Software Review Bitdefender GravityZone Endpont Security

[SeriousHoax]

Thank you for this. I am just starting a trial with it at work here. Not digging the console at all so far.

I remember you were using ESET Endpoint products at your work. Are you guys planning to move to a different solution now?

 

[Trooper]

I remember you were using ESET Endpoint products at your work. Are you guys planning to move to a different solution now?

Correct on both accounts. Sadly I do not have a lot of time to dedicate to proper testing. I am also open to alternative products. Crowdstrike was one until last Friday happened. Anything else that I should be looking at?

 

[SeriousHoax]

Correct on both accounts. Sadly I do not have a lot of time to dedicate to proper testing. I am also open to alternative products. Crowdstrike was one until last Friday happened. Anything else that I should be looking at?

I see. I'm really not the person to talk about Endpoint Products but I have tried a few on my personal PC.
Trend Micro had the most confusing console. I almost didn't understand anything.
Kaspersky's console I didn't like and was also buggy. You are from USA so it's out of the question anyway.
F-Secure I didn't like at all.
Bitdefender's console was easy to understand for me.
ESET was even easier.
Sophos was pretty good but had some performance impact on my system.
Checkpoint Harmony was good but resource usage wasn't ideal on my system but protection is very good.
On your work enviroment I don't know how much of an important factor performance impact is.
There is also Symantec.
Crowdstrike of course had good reputation till last Friday. They may bounce back from this incident. Only time will tell.
There is less popular semi-open-source Elastic Security which seems to do well in tests.
And of course there is Microsoft also.

 

[cartaphilus]

I remember you were using ESET Endpoint products at your work. Are you guys planning to move to a different solution now?

I am running Checkpoint Harmony and ESET endpoints on a small business environment for a close friend of mine. So take my experience with a grain of sand. We are testing both. He has only a 50 seat environment so 25 are on Checkpoint and 25 are on ESET.

Both UIs take about 30 min to get used to and then you arrive at about 75% competency. The extra time spent is just fine tuning to their specific environments and needs (once you get everything going). ESET I found both their endpoint admin UI and their client user performance to be a lot snappier than checkpoint.

Checkpoint takes some time between switching blades or applying settings. But than again you won't be doing that everyday.

Also checkpoint takes some time to pull up the attack chain in order to conduct root cause analysis. It's ok if you are dealing with a single infection type across one or two PCs.

It becomes tedious it you have dozens of infections and some of them being different. I can see the lag becoming an issue. But for a 50 seat environment it's quite manageable. I could not imagine using this for my work where we have few thousand users across many departments and with different rights. Nightmare.


As per detection. Well so far it's been all quiet on the western front.

From personal single user perspective on a gaming machine; checkpoint got few false positives recently (which was weird since it's been quiet for 1.5 years) and it missed 1 trojan downloader that ESET caught.

 

[Trooper]

Thanks for that. I did not care for the BDGZ console myself. I feel ESET's is far better and that is saying a lot lol.

I have had Sophos in the past but got rid of them due to performance issues on endpoints.
Never tried Checkpoint Harmony.

Will keep you posted. I did just request a demo with Sentinel One so we shall see.

 

[Trooper]

I am running Checkpoint Harmony and ESET endpoints on a small business environment for a close friend of mine. So take my experience with a grain of sand. We are testing both. He has only a 50 seat environment so 25 are on Checkpoint and 25 are on ESET.

Both UIs take about 30 min to get used to and then you arrive at about 75% competency. The extra time spent is just fine tuning to their specific environments and needs (once you get everything going). ESET I found both their endpoint admin UI and their client user performance to be a lot snappier than checkpoint.

Checkpoint takes some time between switching blades or applying settings. But than again you won't be doing that everyday.

Also checkpoint takes some time to pull up the attack chain in order to conduct root cause analysis. It's ok if you are dealing with a single infection type across one or two PCs.

It becomes tedious it you have dozens of infections and some of them being different. I can see the lag becoming an issue. But for a 50 seat environment it's quite manageable. I could not imagine using this for my work where we have few thousand users across many departments and with different rights. Nightmare.


As per detection. Well so far it's been all quiet on the western front.

From personal single user perspective on a gaming machine; checkpoint got few false positives recently (which was weird since it's been quiet for 1.5 years) and it missed 1 trojan downloader that ESET caught.

Thanks for sharing your experience here. Much appreciated.