Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper
Detection runs forward; intelligence arrives late — Autonomous Threat Sweeper re-hunts your history automatically every time new indicators are published, and tells you when the compromise actually began.
Buy through TechBag
Same software. Better outcome — at a lower cost.
How it’s rated
Full scoreboard ↓Data residency & processing — two different questions
Where data can live
BYO-AWS or BYO-Snowflake
Your own account holds the data lake, in an India region if you choose. ~450 Securonix engineers sit in Bangalore and Pune.
The hard limit
No air gap, ever
The analytics control plane is always Securonix’s cloud. BYO changes where data rests, not who operates the platform.
These are two different obligations and they lead to different vendors. “Data must stay in India” — BYO-Snowflake in an India region can answer that. “Must be air-gapped” — nothing Securonix offers answers it; see LogRhythm SIEM or Elastic Security. Get your compliance team to state which one, in writing, before shortlisting.
Quick answer
The Securonix platform family
This page covers Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper — automated retro-hunting. The other pillars:
Quick facts
30-second orientation- Product
- Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper (ATS)
- Core function
- Re-hunts history as new intelligence lands
- Trigger
- New detection content from Securonix Threat Labs
- 2025 cadence
- 1,695 curated threat items — ~141/month
- Hunt window
- Typically 6–12 months, often longer
- Key output
- Initial compromise timestamp and progression
- Modes
- IoC and TTP — catches behaviour, not just indicators
- The dependency
- Only sweeps data you actually ingested
- Delivery
- Part of the platform, not a separate meter
- India relevance
- Dated timelines for CERT-In reporting
Understand retrospective hunting before you buy it
Most product pages skip this. We start here — so you buy a capability, not a buzzword.
What is it?
Automated retrospective threat hunting. When new intelligence is published, ATS re-searches your historical data for indicators you had no reason to look for at the time — and surfaces when the compromise actually began.
Manual hunting vs Autonomous Threat Sweeper — the honest table
What changes when new intelligence triggers a sweep of your history automatically.
| Dimension | Manual hunting | Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Someone remembers to hunt | New Threat Labs content, automatically |
| Modes | IOC look-ups | IOC and TTP sweeps |
| Look-back | Whatever is still hot | Retained history, often 6–12 months |
| Output | A search result | An incident with a first-seen timestamp |
| Reporting | Timeline rebuilt by hand | A dated start for the incident report |
| Cost | Analyst hours | Part of the platform |
| Honest caveat | — | Sweeps only what you ingested |
| Best fit | — | Long dwell-time fears, reporting duties |
A sweep can only reach telemetry you ingested and kept — protect those sources from cost-driven filtering.
The five pieces of the platform
Vendors love diagrams; buyers need to know what they’re actually operating. Here’s the whole platform, demystified.
Securonix Threat Labs
Research tracks emerging threats in public reporting, vets what’s worth investigating and turns it into detection content. ATS is only as good as this curation.
IoC and TTP mapping
Maps reported indicators and tactics, techniques and procedures onto the telemetry fields where they would appear, turning published intelligence into an executable hunt.
Automated sweep engine
When new detections deploy, ATS searches current and historical data for matches without an analyst starting it — unlike a feed you must act on.
Historical data window
Sweeps typically span six to twelve months or more on 365 days of hot data. Anything older than retention, or filtered before ingestion, is out of reach.
Compromise timeline
Matches surface initial compromise timestamps and threat progression — what incident response and regulatory reporting need: when, not just whether.
New intelligence in, your retained history re-searched, a dated incident out.
Twelve capabilities. Track, re-hunt, date it.
Autonomous Threat Sweeper takes new indicators and techniques from Securonix Threat Labs, re-searches your retained history, and tells you when a compromise actually began. Here is what is inside.
Curated threat tracking
Threat Labs vets emerging threats from public reporting into structured detection content.
Historical data access
Draws on the platform's 365 days of hot data as the substrate for retrospective search.
IoC field mapping
Translates published indicators onto the telemetry fields where they would actually appear.
Technique mapping
Converts observed tactics and techniques into hunt logic, not just atomic indicators.
Automatic retro-hunt
Re-searches history whenever new detection content deploys, with no analyst trigger.
New-threat coverage
Applies newly published intelligence to data collected before that intelligence existed.
Initial compromise dating
Surfaces when the intrusion actually began, not when it was noticed.
Threat progression
Reconstructs what followed initial compromise across the retained window.
Sustained coverage
Maintains a continuous intelligence rhythm rather than periodic manual hunts.
Retrospective finding
Raises findings against historical matches for investigation and response.
Impact assessment
Establishes which assets and accounts were implicated over the affected period.
Incident evidence
Provides the dated timeline that incident reporting and regulatory notification require.
Watch Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper in action
Hunting at scale, and the platform the sweeps run on.
Hunting the Unknown: AI-Powered Analytics
Why hunting the unknown needs history.
Threat Hunting at Scale: Turning Intelligence into Action
Turning published intelligence into a hunt.
Securonix Unified Defense SIEM Overview Demo
The platform ATS runs inside.
Want a live, India-context walkthrough for your environment?
Book a guided demo →Ask history the question you did not know to ask.
Here’s what genuinely sets Autonomous Threat Sweeper apart — and the retention it depends on.
Detection runs forward; intelligence arrives late
Threat knowledge always lags the attack: campaigns run for weeks or months before indicators are published, yet your logs recorded the activity. When a report lands, the real question is ‘were we already hit?’ Answering it means sweeping history with new knowledge — almost no platform automates that, and ATS does.
It attacks dwell time where dwell time actually lives
Long intrusions persist because nothing prompted anyone to look, not because telemetry was missing. ATS re-examines the past whenever the industry learns something new, so you find compromises sooner than through their consequences. Under CERT-In reporting expectations, a dated timeline makes a defensible report.
The manual alternative does not survive contact with a real SOC
Across 2025, ATS tracked and analysed 1,695 curated emerging-threat items — around 141 per month. Matching that by hand means monitoring reporting, writing queries for your schema and sweeping months of history every month, so the live queue always wins. Automation, plus Threat Labs vetting, changes the economics.
It answers 'when did this start', which is the expensive question
Knowing when a compromise began and what followed sets cost, disclosure and remediation scope. Without a dated timeline you assume the worst — rotating every credential and over-notifying. ATS surfaces initial compromise timestamps and progression on a match, bounding the investigation to reality rather than fear.
The honest caveat — it can only sweep what you kept
ATS can only search data you retained. Securonix meters on GB ingested per day, so filtered-out sources can never be swept — and a blind sweep looks identical to a clean one. Keep identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane data. It is also cloud-only, and it automates the sweep, not the investigation.
The honest positioning
ATS is Securonix’s most differentiated feature: automated, intelligence-triggered retrospective hunting that rivals expect you to start yourself. It matters most to likely targets of patient adversaries, such as financial services and critical infrastructure. It doesn’t replace real-time detection or analysts, and it is cloud-only.
The numbers behind the platform
What your Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper rollout looks like
Retention and coverage design
Plan ingestion with retrospective hunting in scope; filtering limits what ATS can sweep. Protect identity, endpoint and cloud logs.
Enablement and mapping
Enable ATS and check IoC and TTP mappings resolve onto your fields. A schema mismatch gives silent non-findings that look clean.
First sweeps and triage
Early sweeps surface historical, sometimes benign findings. Decide who triages them and how they rank against live alerts.
Continuous coverage
Make retrospective findings a standing workstream. Review retention annually and recheck any filtering added for cost.
The review scoreboard
Modelled on Gartner Peer Insights structure. *Counts and breakdowns are illustrative pending verified review collection.
Quick poll — what’s driving your evaluation?
Talk to an advisor“A sweep matched intelligence published in March to activity from the previous November, and dated the compromise for us.”
“This is the capability I could not replicate with headcount. We tried running retro-hunts manually for a year and managed it maybe twice a quarter.”
“The initial compromise timestamp scoped our remediation. Without it we would have rotated everything and rebuilt twice as much.”
“Valuable, but we learned the hard way that it only searches what you ingested. We had filtered out the exact log source that mattered.”
“Good for our CERT-In reporting. Having a dated timeline rather than an estimate changed the tone of the whole disclosure.”
“It surfaces candidates, it does not investigate them. We needed analyst capacity to act on what it found and had not planned for that.”
“Threat Labs curation is the underrated part. We are not drowning in every indicator ever published, just the ones worth chasing.”
“Most differentiated thing in the platform. Nothing else we evaluated automated the backwards hunt properly.”
Where everyone sits — the grids
Analyst firms bury this view behind paywalls, and review-site grids score satisfaction, not fit for your estate. So here’s TechBag’s synthesis of the SIEM market — tap any vendor to see why it sits where it does.
TechBag SIEM Grid
Execution strength vs product vision — the classic market map, minus the paywall.
Leader six consecutive times — the longest current run.
Capability × Flexibility
How much each SIEM does out of the box — retro-hunting included — vs how freely you can deploy it and control the bill.
Retention and behaviour solved; no air-gap answer.
Positions are TechBag’s illustrative synthesis of public review-platform data and vendor documentation — not a reproduction of any analyst graphic. Verify before relying on it.
Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper vs the field
Everyone here can hunt manually; Securonix’s edge is that ATS re-hunts automatically when new intelligence lands — and it can only sweep the history you kept.
| Dimension | Securonix | Exabeam | Splunk Enterprise Security | Microsoft Sentinel | Elastic Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | UEBA-led cloud SIEM on a Snowflake lake | The other UEBA-led vendor | The reference SIEM | SIEM for Microsoft estates | Search-engine-native SIEM |
| Pricing axis | GB/day, tiered bands + commitment | Monitored users + sources | Ingest or workload — historically costly | Per GB ingested per day | Subscription tier + resources |
| Hot retention included | 365 days searchable as standard | By agreement | Priced by volume and term | 90 days, then charged | Yours to configure |
| Behavioural analytics | The founding capability | The founding capability | Available, add-on heritage | UEBA included | Entity risk scoring |
| Self-hosted / air-gapped | None — control plane is always their cloud | LogRhythm SIEM, genuinely on-prem | Cloud, on-prem or hybrid | SaaS only, on Azure | Self-managed, even air-gapped |
| Data custody option | BYO-AWS / BYO-Snowflake — your lake, their analytics | Fully self-hosted available | Fully self-hosted available | Microsoft-operated | Fully self-managed |
| Analyst standing (SIEM MQ 2025) | Leader, six consecutive times | Long-running MQ presence | Leader | Leader | Visionary, not Leader |
| Retrospective hunting | ATS — automatic on new intelligence | Manual hunts | Manual hunts, strong search | Manual hunts | Manual hunts |
| AI in the SOC | Sam — priced on measured analyst work | Nova — seven named agents | Cisco AI Assistant | Security Copilot + MCP | Elastic AI Assistant |
| The thing to plan around | Three CEOs in two years; 120% default overage | Two platforms post-merger | Cisco integration reshaping roadmap | Azure portal retires 31 Mar 2027 | You operate it unless you buy Cloud |
| Best fit | Cloud-accepting estates wanting retention solved | On-prem mandates, or UEBA-led timelines | Engineers who will build with it | Microsoft-standardised estates | Air-gapped, or existing ELK |
Does Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper fit you?
Honest fit signals — because the fastest way to lose your trust is to pretend one product wins every scenario.
Choose Autonomous Threat Sweeper if…
- ✓You need to know whether a newly published threat already hit you
- ✓Incident reports need a dated start, not an estimate
- ✓You keep enough history — ideally a year hot — for sweeps to reach
- ✓You would rather sweeps run automatically than wait for analyst time
Choose Exabeam if…
- ✓You need genuine self-hosting (LogRhythm SIEM), or its GB/day tiers price your ingest lower on a like-for-like quote
Choose Splunk if…
- ✓You have engineers who will build with it and want the deepest content and largest talent pool
Choose Microsoft Sentinel if…
- ✓Your estate is Microsoft — first-party logs ingest free and SIEM shares the Defender queue
Choose Elastic Security if…
- ✓You need air-gapped deployment, which no Securonix configuration can provide
Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper is one of 36 SIEM & log management products TechBag carries. The SIEM & Log Management guide narrows them to a shortlist and shows the reasoning. →
How much of your volume belongs in the cheap tiers?
Securonix meters on GB per day, and the lever you actually control is Data Pipeline Manager: one entitlement flexes across three tiers — Analytics at 1.0×, Investigation at 0.5×, Basic at 0.25×. Route firewall noise, verbose DEBUG logging and duplicated sources to the cheaper tiers and your effective capacity rises substantially. Do this classification before you sign, not during onboarding — it is much harder to renegotiate a band downward later. Illustrative rates; Securonix is quote-only.
One warning that matters more than the saving: Autonomous Threat Sweeper can only re-hunt data you actually ingested. Every source you filter out to control this bill is a source no future sweep can reach — and a blind sweep looks exactly like a clean one. Protect identity, endpoint and cloud control-plane telemetry from cost-driven filtering. Illustrative only; Securonix is quote-only.
Three ways to consume it
ATS is part of the Unified Defense platform rather than a separate line, so there is no additional meter to negotiate. The cost conversation it does create is subtler and more important: ATS can only sweep telemetry you actually ingested, and Securonix bills on GB per day — so every source you filter to control the bill is a source no future sweep can reach. A sweep that finds nothing because the data was never collected looks exactly like a sweep that finds nothing because you are clean. Make filtering decisions with retro-hunting in scope. TechBag helps you decide what to protect, and quotes in INR with GST.
Part of the platform
Not a separate purchase
- Triggered automatically by new Threat Labs content
- Sweeps 6–12 months of history, often longer
- Surfaces the initial compromise timestamp
What makes it work
The dependency
- Retention you can actually re-interrogate
- A compromise older than your window is invisible
- Sweeps reach only the sources you chose to ingest
The tension to manage
Read this twice
- GB/day metering pushes you to filter telemetry
- Every filtered source is one ATS can never sweep
- A blind sweep and a clean sweep look identical
Buy it for less — TechBag pricing beats list
Whatever the list prices above, TechBag negotiates a significantly better deal — with GST-compliant INR invoicing and local support. Ask us for your discounted quote.
Get an India-ready quote
Tell us your requirements and current tools — we’ll model it against what you spend today.
The 8 questions to ask about retro-hunting
Take this into your next vendor call — including ours.
Which log sources have you filtered out, and would a sweep miss a campaign hiding in them?
Does your hot window cover a realistic dwell time for your threat model?
Is cloud acceptable, given ATS is only available within the SaaS platform?
Have IoC and TTP mappings been validated against your ACTUAL telemetry schema?
Who investigates a retrospective finding, and how is it prioritised against live alerts?
Do you have analyst time for findings, given ATS automates the sweep but not the investigation?
Can a dated compromise timeline feed your CERT-In notification process?
How will you stop ingestion cost-cutting from silently eroding sweep coverage?
Questions buyers ask
Ready to evaluate Securonix Autonomous Threat Sweeper?
Check your retention covers the dwell times that matter, protect the sources a sweep needs, or see how it fits the wider platform — in INR/GST.
Stats, ratings, review counts and pricing are illustrative and sourced from public materials; verify before purchase.