar as a Service Architecture.
Figure 3: Cloud SIEM solution or “QRadar as a Service” Architecture.

Those are the three most common approaches when monitoring cloud servers with a SIEM solution. It is important to remember that each case is a case, meaning that each company should analyse their current and future environment before designing a SIEM implementation. You may find that a combination of the presented approaches may suit best your needs. The most important thing is remembering that monitoring servers in the cloud is as important as monitoring in-house servers.

Proactively identifying performance issues with the HCF plugin

Posted on Updated on

In the last post, we talked about the Health Check Framework (HCF) and its benefits. Since I’ve been using the plugin for over a month I was able to collect useful performance information and identify some potential performance issues even before they occur. In this post, you will learn how to proactively monitor your system performance and prevent potential performance issues from happening.

First, you will need to install the Health Check Framework plugin. The installation process is quite straightforward: all you need is to go to your IBM app store on your QRadar environment, search for “Health Check Framework” and install it following the steps on the screen. With the plugin installed, you can start by browsing the plugin interface and extracting a report about your system performance. In this report, you will see a lot of details about your system, such as CPU Usage, Disk Usage, EPS, FPM, heavy reports, current users, etc.

Report generated by the Health Check Framework (HFC) – A holistic view of your environment, note the number of tabs on the report


In my case, we are planning to expand the scope of servers monitored by QRadar, so I wanted to understand if we would need any hardware upgrades. For testing purposes, I disabled the log collection of 30 Windows servers that were currently being monitored and I noticed that the RAM memory usage reduced by around 5% (see images below). Obviously, this number will vary according to the server usage, but this test gave me a rough estimation that for each 30 servers my RAM memory usage will increase around 5%. So with the help of the HCF plugin, I was able to identify hardware upgrades to accommodate the monitoring of new servers, avoiding system outages due to lack of resources during the scope expansion.

Before disabling Windows test servers – Memory used ~40GB


After disabling the Windows servers – Memory used: ~38GB


Even if you’re not planning to expand your scope, you can use historical performance data to proactively identify issues. For example, let’s say, your QRadar monitors a new e-commerce website. The number of logs you get depends on the traffic your website has. With the historical data, you will be able to identify a performance trend: as the e-commerce website becomes more popular, the EPS increases and the CPU/Memory usage also increases. With this data, you will be able to estimate at which point in time you will need a hardware upgrade, avoiding any unexpected system outages due to lack of resources.

Another very interesting data that I found in this report was the “Event Average Payload Size”, which as the name says, tells you the average size of logs received. This can be very useful to identify hard drive requirements when expanding your EPS.

Using the same plugin I was also able to identify heavy reports and rules that were severely impacting the performance of my QRadar environment. After reviewing and fixing the queries of the reports and rules, it was noticed a considerable reduction in the CPU usage.

Chart extracted from the HCF report – Identifying heavy rules


Monitoring the performance of your system puts you in a proactive posture in relation to your environment. Being proactive means that you will not be firefighting issues as before, but instead, monitoring and planning upgrades ahead to avoid issues even before they happen.

QRadar and Big Data

Posted on

Today I was reading about the new QRadar integration with the IBM BigData solution. Instead of writing down here, I decided to share with you guys a very nice video that summarize the benefits of this integration.


(Part 1) QRadar Basics and Big Data


(Part 2) QRadar BigData Extension:


I hope you guys enjoy the videos. You can also check more from the author in his youtube channel.

Centralized vs. Distributed collecting

Posted on

One of the main questions when designing the architecture of a QRadar environment is using a centralized (with or without clustering) or a distributed deployment. It means, should we create a cluster of QRadar in a specific network or should we distribute our collectors across the networks? As usual, the answer is: Depends.

The following pictures summarize the benefits and cons of the both cases.

Centralized Deployment

In the Centralized scenario, all the servers and collectors are in the same network. It makes the deployment and management way easier since we have just one point of maintenance and one point to “care about”, and it is very important especially when we have a geographically spread environment. But having all the SIEM solution in one network means that all the environment will need to connect to the cluster. In other words, the firewalls will allow traffic between the QRadar cluster and any server. Considering that some collection methods involves windows authentications, it means that if someone get access to the QRadar cluster network, the person will have access to any device on the network.  Another bad point of this kind of deployment is the network failure tolerance. Lets say that the router in the border of the QRadar network goes down, all the log collection will be lost.


Distributed Deployment


The distributed collection usually takes more time (and money) to implement and requires more time/resources to maintain, since the appliances will be distributed physically and logically. But the advantages are clear. With a distributed deployment the main QRadar console will have access only to its’ collectors, and nothing more. It means that if someone get access to the main SIEM network, the person will be able only to send packets to very specific IPs (collectors), and since the QRadar collectors are completely hardened, the security risk involved on this deployment is very low. Another benefit of the distributed deployment is the network failure tolerance. Considering the same case of a broken router in the QRadar console network, in this case the collectors will not have connection with the main console and will buffer the logs. After the network connectivity being restored, the logs will be synchronized with the main console.

As you guys noticed, the Distributed deployment can bring some good advantages compared with the Centralized one. But each company is a different case. Is up to you as an architect decide which deployment will fit your client need.

Do you have any suggestion or comment? Drop us a line in the comments!