Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cartaphilus" data-source="post: 1094602" data-attributes="member: 99742">I am running Checkpoint Harmony and ESET endpoints on a small business environment for a close friend of mine.&nbsp; So take my experience with a grain of sand.&nbsp; We are testing both.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The extra time spent is just fine tuning to their specific environments and needs (once you get everything going).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But than again you won&#039;t be doing that everyday. Also checkpoint takes some time to pull up the attack chain in order to conduct root cause analysis.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can see the lag becoming an issue.&nbsp;&nbsp; But for a 50 seat environment it&#039;s quite manageable.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could not imagine using this for my work where we have few thousand users across many departments and with different rights.&nbsp; Nightmare.As per detection.&nbsp; Well so far it&#039;s been all quiet on the&nbsp; western front.&nbsp; From personal single user perspective on a gaming machine; checkpoint got few false positives recently (which was weird since it&#039;s been quiet for 1.5 years) and it missed 1 trojan downloader that ESET caught.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cartaphilus, post: 1094602, member: 99742"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification