Digital Guardian Reviews

We use the solution for data loss prevention. For the host we are using Digital Guardian and we can use it for Windows as well as Mac.

It has a couple of features for data security and we find them quite useful. You can work on various areas, including the endpoints, upload, areas of the cloud, et cetera, in order to protect yourself.

The product is stable.

It has been scalable. 

In terms of working with this solution within the Mac context, there's no complete visibility on offer as compared to Windows. If they can improve on that part, it would be ideal.

The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions.

There should be less complexity while creating a policy or a rule. Other products make these capabilities easier.

Getting help with patching can take time. 

I’ve used the solution for more than one year.

It has been a stable product over the past year. The stability has been moderate. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

The scalability is not an issue with Digital Guardian.

More than three blocks of endpoints are being managed right now. It’s used quite a bit. We have five to ten teams on it currently.

We’ve used technical support in the past. They can take time to fix the problem, however. If it is an L1 and L2 problem, we can manage it by ourselves. However, if there is some patch needed from the Digital Guardian side, it will take time to deal with it.

Neutral

I'm using McAfee Skyhigh CASB and I have worked with Forcepoint as well. We decided to use this solution due to the fact that it was more stable.

I have worked on various DLP tools, such as McAfee, Forcepoint, and now Digital Guardian. Digital Guardian is, compared to other tools, more complex to implement. Handling that and creating policies and rule formation, et cetera, is work.

I have not deployed it yet to the digital cloud as it is currently on-premises. I don't have any knowledge about deploying Digital Guardian. Basically, I'm working on the operational part for Digital Guardian.

I have worked on McAfee for deployments and Forcepoint. However, I’m not into deploying Digital Guardian.

As a security product, we do have to procure the licensing to use it, however. I’m unsure as to what it actually costs. I don’t handle that aspect.

I’m a customer and end-user.

I’d advise new users to learn the technology as best they can. It is a good technology and the user will develop good skills. Enhance your skills if you can to use Digital Guardian, in terms of data security, to its fullest.

I’d rate the solution eight out of ten as it is more stable and has fewer loopholes in terms of sensors and agents.

Data security is now one of the most important aspects for any organization. Our customers are looking for a DLP solution that can help them protect data. It's both endpoint and network, and "network" covers cloud integration as well.

We cover both Endpoint Data Loss Prevention and Network DLP; in fact, we cover the whole portfolio of Digital Guardian. We have both cloud and on-premise solutions. We deploy it for medium and enterprise businesses.

There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great.

They need to improve their product. If they keep just adding the features, it's not going to help them to sell the solution in the market. First of all, they need to improve their existing features, rather than onboarding new features.

It's close to three years that we have been dealing with Digital Guardian.

We are facing a lot of challenges with the agent's stability. Sometimes the application fails. Sometimes it works for 10 days or 15 days and then starts behaving abnormally. I have a lot of issues related to the agent and it's still a challenge.

It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability.

The technical support is very bad. Support has to be drastically improved.

The initial setup is complex. It is not straightforward. You need to do lot of config when you create rules and policies. It takes a lot of time to create them. It takes a lot of testing. You also need to have a little understanding of the programming language. It's very difficult to create a policy.

Deployment takes three to six months.

It can be deployed by one person, but that person would need to dedicate his time to finish the project from start to end. Otherwise, it would require a minimum of two people because sometimes engineers are not available. You have to have at least two engineers.

If you don't have skilled staff, I would not recommend going with Digital Guardian. If you are looking more into deep-dive, postmortem, or forensic analysis, I would recommend it, but you need to have patience to implement the product. You need to bear in mind that support could be very challenging. The implementation, as I said, takes a long time. So if you have skilled staff, they can evaluate and onboard the solution but if you don't know have skilled staff, I would not recommend it.

My biggest lesson learned from dealing with this product is that they commit to something but they don't deliver it. That has been my experience.

I would rate it at five out of 10. Technically the product is good but the stability is not there.

We use the solution to help secure data leaks. My region is notorious for people accessing other people's data. We're looking for a solution that would help us prevent 100 percent of data leaks.

We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations. For instance, if someone leaves the company, we can conduct a quick investigation to make sure no large files have been uploaded from the official workstation. This may be due to the person leaving the business and attempting to take some files with them. Digital Guardian gives us visibility into all file access, copying, pasting, and uploading of any of the files stored on our workstation.

The partner program has serious room for improvement. Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner. The partner started the project but they did not have enough experience and when we reached out to Digital Guardian they did not provide the amount of support we expected. We did not get the full value we expected from the solution at the end of the day although we had paid for it. This made us feel stuck because we did not get what we were promised.

I would like the solution to provide more monitoring support for web-based emails such as Google.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. We have not had any stability issues.

We deployed a small pilot and the rest we deployed all at once. Since then, we've not needed to expand the solution. We have 1,500 workstations connected to the solution.

The technical support that we used was through Digital Guardian's partner which was horrible.

The initial setup is straightforward with a lot of documentation and the deployment was both on-premises and off-site. We have nine factories and the solution is deployed on a private cloud using a third-party data center. As long as we have an internet connection we can access the solution. The deployment took close to seven months because of the partner issues. The deployment team consisted of three people.

We used an integrator that helped with deployment.

I give the solution a six out of ten because of the experience with the partner.

We should have data classification in place and understand our data classification within our organization before we begin exploring data leak prevention solutions.