BitLocker Drive Encryption is much more reliable. We used McAfee drive encryption prior to moving to BitLocker Drive Encryption. While McAfee was useful, it's required pre-boot environment always fell out of sync with AD passwords, causing users difficulty to sign into their …
BitLocker Drive Encryption solution offering is cheaper than the one that McAfee offers, it will help you with specific business concerns like "how many encrypted assets do I have?" it's easy to maintain, easy to deploy, and easy to track. It's best suited for companies that …
This was formerly called Symantec PGP encryption. We selected BitLocker since this is what the University has deployed and is currently supporting. BitLocker has many advantages over Symantec PGP, as BitLocker is built-into all Windows computers. With PGP, this was a …
Most other whole drive encryption tools are really not that easy to manage and come with big performance when compared to Bitlocker. Also, a lot of them don't use TPM which in my opinion gives you better protection.
As for Truecrypt which was what we were using before, it is not …
There is not much alternative to Bitlocker, you may want to try self-encrypted disk, but for a business perspective, it is not as easy as Bitlocker to manage. Self-encrypted may be faster, but recovering data for a system administrator is a disaster.
Cisco is very complicated to use in my opinion and this leads to some operational doubts when you have to manage sensitive and critical operations. with Kaspersky there's more trust perception and a feeling that everything is going the right way and as expected. Cisco AMP can't …
Other cybersecurity products we've tested only detect a few malware. They are not cost-effective as they have separate licenses for other features. Other vendors no longer support the old version of the OS. This is very important to us as we still have legacy OS in place. To …
Offers equal or greater protection against current threats, stays updated. Its license is cheaper than the competition (i.e. EPDR) and financiers really like this.
Kaspersky Endpoint Security has less impact on computer memory and processing. On the other hand, I think the solution is much more advanced and more powerful overall. Both solutions have a central management console, but Kaspersky's solution has better usability and provides …
In terms of management, it it much more difficult to cloud manage Kaspersky versus Webroot. Also, as stated before, much easier to make exceptions to virus definitions and scanning.
one of the best antivirus software I have used with a much friendly interface and is easy to manage as compared to other security products. As an admin, We have managed many security tasks in an organization. It does come in handy for such tasks without any hassle.
Kaspersky was chosen over other competitors for it's benefits. As Kaspersky is a fully fledge solution for encryption, patch management, OS deployment, Device control, web control, application whitelisting and endpoint protection.
There are lots of reasons for choosing this endpoint security system. It is a very efficient tool in terms of
identifying viruses. The biggest benefit is that it always keeps me away from
opening harmful or suspicious sites. This is the most affordable security product.
I've used the cloud version of CarbonBlack and Bitdefender. They both say they automatically scan files as soon as they appear on your computer. The user/administrator is left to trust that the technology works. With Bitdefender, it at least allows an on-demand scan, but it …
Kaspersky Endpoint Security was chosen because it has very high reliability and an easy to use graphical interface. It also has excellent technical support, and in evaluations, it met all the technical requirements that the management needed. The software protects against the …
The Central Security Center for the Symantec Endpoint Protection product that was previously being used was horrible and the client programs were a huge drain on system resources. The workstation resources were overloaded when this program was running and rendered the …
Kaspersky is a leader in endpoint protection, but its ties to potential adversaries are unsettling. Kaspersky has a great threat research team and quickly identifies malicious software and its signature. Its web-based protection is also top notch. This is a great product but as …
It is one of the best anti-virus products that I have used. Much more friendly user interface. It is way easier to implement and install. It is also way easier to manage through the MMC. The console is Microsoft like and very intuitive to any system admin who has run consoles …
Kaspersky adds another layered approach to defense that continues to protect and provide ongoing operations. The suite of products within the solution continue to provide solid proactive threat detection and prevention actions, centralized enterprise controls make management …
System Center is more robust than Kaspersky Security Center. They both offer a single pane of glass for remote management of Endpoints (at the Advanced level for Kaspersky). Kaspersky does an excellent job of providing 3rd party applications in packages that can be downloaded …
I tried both Avast and Avira and the annoying pop ups to upgrade and being locked behind a paywall made buying Kaspersky a no brainer, especially when I have seen it first hand protect our data. The interface for all 3 was lacking in some sort of way but the Kaspersky UI was …
I used Norton for almost 10 years, always reliable and never had a big problem with the features or offerings. Kaspersky won me over with its speed, mobility and much more reliable nature. Norton had a nasty habit of uninstalling programs it didn't want, even though they were …
Kaspersky Endpoint Security often comes up on top of other competitor products for a variety of reasons. These include overall speed, easy to user interface, lower costs for implementation, and easy to manage features. It has a great security research department to deal with …
We looked at other solutions and chose Kaspersky over the other software out there as the price point on a multiyear contract was aggressive and the software running on the computers as the agent was thin and didn't use up much system resources. We also like that Kasperksy has …
It can be used if you are already familiar with other Microsoft System Center tools, it will provide integration and it will be easy to use from an Administrator's perspective. However, if you want more detailed information related to the troubleshooting, specific fields, or data, it will not be that granular.
Anytime you are managing multiple servers and workstations on a network, having a good Security Center to assist with that management is critical. Kaspersky Security Center provides that and gives the administrator the tools and reports necessary to properly manage and monitor these systems across a network. This is a VERY useful tool and it makes my job much easier.
It is fairly easy to use, from both a technician and users point of view. The install itself is pretty simple, and setup of the software is also fairly simple. For users, it is easy to use the software to encrypt the computer.
It doesn't seem to use a whole lot of system resources when the encryption is enabled on the computer. You shouldn't experience any slowness of the computer, other than the time it takes to first encrypt the computer.
It serves its main purpose very well, and that is to protect computers from intrusions/data breaches. It is particularly good for protecting computers that are accessing/storing sensitive/confidential data.
Even if it's the best we tested, I think write performance could be improved. Maybe with dedicated hardware inside the TPM?
No integration with OS password is a shame as most others have it and it is Microsoft on Microsoft so they can probably do it better then anyone else and safer.
I wish they would support multiple passwords like FileVault on macOS. If it's a shared computer, you have to give the only password to Bitlocker to both users.
The product is stable and accurate in detecting security threats. There are very few or no false positives in detecting security threats or unusual behavior and has very sharp heuristics. The product does the job very well including saving us money in getting 3rd party patch management tools as the business is already using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager which is Microsoft product specific and the product patches these third party products e.g Adobe Flash Player
I will give Kaspersky a score of 9 out of 10 for scalability, as it allows businesses to easily expand their security infrastructure. This means it won't cost them a lot to add further protection and security. It won't also require them to purchase other hardware and services for their required protection.
I've used the on-premise server. I've only experienced one time that we couldn't open the console, and that was a server issue. It seems to be a dependable solution. It's there, and it's stable.
Users don't notice any slowdown with the antivirus running on their systems. There have been issues when the systems have missed a scheduled scan, and it was checked to run at [a] first available time, they will start a full scan at startup. This has caused some lag. Normally there are also some issues with the workstation, but it is something to note.
Not good nor bad, BitLocker encryption is a symptom of our era, we need to protect ourselves and our data, BitLocker is a tool, as an IT we have to deal with it but it doesn't bring any benefit to my daily operations.
I give the maximum grade because we have no complaints; we never had any failure, serious error, and serious threat to the company. All of its features work very well. The great advantage of having a product supported by an industry-leading security company is that regularly updated security protocols will protect the system against all emerging threats.
Make sure to provide awareness campaigns on changes that will be implemented and WHY the business is doing it and the benefits reaped. Benefits reaped is very important for the justification of why things have to change and emphasizing the importance of security. This will reduce user disgruntlement and total bitterness on use of their workstation or laptop
This was formerly called Symantec PGP encryption. We selected BitLocker since this is what the University has deployed and is currently supporting. BitLocker has many advantages over Symantec PGP, as BitLocker is built-into all Windows computers. With PGP, this was a commercial product that had to be installed on each machine. That product also was not as easy or intuitive to use as BitLocker, and there were also more issues/problems that occasionally occurred with PGP.
I've used the cloud version of CarbonBlack and Bitdefender. They both say they automatically scan files as soon as they appear on your computer. The user/administrator is left to trust that the technology works. With Bitdefender, it at least allows an on-demand scan, but it still never reports to the user if the file was clean. Kaspersky automatically scans and notifies the user that it has been scanned AND the results of the scan. In IT we know we can't always trust the technology to perform as designed. I NEED confirmation to feel at ease. Kaspersky makes it easy to run an on-demand scan of a workstation if there is suspicion of an infection. Another thing is that I have not [seen] in Bitdefender, and I know CarbonBlack does not provide inventory information for the administrators like Kasperky. Kaspersky gives detailed information about the systems it scan and lists every software installed. You can even filter and search for specific installations in your network through the Kaspersky Server Center (KSC). It helps know what licenses are used and where.
You can create groups and create different policies for each group. You can customize many parts of the software before it is deployed. You can create different tasks and schedules based on the groups. It is customizable.
Protects against data loss and theft, which can be very expensive if PII, SPI, PHI is involved. Fines for this type of loss can be very high, along with the costs of notification, and discovery.
Cost is included in Windows O/S, without needing additional licensing costs.