Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on centralized logging as the foundation for visibility you can actually use when something goes wrong. Most security teams have experienced the frustrating version of logging, where data exists somewhere but not where you need it, not in a format you can search, and not for long enough to reconstruct what happened. Centralization is not about collecting everything just to feel covered; it is about building a dependable evidence system that supports detection, investigation, and accountability. When centralized logging is designed well, it reduces uncertainty during incidents because you can answer basic questions quickly, such as what started the activity, which identities were involved, and which systems were touched. When it is designed poorly, it becomes an expensive pile of events that nobody trusts, and it can even create a false sense of safety because teams assume logs exist until they discover they do not. We are going to walk through what to collect, why to collect it, how long to keep it, and how to make it defensible as evidence.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A practical way to begin is to define key log sources across identity, endpoints, network, and applications, because those four domains cover most of what you need for a coherent incident narrative. Identity logs capture authentication activity, account changes, privilege grants, and abnormal login patterns, which often reveal the first meaningful sign of compromise. Endpoint logs capture process activity, security tool events, and system changes that show execution, persistence, and defense evasion. Network logs capture traffic flows, boundary events, and unusual connections that reveal command and control, lateral movement, and data movement. Application logs capture business logic events, user actions, errors, and access patterns that reveal abuse, fraud, and data exposure that never appears as a network anomaly. When you can see these sources together, you can connect actions to identities, endpoints, and data, which is what investigations require. Without this cross-domain view, incidents become a guessing game where each team sees only its own slice of the story.

The key decision is not simply which sources exist, but what you collect from them based on threat scenarios and investigations you actually expect to run. That means you start with how attackers and failures manifest in your environment, not with vendor checklists that assume every organization looks the same. If your threat scenarios include credential theft and misuse, identity logs and privileged access events become non-negotiable. If your threat scenarios include ransomware and lateral movement, endpoint execution telemetry and network connection context become critical. If your threat scenarios include cloud service abuse, you need control-plane logs that show configuration changes and administrative actions, not just access logs. Investigations also have predictable questions, such as what happened first, what was accessed, what changed, and what else was touched, and your collection strategy should ensure those questions can be answered with evidence rather than assumptions. When collection is guided by scenarios, you avoid collecting low-value noise while missing the one event stream that would have made the timeline obvious.

Retention is the next decision, and it should be chosen deliberately to support both response needs and compliance obligations. From an incident response perspective, retention needs to cover the time window in which you might discover an intrusion, which is often longer than people initially assume. Many compromises are detected weeks after initial access, especially if the adversary is patient or uses low-noise techniques. From a compliance perspective, retention may be driven by regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, or industry expectations, and those drivers can vary by data type and system criticality. Retention also depends on how quickly your team can investigate, because short retention windows create pressure to triage and escalate faster, which may not be realistic during high workload periods. A practical approach is to ensure that high-value sources have longer retention, while lower-value sources can have shorter retention or be stored in lower-cost tiers. The point is not to pick a single number; it is to design retention that matches risk and operational reality.

When you practice choosing retention, it helps to think in terms of investigation phases rather than just days on a calendar. During the early phase of an incident, you need recent, high-resolution logs to establish the timeline and contain spread. During the deeper phase, you need enough historical context to identify initial access, lateral movement, and any recurring patterns that suggest persistence. During the lessons-learned phase, you may need longer-term trends to validate whether similar activity occurred previously and went unnoticed. Retention should also support post-incident verification, where you monitor for recurrence and confirm that remediation actions actually changed the environment’s behavior. If retention is too short, you lose the ability to confirm, which can lead to repeated incidents or lingering uncertainty. If retention is too long without cost controls, you can end up spending heavily on data that provides little incremental value. The sweet spot is not universal; it is engineered to your threat model, your compliance needs, and your capacity to investigate.

A common pitfall is collecting logs without normalization and search capability, which turns centralization into a storage project rather than a visibility capability. Normalization means that events from different sources are parsed into consistent fields so you can search and correlate effectively. Without normalization, analysts end up searching raw text across inconsistent formats, which is slow and error-prone, especially under incident pressure. Search capability means your platform can retrieve relevant events quickly, support common investigative pivots, and handle the volume without timing out or returning incomplete results. This is where Security Information and Event Management (S I E M) platforms often enter the picture, but the tool name matters less than whether the data is usable. If you cannot reliably search by user identity, host, time range, and key event types, your logging system will not support real investigations. Collecting without usability is not only wasteful; it actively damages trust because teams stop believing the logs can help them.

A quick win that keeps logging programs sane is to start with high-value sources and expand deliberately rather than trying to ingest everything at once. High-value sources are those that answer common investigative questions with strong signal, such as identity provider authentication events, critical endpoint telemetry, key network boundary events, and administrative actions in core platforms. Starting small allows you to prove value, tune parsing, and build analyst muscle memory for searching and correlating data. It also helps you establish governance around what gets onboarded, how it is validated, and how retention is set, so expansion does not turn into uncontrolled ingestion. Deliberate expansion means each new source has a purpose, an owner, and defined use cases that justify its cost. This approach also makes it easier to communicate to leadership, because you can show incremental risk reduction rather than asking for a large budget based on vague promises. Over time, the program grows in a controlled way that preserves performance and trust.

Scenario rehearsal is where logging gaps become painfully visible, and that pain is useful if you let it drive design rather than blame. Imagine an incident where you need to reconstruct a timeline across a workstation, a server, and a cloud service, but you discover that a critical log source was never collected. You might have endpoint alerts, but no detailed process telemetry to confirm what executed. You might have network alerts, but no flow logs to show which internal systems were contacted. You might have account compromise indicators, but no authentication logs to confirm when and how the account was used. At that moment, the incident becomes slower and more expensive, because the team must compensate with manual checks, interviews, and incomplete inferences. The lesson is not that you should collect everything; the lesson is that your collection plan must anticipate the questions you will need to answer under stress. Scenario rehearsal is a way to test those assumptions before an incident forces the test on you.

Centralized logs are also a target, so protecting them from tampering is part of the control design, not an optional extra. If an adversary can delete or alter logs, they can reduce detection and complicate response, and that is a direct risk to the organization. Protection starts with access controls that limit who can view, modify, and delete logs, with separation of duties so the same person cannot both generate sensitive activity and erase evidence of it. It also includes immutability mechanisms, which make logs append-only and resistant to deletion or modification, especially for high-value sources and critical time windows. Even without naming specific implementations, the principle is that you treat logs as evidence, and evidence must be preserved. Protecting logs also includes monitoring access to the logging platform itself, because unusual access patterns to logs can signal an attempt to cover tracks. A logging system that can be tampered with easily is a weak foundation for investigations and compliance.

Time synchronization is another quietly critical requirement, because events that cannot be aligned across systems create misleading timelines. If one system is minutes off, you can misinterpret causality, believing an action occurred before the event that triggered it. If multiple systems drift in different directions, correlation becomes unreliable, and investigators waste time reconciling clocks instead of pursuing leads. Good time sync practices ensure endpoints, servers, network devices, and cloud services align to a consistent time source so event ordering is trustworthy. Time sync also affects detection, because correlation rules often depend on time windows, and clock drift can cause real events to fall outside those windows. In incident response, time is the backbone of the narrative, and a broken time backbone makes every conclusion shakier. This is one of those controls that feels boring until the day you need it, and then it becomes priceless.

Cost is the practical constraint that forces tradeoffs, so balancing cost against value is part of responsible logging design. You can manage cost using sampling, where high-volume low-value events are collected at reduced rates while preserving full fidelity for high-risk event types. You can manage cost using tiered storage, where recent logs remain in fast storage for rapid search while older logs move to lower-cost storage that is slower but still accessible. You can also manage cost by filtering, but filtering must be done carefully because aggressive filtering can remove the exact event types you will later regret losing. The best approach is to treat cost controls as an engineering problem rather than a budget battle, because you can often preserve investigative value while reducing volume through smart choices. Cost discussions also become easier when you can articulate the purpose of each source and the risk of not having it. When cost and value are linked explicitly, logging becomes a strategic investment rather than an uncontrolled expense.

A helpful memory anchor for centralized logging is collect purposefully, retain wisely, protect always. Collect purposefully means every log source has a reason tied to threat scenarios and investigations, not just a desire to gather data. Retain wisely means retention is chosen to support response and compliance while respecting cost and operational constraints. Protect always means logs are treated as evidence, guarded against tampering, and supported by time synchronization that makes correlation reliable. This anchor matters because it keeps the program from drifting into two extremes, either collecting everything without usability or collecting too little and pretending it is enough. It also provides a simple way to explain the program to leadership and partner teams, because it frames logging as a measured capability rather than a technical hobby. When you use the anchor consistently, it becomes easier to make decisions about onboarding new sources and adjusting retention.

Documentation is the piece that often gets skipped, but it is what makes logging usable across teams and over time. Documenting sources means teams know what evidence exists, where it lives, how far back it goes, and what key fields are available for searching. Documentation also includes ownership, because if no one owns a source, parsing breaks, retention drifts, and data quality declines without anyone noticing. It is also valuable to document known limitations, such as gaps during maintenance windows or sources that are sampled, so investigators do not draw false conclusions from missing events. Documentation supports continuity when people leave and when tools change, because logging programs often span multiple platforms and years of evolution. It also supports audit readiness because you can show what evidence is collected, how it is protected, and how decisions about retention were made. In practice, good documentation saves time during incidents because it prevents the frantic question of whether a log exists at all.

For the mini-review, it is useful to name four log sources and one use for each, because that reinforces the purpose-driven approach. Identity logs can be used to detect suspicious authentications, such as impossible travel patterns or unexpected privilege use. Endpoint logs can be used to reconstruct execution chains, showing which processes ran and what they attempted to change. Network logs can be used to identify unusual outbound connections and lateral movement paths across internal systems. Application logs can be used to detect abuse of business functions, such as unauthorized data access or suspicious transaction patterns that bypass perimeter signals. When you can describe these sources and their uses, you are more likely to collect the right data and to build correlation that produces faster investigations. This is also the language that helps non-security stakeholders understand why logging matters, because each use case connects to concrete outcomes.

To conclude, enable one missing log source this week, and choose one that would materially improve your ability to investigate a realistic threat scenario in your environment. Treat it as a complete delivery, meaning you not only ingest the data but also validate parsing, confirm time alignment, set retention intentionally, and document what you now have. That small, focused improvement is how logging programs mature without collapsing under volume and complexity. Centralized logging is not a one-time project; it is a living evidence system that must evolve with your environment and your threat model. When you collect purposefully, retain wisely, and protect always, you create visibility that is dependable under stress. And when visibility is dependable, security decisions become faster, calmer, and more accurate, because you are working from evidence instead of assumptions.