The metaphor “boiling the frog” is particularly apt in cybersecurity when discussing Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) migration. Just as a frog in gradually heated water fails to perceive the increasing danger until it’s too late, organizations that rush into SIEM migrations can find themselves overwhelmed by unforeseen complexities, potentially compromising their security posture.
The key to success lies in a careful, gradual approach—turning up the heat slowly, so to speak, to ensure that the process is controlled and manageable. As with any project, it’s wise to go into the “pot” with your eyes wide open and your head on a swivel. Luckily, some technologies have arrived on the market that can alleviate much of the past agonies we have felt. Regardless, the reality remains that no project gets done without a bit of discomfort along the way. This paper aims to outline what has been learned from past failures, understand the dynamics of the quickly evolving SIEM market, and help ease migration hurdles as you adopt more advanced SIEM platforms.
I led a SIEM migration project at a primary cloud provider with a budget that exceeded $800,000. The goal was ambitious: to transition from our existing on-premises SIEM system to a more scalable, cloud-based solution, leveraging advanced AI-driven analytics and real-time threat detection. But instead of gradually warming the water, we turned the burner on high and tossed the frog—our project—into the pot. The result was a cautionary tale.
The primary issue we encountered was with data normalization. Our legacy SIEM and the new cloud platform used different log formats and data structures, and as we attempted to migrate everything at once, we were met with significant discrepancies. These discrepancies led to inaccurate threat detection and reporting, undermining the very purpose of the Migration. The complexity quickly became overwhelming, and with no phased approach to test and validate each step, the project eventually stalled. When we realized the water was too hot, we exhausted substantial resources with little to show. This cautionary tale serves as a stark warning to others, preparing them for the challenges ahead.
This experience underscores the necessity of a phased approach to Migration. Failing to do so is like jumping into boiling water: by the time you feel the heat, it’s too late. A phased approach, on the other hand, provides reassurance and control, allowing you to adjust the heat before it becomes overwhelming.
The trend towards advanced or “next-gen” SIEM systems is undeniable. Gartner predicts the SIEM market will grow from $3.8 billion in 2021 to $6.2 billion by 2027, primarily driven by cloud-based solutions that offer scalability and cost-effectiveness. However, the migration process has its pitfalls. Just as heating the water too quickly can spell disaster for the frog, a rushed SIEM migration can leave significant security gaps.
For example, older systems kept operational during a rapid migration may not integrate well with new technologies, creating vulnerabilities. The complexity of managing hybrid environments—where legacy systems coexist with cloud-based solutions—can overwhelm IT teams and make it challenging to maintain a unified security strategy. These issues highlight the necessity of a gradual, controlled migration process, which should reassure you that a well-planned approach is the key to success.
It is important to note, however, that advanced SIEM solutions have heeded the warnings from past SIEM migrations, offering capabilities and services to mitigate concerns. Don’t let that trick you into thinking a migration will be easy. Simplified and simple are not the same thing, and an emphasis on due diligence and thorough planning is advised.
The SIEM market is rapidly evolving, with significant consolidation as major players acquire or merge with others. For instance, Cisco’s $28 billion acquisition of Splunk signals a shift towards more integrated solutions but raises concerns about vendor lock-in and reduced market competition. Similarly, the LogRhythm-Exabeam merger exemplifies how consolidation can limit buyer options and complicate integration with existing systems.
Because of those recent acquisitions, many users are only now aware that both Exabeam and Palo Alto Networks are forcing their newly acquired LogRhythm and QRadar customers to migrate to their newer platforms. While this may sound appealing and easy, is it the right choice for all their customers? The water gets hotter as those movements take place. Buyers must know that there are alternatives to look at that can help them migrate away from those potentially unwanted platform acquisitions.
These market dynamics are akin to incrementally turning up the heat. Organizations must navigate these changes carefully, ensuring that their SIEM migration plans account for the evolving landscape. Rushing into a new solution without fully understanding its implications is like cranking up the burner too fast—the frog, or in this case, the organization, risks being boiled alive.
Network visibility is a critical component of a successful SIEM migration. According to a report by Enterprise Management Associates, 74% of organizations cited network visibility as crucial to their cybersecurity strategy. This visibility allows IT teams to monitor real-time network traffic, detect anomalies early, and adjust the migration process as needed. Understanding and prioritizing network visibility is not just important, it’s a key to feeling secure during a successful migration.
Achieving comprehensive visibility in a hybrid or multi-cloud environment is challenging, but it is essential to prevent the slow boil of unforeseen security risks. Integrating AI and machine learning into SIEM platforms can help automate the detection of unusual patterns. With legacy SIEM applications, these advanced capabilities require significant resource investment. But thanks to innovations in the space, newer, more malleable, dynamic SIEM offerings can allow a buyer to gain advanced data ingestion, analytics, and usage capabilities.
Tight budgets are a reality for almost every enterprise but are particularly acute for educational institutions and small—to mid-sized enterprises. According to the Center for Digital Education, nearly 60% of academic institutions report budget constraints as a significant barrier to comprehensive cybersecurity. Like frogs in a pot with high walls, these organizations have limited escape options if the heat is too quickly.
Cloud-based SIEM solutions offer a scalable, cost-effective alternative to traditional on-premises systems for these institutions. However, even with these solutions, the migration must be handled carefully. A gradual, phased migration helps these organizations manage their limited resources effectively without compromising security. It is “possible” that an organization may have to pay for two similar but differing solutions in a phased migration approach, but that is an addressable transition cost. While a rip-and-replace method is ill-advised, there are ways to migrate SIEM data streams and ingestion capabilities while removing technical SIEM debt.
The benefits of next-generation SIEM systems are clear: enhanced security, better compliance, and greater operational efficiency. However, to avoid being “boiled alive” by a rushed migration, organizations must take a strategic, gradual approach. This means starting with a comprehensive needs assessment to ensure the chosen solution aligns with the organization’s long-term goals. Training and support are critical to ensuring the security team can fully leverage the new system’s capabilities.
Data security should be prioritized during migration, with robust measures such as encryption and secure access controls in place. Automation tools can help handle bulk data tasks, freeing up the security team to focus on more strategic initiatives. Finally, a phased migration approach allows for testing and validation at each stage, minimizing disruptions and ensuring a smooth transition.
When a smaller SIEM vendor is acquired by a major player in the cybersecurity market, organizations can face many challenges that may not be immediately apparent when they first sign their contracts. While the acquisition might initially seem like a positive development—promising more resources, broader integration, and potentially better support—the reality often becomes more complex and problematic.
One of the most significant issues is the impact on the contract itself. After an acquisition, the terms of service, support levels, and even pricing structures can change, often to the detriment of the customer. For example, a contract that was initially favorable due to the vendor’s smaller size and need to be competitive might become less so as the acquiring company imposes its own policies and pricing models. Additionally, the newly acquired company may be absorbed into the larger entity’s product suite, leading to the phasing out of standalone offerings or the forced integration into broader, often more expensive, platforms.
Another critical concern is the impact on innovation and capabilities. Smaller vendors are typically more agile and innovative, rapidly developing new features and responding quickly to customer needs. However, once acquired, these companies often face significant organizational changes that can stifle this agility. The focus may shift from innovation to integration with the parent company’s existing products, leading to a slowdown in new feature development and a potential mismatch with customer needs.
This phenomenon has been observed repeatedly in the cybersecurity industry. For instance, when larger firms like Cisco or IBM acquire smaller cybersecurity vendors, the pace of innovation and customer support often changes. A study by Forrester Research noted that after such acquisitions, customer satisfaction usually dips as support becomes less responsive and more standardized, lacking the tailored service that smaller vendors typically provide. Moreover, a 2020 survey by Gartner found that 50% of organizations that experienced a vendor acquisition reported a decline in service quality and an increase in costs within the first year post-acquisition .
Furthermore, these acquisitions can lead to disruptions in product roadmaps. The acquiring company may prioritize different features or discontinue certain products, leaving customers in a lurch. This can be particularly problematic for organizations that rely on specific capabilities offered by the smaller vendor, which may no longer be supported or be phased out entirely.
In summary, while acquisitions can bring some benefits, they often lead to significant changes that affect the totality of the customer experience, from contract terms to innovation and support. Organizations must be cautious when their SIEM vendor is acquired, as the “boil” of these gradual changes can ultimately lead to a less favorable and more challenging situation.
This reality, combined with the recent flurry of M&A activity in the SIEM market, is forcing organizations and enterprises to reevaluate their existing SIEM solutions in light of these disruptions. This underscores the importance of approaching SIEM migrations with a clear understanding of the potential risks associated with vendor acquisitions. Just as a careful, gradual approach to Migration can prevent the sudden “boil” of overwhelming complexity, a strategic approach to vendor relationships can also help mitigate the risks of these market consolidations.
In the ever-evolving cybersecurity landscape, rushing an SIEM migration is akin to throwing a frog into boiling water. The best approach is to turn up the heat slowly, allowing the organization to adapt and manage the process without being overwhelmed by the complexities. By prioritizing visibility, understanding market dynamics, and approaching migration gradually, organizations can build a resilient security infrastructure that is prepared for the challenges of today and tomorrow.
Organizations can ensure their SIEM solutions enhance security rather than inadvertently introducing new risks by avoiding the pitfalls of rapid migration and focusing on gradual, measured progress. The lesson is clear: in cybersecurity, as in life, the best boil is a slow boil.
About the Author:
Dr. Chase Cunningham, Cybersecurity and Zero Trust Expert
Dr. Chase Cunningham is a leading cybersecurity expert and strategist, known for his work in advancing Zero Trust security frameworks and authoring several influential publications in the field. He has extensive experience in cyber defense, threat intelligence, and has served as a trusted advisor to both government and private sector organizations.
