Управление событиями безопасности: современные решения и стандартизация данных.

Security event management (SEM), and the related SIM and SIEM, are computer security disciplines that use data inspection tools to centralize the storage and interpretation of logs or events generated by other software running on a network.

Although centralised logging has existed for long time, SEMs are a relatively new idea, pioneered in 1999 by a small company called E Security, and are still evolving rapidly. The key feature of a Security Event Management tool is the ability to analyse the collected logs to highlight events or behaviors of interest, for example an Administrator or Super User logon, outside of normal business hours. This may include attaching contextual information, such as host information (value, owner, location, etc. ), identity information (user info related to accounts referenced in the event like first/last name, workforce ID, manager's name, etc. ), and so forth. This contextual information can be leveraged to provide better correlation and reporting capabilities and is often referred to as Meta data. Products may also integrate with external remediation, ticketing, and workflow tools to assist with the process of incident resolution. The better SEMs will provide a flexible, extensible set of integration capabilities to ensure that the SEM will work with most customer environments.

SEMs are often sold to help satisfy U. S. regulatory requirements such as those of Sarbanes–Oxley, PCI DSS, GLBA.

One of the major problems in the SEM space is the difficulty in consistently analyzing event data. Every vendor, and indeed in many cases different products by one vendor, uses a different proprietary event data format and delivery method. Even in cases where a "standard" is used for some part of the chain, like Syslog, the standards don't typically contain enough guidance to assist developers in how to generate events, administrators in how to gather them correctly and reliably, and consumers to analyze them effectively. As an attempt to combat this problem, a couple of parallel standardization efforts are underway. First, The Open Group is updating their circa 1997 XDAS standard, which never made it past draft status. This new effort, dubbed XDAS v2, will attempt to formalize an event format including which data should be included in events and how it should be expressed. The XDAS v2 standard will not include event delivery standards but other standards in development by the Distributed Management Task Force may provide a wrapper. In addition, MITRE developed efforts to unify event reporting with the Common Event Expression (CEE) which was somewhat broader in scope as it attempted to define an event structure as well as delivery methods. The project, however, ran out of funding in 2014.