CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

For our use cases, we are using it to collect IOCs, and we also are using EDR, with injection integrated with our SIM solution to create some use cases.

What I find beneficial about CrowdStrike Falcon is that it performs effectively. We are focusing only on EDR and creating use cases regarding user processes or endpoints, particularly user behavior analytics.

The CrowdStrike Falcon has enhanced our cybersecurity posture in our organization by providing full visibility for each endpoint.

The real-time analytics aspect of CrowdStrike performs well because we get all logs in real-time, with no delay, allowing us to take action immediately.

The integration capabilities of CrowdStrike are excellent; we can integrate it with many SIM solutions and SOAR, and we have already integrated with different platforms. While integrating it with other platforms, I do not remember facing any issues, as we have a very good team for custom connectors, and the integration is smooth without any challenges.

We do not leverage AI within the CrowdStrike Falcon, as we are using different products LLM, and I am unsure if CrowdStrike has the capability to integrate it with local LLM or if I need to use commercial LLM such as OpenAI.

I am currently investigating SOAR in CrowdStrike because I have seen some articles about it, but I am uncertain if it is operational now or still in development.

I do not have any specific features I would want to see included in CrowdStrike.

I have been working with the CrowdStrike Falcon for almost three years.

I find CrowdStrike to be stable; there are no issues, although there was one instance when we had an outage for updating the Falcon Agent, but since then, it has been stable without any issues.

In terms of scalability, I find CrowdStrike to be stable, and I have not encountered any limitations with it. CrowdStrike covers around 2,800 endpoints for us.

Regarding maintenance, the service is excellent; if we face any issues, we open a ticket with the CrowdStrike support team.

I would evaluate CrowdStrike tech support as excellent because they have a very fast response.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the technical support as a 10 because they resolve many issues for us.

Before CrowdStrike, I worked with other solutions for EDR and XDR, specifically Trend Micro and Microsoft Defender's Endpoint, as we are working in MSSP.

The main differences between CrowdStrike and Trend Micro or Microsoft solutions are that CrowdStrike gives me more visibility, while with Defender, I have to run queries which are not easy to use. Even network telemetry for CrowdStrike is very simple and easy to read, allowing for faster understanding compared to Defender where creating rules requires more tuning. Regarding disadvantages of CrowdStrike in comparison to Defender or Trend Micro, I do not see any.

I was not involved in the implementation part of CrowdStrike in my environment because I arrived after it was already installed, so I did not start from scratch.

Currently, I do not see any tangible benefits from CrowdStrike regarding incident improvement time, response time, or cost saving.

Based on my experience, I would recommend CrowdStrike to others because it is user-friendly and easy to manage, unlike other solutions that require experienced personnel; CrowdStrike's documentation is also very clear.

I would recommend it to other users because it is a perfect product.

It is an easy solution that anyone can manage, providing many benefits for endpoint visibility and allowing for the creation of many custom use cases without the need for much fine-tuning to get true positive alerts.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon as a product and solution as an eight.

I am using it for endpoint protection.

The features I appreciate the most are numerous; the overall product is very good, actually.

This is an advanced tool in terms of AI which is implemented and integrated. CrowdStrike Falcon has a ransom detection time of less than 50 seconds. Detection and taking down violations and breaches takes a minimum time of 59 seconds. Intelligence is very good, as AI is integrated with this solution. The integration capabilities in CrowdStrike Falcon are very good.

If tomorrow is the next release of the product, new features would be helpful, but at the moment, the product is very good. Nothing specific comes to mind about what new features they can add.

For further improvements, I can only think of one example because this is very important for us; they could reduce the price. Then it would deserve a rating of seven.

We have been using it for three to four years and have not encountered any issues.

Regarding challenges or problems with the product, I haven't noticed any current drawbacks. The challenge occurred last year in July when there was some patch update failure, which caused many issues. However, we have overcome that situation.

The stability is good.

We have been using it for three to four years and have not encountered any issues. More experience with this product might come with increased usage.

The technical support from CrowdStrike Falcon is good.

I would rate the support an eight.

Positive

The installation and deployment are straightforward. It is very good and can be integrated with the management engine.

The Return On Investment saves around 30%.

The licensing cost and setup costs are affordable.

I am a computer engineer by profession.

The maintenance is automatic.

I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon as nine overall.

We are using it for endpoint protection, as well as for cloud security coverage. It includes monitoring all our critical servers and endpoint devices. We also design workflows for anomaly behavior detection using machine learning techniques for anything malicious or abnormal. We monitor everything suspicious. We either design the workflows or use CrowdStrike to monitor any new detections and anomaly behaviors, as well as do vulnerability management.

The best benefit of CrowdStrike Falcon is 99% MITRE coverage. It detects suspicious or undetected activities on the system and provides protection for zero-day vulnerabilities. If there is a sudden rise in CPU consumption or abnormal storage use, it helps us by creating a ticket, allowing us to investigate any abnormal behavior present. We can look into the machine and investigate. It reduces the false negatives common with other technologies.

The real-time response helps with MTTR. We achieve faster detection and response times.

It helped prevent breaches. In the past, there was abnormal consumption of RAM along with CPU on a server. It also started communicating with other subnets. CrowdStrike Falcon triggered an alert. We did our investigation and found that we had ransomware. We successfully mitigated it.

The machine learning behavior for anomaly detection is a valuable feature. It helps identify any suspicious or unusual activities within the system.

Furthermore, it has impressive MITRE coverage. 

Deployment in cloud environments is challenging. Another concern is CrowdStrike's GUI. It changes annually, making it hard to work and find options. After a year, options change or integrate with something else, which is challenging for me as it requires relearning. It is time-consuming.

I started working on CrowdStrike in 2018. 

We are following N-1 versions across our environment, which is stable. Due to our requirements, we never switch to the N version; we always stick to N-1 and never face anything abnormal while using it.

It has proven to be a good technology for me. It has adequate coverage and is easy to deploy. Its scalability is good.

It is deployed across the globe.

I would rate them a seven out of ten. They take a lot of time to come back to us.

Neutral

I have used SentinelOne as well. SentinelOne was similar but had major challenges with workflow implementation. Workflow implementation is far easier in CrowdStrike compared to SentinelOne.

We have it in the on-premises environment and cloud environments. For endpoint hosts, it is very easy, but in the cloud environment, there are challenges, especially if we have AWS technologies with Lambda functions, which are serverless.

My implementation strategy was simple. I segregated servers based on criticality, then network, and finally OS level. Anything critical was based on my CMDB asset configuration. Following criticality was the network, determining internal versus public-facing. The last segmentation was on OS configuration. These three categorizations were primarily used in deploying agents across our environment.

In terms of maintenance, there are patches or version upgrades. 

We had a group of five people, which was enough to manage this.

It is worth the money.

It is expensive compared to SentinelOne, but as the market leader, it is worth it.

I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon an eight out of ten. They have some challenges with the cloud environment, which is a major drawback, especially with the serverless aspect. Their GUI also causes issues with regular changes.

If anyone has worked with CrowdStrike, they would promote it. However, cloud security presents challenges. Moving from physical to cloud environments is difficult. I have raised 7-8 tickets to resolve cloud issues, especially with AWS.

I am currently using CrowdStrike Falcon as an EDR, which is integrated with SIEM. We also work in a real-time environment with the product. As a Falconist, I perform investigation actions on it. There are three different kinds of alerts I deal with: one based purely on IOCs, another process-oriented IOA, and those based on machine learning alerts. This is what I work on, and it is actually a good tool. It has multiple features, including real-time connection to the RTR environment, allowing direct remote host connection through CrowdStrike. I have multiple options like host search and event search, enabling me to do everything I need. It's a comprehensive package. It's a challenging tool to explore, but once accustomed to it, it is quite excellent.

Obviously, when checking in the SIEM, not all logs are available. In CrowdStrike, unlike SIEM, actions are clearly defined. For example, a regular AV like Symantec might indicate a file was quarantined or failed to quarantine, but in CrowdStrike, I can verify the action. As an incident response analyst, I can use CrowdStrike to perform actions like directly wiping a file from a host if given access. I can investigate by accessing the customer's host based on the RTR environment and utilize host search to know details for the past seven days, including logins, processes, file installations, malicious processes, and network connections. Event search also allows for detailed investigations, showing accessed files and remote installations.

In CrowdStrike, with the variety of security tools available, learning the different query languages can be challenging. I use KQL queries with Sentinel and AQL with QRadar, and CrowdStrike's query language is different as well. This requires constant learning for security analysts. Simplifying the querying process, such as using double quote queries or directly obtaining logs based on IP addresses or usernames, would be beneficial. The event search tab in CrowdStrike is complex, though the host search is more straightforward and gets details from the past week. The querying system, similar to Splunk, could be made more user-friendly.

I have been using it for the past two years.

The stability is always great. I have never seen instability in the CrowdStrike tool.

When it comes to scalability, it is entirely based on premium models according to demand. Our log retention is low, but paying more increases it. Scalability is moderate, based on the charges paid to the CrowdStrike product service team. Offering good services, like better log retention at a lower price, would be excellent.

The CrowdStrike team is very efficient; I would rate them ten out of ten. They respond quickly when it comes to providing services.

Positive

I have worked on Symantec ATP, advanced threat protection, but it is a legacy product. Many companies have moved away from Symantec, and they use legacy antivirus solutions. The integration with Symantec ATP was tough, and event or host searches were based entirely on raw logs.

The current setup is easy, but it could be more natural and make drill-down searches simpler. With advancements in AI, integration could streamline responses further, but there is still room for making the process easier.

The integration task should be done by engineers. I'm interested in the process and have learned something about integration, but we have not fully explored all integration aspects.

CrowdStrike is a great solution. It's a hands-on tool. I have not seen other EDRs like it. Compared to Carbon Black, which is much more difficult with a different UI, CrowdStrike allows direct, detailed investigation with a PID generated for each process. It offers unique abilities not seen in other EDRs. Overall product rating: nine out of ten.

Our organization still uses Infoblox, and my role is a little bit different now. I am conducting the POC of new solutions, which we have to deploy in our infrastructure. I evaluate the new products, and then if we purchase them, we deploy them.

EDR is effective in CrowdStrike. Real-time response (RTR) is a feature of EDR. CrowdStrike provides a lot of visibility in their tool. CrowdStrike is from the EDR point of view. It is a good tool, and we have rolled it out in our infrastructure.

The KDR solution is immature. They do not have much preemption in ITDR. Threat prevention should be their first priority, and false positive reductions are needed. They should improve their support as well. Response resolution time is too high.

I have a little bit of experience with Infoblox. I do not have too much experience with it. Recently, we deployed CrowdStrike, media, and SVR. We purchased CrowdStrike around one and a half years ago, and now we have completely rolled it out in our infrastructure.

Response resolution time is too high.

Neutral

Implementation was comprehensive. It took around seven to eight months.

Overall, seven to eight people from different teams were involved.

SentinelOne and Palo Alto were looked into.

Support is an area that needs attention. Overall, EDR is fine. ITDR is not mature, and other tools are also not mature. If we talk about SIEM and cloud security, those are also not mature. I would rate it five out of ten.

We provide a service for our clients with CrowdStrike Falcon. Alerts come into the CrowdStrike Falcon dashboard, and we investigate them based on the process tree and commands running. We check everything for any infections in the host or internal connections. If a threat is confirmed, we place it into the containment section inside Falcon. 

CrowdStrike improves our detection capabilities. We use multiple tools like Symantec and this one. CrowdStrike reports on the processes and services, allowing us to investigate forensically. We can conduct a deep analysis and identify the threat at the memory level. We can do more investigation of the process to see where it started and where it is going. We can see the commands running on the backend, CPU utilization, and memory consumption. All of that information is helpful. 

CrowdStrike displays a threat score when it detects an infection. This is helpful because not all detections are the same. It will classify them as ransomware, malware, phishing, etc. This feature helps us prioritize and cross-check with other EDR tools. 

It's integrated with multiple threat intelligence sources, such as the AbuseIPDB. That integration helps because we can easily cross-check between CrowdStrike and other solutions like an MDR or Azure AD. Hybrid analysis is integrated with CrowdStrike in our environment. There's also sandbox analysis. It's more informative. We perform a routine activity in our test environment where we simulate the process and file.

CrowdStrike Falcon sometimes wrongly flags things as malicious. Let's say a user is active on Chrome only. Sometimes, our cross-segmenting will fetch from the backend data and show that it is malicious because of memory or CPU utilization.

I have used Falcon for more than two years. 

CrowdStrike Falcon is a stable solution.  

CrowdStrike is scalable. We can query large amounts of data, and the solution responds well, whereas Splunk takes a longer time to perform a search operation.

I rate CrowdStrike support 10 out of 10. They respond quickly and don't take much time to resolve all our issues.

Positive

I have used Symantec and Rapid7.

Falcon was already deployed when I started working. It requires some maintenance. We need to make some adjustments for some use cases, or we might need to implement upgrades that require downtime. 

CrowdStrike Falcon is expensive because it's based on the number of services. 

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon 10 out of 10. It has delivered some good results. 

I used the tool since my company wanted a product with next-generation antivirus and EDR, as it can help with the detection of malicious activities and behavior detection, and the MI and machine learning part in the tool also helps.

Only for the customized IOCs, there is a need to highlight certain aspects, and based on it, we get to block only the hash values but is not based on the file name, like .exe, or other extensions, so I can't block them, making it in an area where the solution needs to improve.

My company had raised a concern with CrowdStrike's support team when one of the antivirus applications that communicates with CrowdStrike started misbehaving. For both the aforementioned tools, the same support ticket had to be raised. If my company had to provide any suggestions regarding the whitelisting part, there was a delay of over a month when dealing with the product's support team. If the tool's support team suggests users follow certain steps, and if it is not followed or is not in progress, then after two or three days, the tool's support team needs to join a video call and provide a resolution to the users.

Some policies in the tool need to be fine-tuned. Customized IOCs need to be improved since they have certain shortcomings. With the customized IOCs, it can be made possible to block a file extension with a filename or file extension type of blocking. Providing users with the ability to customize policies would be a good improvement to the solution.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon Threat Intelligence for a year. I am a user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My company's cybersecurity and IT security team use the tool. In my company, there are 15,000 users. For servers, there are 1,500 users.

Right now, there is no need to increase the usage of the tool.

The solution's technical support is not good. I rate the technical support a four to five out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with Palo Alto.

The detection and other functionalities in CrowdStrike and Palo Alto are the same, but cost-wise, CrowdStrike is reasonable. Technically, I would prefer Palo Alto over CrowdStrike.

The product's deployment phase is easy. I rate the setup phase of the tool as a ten on a scale where one is difficult and ten means it is an easy process.

The solution can be deployed in the cloud and on an on-premises model.

The solution can be initially deployed in a minute.

Considering the number of users, servers, cloud, and on-premises environment, it hardly takes 15 to 20 days. When there are laptop and desktop users who are online, and there is a need to install the agent, then there can be some issues, and with such minor things, ten days are more than enough for the installation.

CrowdStrike is a reasonably priced tool.

In terms of the ability of the tool to deal with threats, I would say that the product does it by around 85 percent.

The real-time response of the tool is good, and I feel it is around 90 to 95 percent.

The tool's incident-handling capability is good.

Considering the influence of the product on our company over some time, I would say that the solution is cost-effective and offers good threat detection features. The tool's interface is also good.

The tool's AI features are good, but they are not useful for our company since the area of detection is not something in our bucket right now.

If you have a big budget, go with Palo Alto. If you have a low budget and want a tool that provides more accuracy during detection, then it is better to go with CrowdStrike.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use the product for cloud security. We use it for prevention, to watch for gaps in security. We work with customers seeking prevention for advanced apps. 

Sometimes a customer has multiple solutions that come at a higher cost. They have to pay for all of these other security features. With CrowdStrike, customers get one agent for all system operations. It offers more security for remote work and clients gain access to the latest protections.

The solution offers good features. The prevention and device control are useful. It offers helpful firewall management and identity protection.

They've reduced the complexity and provide better security outcomes. Customers tend to prefer CrowdStrike. 

It's easy to deploy and manage.

The solution isn't known in my market. The brand isn't as recognizable. Their shortcomings are more on the marketing side. Everyone knows Microsoft Defender. Customers need to hear more about CrowdStrike and all the advantages and features on offer. 

We've used the solution for three to four months. 

I haven't had any issues with bugs or glitches. I haven't had a problem with stability so far. 

The capability to scale so far has been good. 

Technical support is good. 

Positive

I'm also familiar with Microsoft Defender. However, Defender works best with Microsoft and not necessarily other legacy applications. With CrowdStrike, you can secure all system operations and versions. It's easier to deploy and operate. 

The deployment is seamless and users get immediate protection. It's lightweight. There's one agent deployed to endpoints in minutes. The product offers consistent coverage. There's no complex integrations and it doesn't need fine-tuning. In comparison, Defender can be more complex.

CrowdStrike can be deployed on any operating system, not just Microsoft. 

There isn't really maintenance, it's set and forget. The agent updates automatically and receives continuous security updates, enabling immediate enforcement across endpoints. 

The solution is well worth the cost.

The costs are predictable. There are no surprises. 

In Chile, there are not a lot of CrowdStrike partners of the managed service; therefore, it's a little more expensive than Microsoft, as there are so many more managed partners for Microsoft. That said, if you look at the total cost of ownership, CrowStrike is better than Microsoft.

We're a reseller. We're still new to CrowdStrike. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The cost is good and they offer better tech support. Also, the protection is wonderful.