Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We use it to secure our endpoint, especially with employees working from home.

Our company provides amusement park guest hospitality. This solution helps us with our daily operations, managing the amount of traffic in the network coming from the Internet as well as application updates and passwords. 

It lets us control users and their actions when browsing.

Every month, we do an analysis. This allows our systems to be the most effective with all the changes that need to be done. It gives us a dashboard where we can view four or five key components, like malware protection, exploit protection, network intrusion, behavior analysis, and additions to the firewall. We also do daily, weekly, or monthly analyses based on events. This helps us have a clearer picture of our organization, what is wrong with a security event, and where you need to really focus to prioritize events. For example, if you have a network intrusion on the firewall, this gives a detailed view of your network where you can focus on the right solution, and prioritizing events.

We are using the solution to mitigate security breaches. We are constantly monitoring the endpoint interface dashboard. If there is a breach, it gets isolated. We see those on the report and event logs. We then apply the Application Control feature to take remedial actions.

If there is exposure, we need to investigate the source of the attack, e.g., whether it came from the network or externally. We view the firewall logs, and if there has been exposure, then we use the Application Isolation feature. When there is an attack with on-prem, that system will go into isolation mode, removing connectivity to other internal systems. We also restrict the WLAN part to avoid that system broadcasting to other networks.

It gives us a big picture of our response and remediation processes with one product, which is very good.

The detection and response are quite good. We have a few templated policies that we have created for our entire organization. We have added groups to ensure that if an attack or breach happens, then it can be isolated from our network.

We use Application Control, Application Isolation, Web Traffic Redirection (WTR), and Network Integrity. These ensure that traffic is flowing. 

The device can be outdated. More enhancement of network and discovery would help already great features.

The company has been using it for almost five years.

We haven't had any issues when updating it.

The scalability meets our company's requirements of on-prem and cloud. Therefore, I would rate its scalability as nine out of 10.

We have not yet used the Threat Hunter Team.

I would rate the technical support as nine out of 10. Most things are resolved within a day. Some things have taken a week because they needed to assess the system and what went wrong. Critical assessment of root causes takes about two to three days.

Positive

We have around four to five applications. For example, we are using Oracle Fusion Middleware and ERP in-house for our operations. 

We have also used Sophos, where it took a little time to put policies in place. It is quite complicated and not that user-friendly. We had a bad experience with them.

Symantec Endpoint Security is better because it has other features, like Application Control and Application Isolation, that can be utilized. It gives us complete control of the endpoint, so we can customize our workflow to control security.

We have used Symantec Professional Services for updates and helping to get services properly installed.

Protecting the company data is key. This solution gives a clearer picture of your endpoint, security, and network. These three things are very important for us, which is why using Symantec Endpoint Security is a win-win for us. 

Our detection and response times are very high. Whenever something happens, such as an attack, we are immediately prioritizing it via the dashboard. 

When we go for a product review, we normally do a PoC to understand how the application will scale our innovation before adding it into our pipeline. 

Other solutions have the detection and response feature.

We are currently doing an assessment for VPN parameters, making it more secure. We are checking out that enhancement right now.

We have not integrated our Active Directory (AD) with this solution. We are still evaluating this. Our AD is currently not centralized. Once it is centralized, we will connect it to Endpoint Security.

We do a PoC whenever a new feature is released. They provide training, which helps us to be on the same page.

I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

The main use case is to scan vulnerabilities on our endpoints. We need to make sure that our antivirus software is up to date. We need to ensure that patches on our workstations are up to date and that we can scan through folders and files to detect malware.

It's very good. Most of the clients are using this solution. It's able to protect workstations from threats, malicious files, and malicious USB drives. It's able to protect business-related files on the workstations. If you have an environment where you need to protect critical files from threats, it's a good solution.

It also defends us against the latest sophisticated attacks, such as key-finding attacks and spyware. It provides protection against threats, spyware, ransomware, malware, etc. It's pretty good at that.

It provides a single pane of glass. You can see everything through the dashboard. It's pretty good.

It has improved our security posture. It protects us from attacks outside, and it protects our files. It also prevents the corruption of files and secures our critical business-related files.

Symantec Endpoint Security is easy to use, fast, and good for small and medium-sized businesses.

Unlike other AV products, such as Norton, Symantec Endpoint Security doesn't use many system resources.

Its GUI needs improvement. It's good, but it needs to be improved in terms of management and reporting. Its reporting features aren't straightforward.

We've been using the solution for around five years. 

It's stable.

It's scalable. One of the clients has 50 users and another one has 10 users. It's good and pretty fast. It's being used at multiple locations.

It's very easy to increase the number of endpoints. You just need to purchase more licenses. If you have more users, you need more licenses.

We have plans to increase its usage.

I'd rate them an eight out of ten. We had to raise an issue only once, and it was resolved within hours.

Positive

We have other endpoint security solutions. We bid for many companies. We check what the client wants to achieve, and we also take the price into consideration

Generally, Symantec can provide all the features that our clients commonly require. Its price is also good compared to other solutions such as Cisco AMP. Cisco AMP is very expensive. We only deploy it at the airports.

We have different test cases to show how effective it's against different types of malware, corrupt files, malicious files, etc. It works pretty well. We are happy with it. It's able to detect and stop all types of malware. We also tested it to see how it treats benign files, and it works pretty well.

It's simple to install. Its deployment is easy. It takes two to five hours. You need an antivirus server. You can directly download the antivirus client on your PC from there and then you just click next, next, and next to install it. 

We have seen an ROI. Based on the service that you get in return, it's definitely worth the money. 

It's pretty awesome price-wise. That's why we give it to most of our clients. It isn't very expensive.

Compared to Cisco AMP, which is very expensive, its price is okay. It's also cheaper than Malwarebytes.

The license that you purchase lasts a period of time. After that, you again need to purchase another license. Otherwise, you will not be able to get support from Symantec every time you have issues.

I've not used it on mobile devices, but on workstations, it's awesome. You don't require any other antivirus solution. It's simple to install. It works very well in the Windows environment. You don't need to install anything else. It provides any type of endpoint security, including USB protection.

If you have a critical network environment and security is very important to you, you can consider this solution. It can offer you the level of security that you need. It can provide what you are looking for in terms of endpoint protection.

It's very good for a small or medium organization. If you have a very large environment, you can consider other alternatives, but for small environments with 50 users, it works very well. For bigger environments, such as airports, we use Cisco AMP.

It hasn't as such saved time when responding to issues. Sometimes we have issues where the user isn't able to use the system until we resolve the issue. We have had cases where the issue got resolved immediately, but sometimes, we have had issues that required opening a case with them or intervention from the administrator.

Overall, I'd rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Symantec Endpoint Security's function is to protect our assets.

The most valuable feature of Symantec Endpoint Security is the protection of our systems.

Symantec Endpoint Security can improve management because it is difficult to do. It is not a straightforward tool to use. Additionally, the dashboards and reports could be better. It is difficult to understand what exactly is your current status.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for approximately one year.

Symantec Endpoint Security is stable.

The scalability of Symantec Endpoint Security is good, and easy to do.

We have approximately 10,000 users using this solution.

The support from Symantec Endpoint Security is very good.

The initial setup of Symantec Endpoint Security is complex. However, not as complicated as other solutions, Symantec VIP.

I rate the initial setup of Symantec Endpoint Security a three out of five.

The most important aspect of a security solution is having good reports, to help understand what's going on. This is one of the main points that a security team should have. Good visibility from the reports and an easy understanding of what's going on.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

I mainly used this solution for antivirus and firewall protection for PCs. We wanted to use this solution because we needed virus protection. My company was a reseller of this solution.

The solution was deployed on-premises.

There were a couple of small-scale environments of four to 10 machines. The larger enterprise environments were up to 400 workstations and 120 servers.

This solution reduced downtime and increased productivity by reducing the sluggishness on machines when they get infected with viruses.

The scheduled scans and the active protection were the most valuable because they allowed me to have the systems protected in real-time and also be able to schedule scans so that as new definitions would update, machines could be scanned to make sure that everything was in tip-top shape and there was nothing lurking in the background.

The malware and ransomware protections could be improved, which was ultimately the reason why I stopped using the solution.

I had three different clients, and between the three of them, they were hit with ransomware five times. It spread throughout their entire organization. Symantec Endpoint did nothing to stop it, slow it down, or prevent it, so I had to go out and find a different solution.

I used this solution for about 18 years.

Scalability wasn't an issue. It functions and performs well in all environments, from small environments to large enterprise environments, including just medium-size businesses.

On the rare occasions that I needed to call technical support, they were top-notch. I would rate them nine out of 10. There's always room for improvement, but it was pretty close to perfect.

The initial setup was really straightforward. We'd load the software on the server, link it with ID, and give it to the OU groups that we wanted to deploy the agents. We pushed out an agent installed to the machines, and then kept the agents up to date. 

We had a centralized console screen that allowed us to look at the progress and check the point in time to see the stats of any of the machines. We were able to configure it so we could set thresholds for email notifications if we had certain machines that fell outside certain update standards or if there was anything that got flagged during auto protection scans or scheduled scans of machines.

I've also deployed it in smaller environments. They were standalone clients and not a server-client model.

The solution didn't really require maintenance. There were routine updates to the application whenever a new version of the application came out, but I never ran into any issues with installs and pushing the updated agents. It was always seamless.

I was the consultant.

I saw a return on investment with reduced downtime if there happened to be a number of machines that had to be rebuilt due to viruses. 

Before the implementation of Symantec Corporate Endpoint, I had a client that needed 20% of their machines to be rebuilt every six months due to virus concerns or extreme sluggishness with the machine. Once the Endpoint protection was deployed, that was cut in half.

I thought the pricing was reasonable.

I previously worked with McAfee, Kaspersky, and a couple of others, but computer threats were much different in 2003, and people were mainly worried about viruses. Compared to other solutions at the time, Symantec seemed to have more reliable and faster releases of definition and would update files when new threats were discovered.

They all basically had the same functionality, but the most striking difference that I found in the evaluation process was Symantec's definition update process was quicker and more reliable. They would sometimes have the definition deployed 24 to 36 hours before some of the others. Kaspersky was always a good four or five days behind Symantec on virus definitions. They usually averaged about 12 to 14 hours ahead of McAfee.

I would rate this solution nine out of 10. While I was using it, I had a very favorable opinion of it.

For those who are evaluating the solution now, my advice is to find out the reported percentage of ransomware attacks that have not been caught by the system that has been allowed to matriculate through the system or through networks.

The biggest lesson I learned from using this solution is that having virus and firewall protection, virus definitions, and updating files, is not adequate protection anymore. There needs to be some AI-type component that is doing real-time analysis worldwide on the emerging threats because a simple virus is not the biggest threat to computers nowadays.

We are using Symantec Security for the server and the client. For the server, we are using Symantec Data Center Security (DCS), and for the client, we are using Symantec Endpoint Security.

We work with all deployment models. We have cloud and on-premises deployments, and we also have hybrid deployments. The cloud provider varies based on the customer, but mostly, our customers have AWS and Azure.

We are using it on 1,600 computers. All the systems and servers are protected with the Symantec solution. Our environment has an uptime of 99.9% because we never had any attack or issue related to viruses. There is zero downtime.

It works very smoothly. There is no high utilization of the hardware.

EDR and ATP features are most valuable.

Its interface needs improvement. Its interface is very old, and it needs a new look. Other solutions, such as Sophos and BitDefender, have a better and more modern interface, whereas Symantec has had the same interface for a while. There has been no enhancement in the interface. They should update and provide a better interface in 2022 for a better user experience for their customers.

Currently, Symantec's EDR functionality is expensive, and it is an add-on, whereas other devices have built-in EDR functionality. It would be beneficial for customers if Symantec does the same.

Their support also needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for 11 years.

It is average in terms of stability. It works fine, but when we do the upgrades, there are stability issues.

Its scalability is very good. We are able to scale up to 10,000 users, and it is working fine. There are no issues with it. 

We are working with government institutions and corporations in various industries. We are also working with educational institutes. It is being used in all sectors. 

We don't have any plans to increase its usage as of now.

We have been a Symantec partner for a long time. Since the Broadcom takeover, we have been facing many issues with support. In the last three years, we have not received proper support from them. We have had the worst experience with their support. They don’t understand the issue. I explain the problem, and after two or three days, they again come back asking for the log. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We didn't use any other solution previously. We have been using only Symantec. It is the best solution for us and our customers.

I'm involved in its implementation from the start to the end, which includes project discussions, deployment, and handover. I work with my colleagues and provide guidance on what to perform, how to perform, and how to configure policies.

The deployment depends on the environment of a customer. Some customers have a small environment with 100 to 200 users. In such a case, the deployment is simple, and there’s no complexity. If a customer has 5,000 to 10,000 users, and they are working from different locations, requiring server configuration at different locations across the world, it gets complex. We have done successful implementation in complex as well as simple scenarios. 

The deployment duration varies based on the number of users. Usually, one to two days are enough. The number of people required for deployment also varies based on the customer environment.

We create a document for implementation, and when we are handling a large implementation with 5,000 users, we deploy the 100 or 200 from our side, and then we guide and train the customer's engineer who takes care of the remaining deployments.

For 5,000 users, 5 to 10 people are enough to handle the deployment and maintenance. They all have different roles. For example, one of them handles the policies, and one of them takes care of the implementation. Similarly, one of them works with the updates. They take care of all the functions.

We do evaluate other solutions when a customer asks for a comparison with another solution, such as Sophos. We then need to do a PoC in the customer environment.

I would strongly recommend this product. It is better than all other antivirus products. It is a brilliant product when it comes to functions or features. There is no doubt about its antivirus capability. It is far better than other products, but they need to focus on its UI.

Overall, it is a very good product. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

My primary use case is malware protection. I also use it for device control, application control, and more. We are a financial institution.

The stability of this product has improved the way our organization functions. There is little maintenance, and it doesn't take long to install or uninstall. Once it is configured correctly, there is little chance of it failing.

This means that we have more of our technical staff available to work on other problems that occur.

The most valuable feature is the proactive malware scanning capability.

When you are performing simple tasks, it is not as demanding on resources as compared to other security products. This is an aspect that I like.

The application and device control functionality is good. We are able to see which applications are installed using the product management dashboard. This gives us the ability to monitor workstations, including which applications they have in which tabs.

There are extensions available, such as the Browser extension, to deal with specific types of attacks. This helps to protect against hackers. I have tested it with samples and it protects the system well.

The interface is simple to use.

One issue that comes to mind is that there is no way of specifying categories that the firewall should block. It is able to block specific URLs but other solutions, such as Kaspersky, allow you to block access by specifying a category.

It would be helpful if this product provided patch management functionality.

Compared to Kaspersky, the reporting features are not rich. Overall, the reporting capability needs to be improved.

I have been working with Symantec Endpoint Security for between 12 and 18 months.

This is a very stable product. It is the feature that I like most about the product because when we were using other ones, we had failures. With this solution, there is no frequent failure of the components.

For example, in other products that we've used, the virus definitions didn't update and systems were compromised because of it.

We have approximately 3,000 users that are protected by this solution. We add branches and more computers weekly, and we don't have problems doing so.

We were able to easily integrate with Active Directory using the Symantec Manager, so I would say it's very scalable.

As we add more branches, our usage of the product will continue to increase.

We have not been in direct contact with Symantec technical support.

The training and documentation that they provide are helpful. There is a good amount of documentation that helped to provide us with a complete picture of the product. It's nice, neat, and easy to understand.

Prior to Symantec, we used a solution by Kaspersky.

We use other anti-virus products and this one is less resource intensive and more stable than the others. It is also simpler to use.

Symantec Web Security Service (WSS) has some good features that I wish were in this product. Unfortunately, it is another subscription.

It does not take long to install this solution.

Unfortunately, the order that we followed was not recommended. We just deployed and then obtained subscriptions after that. This is not a recommended approach for deployment. However, we have a good partner and a good support team.

Due to our limited bandwidth, we had to install manually rather than use the web-based deployment. This meant that it took us longer because we had to visit each of the physical workstations. In total, it took approximately two months to deploy.

We deployed the solution ourselves. There were seven or eight people io the team and different staff members were given different duties. All of them are system administrators.

We have three people that handle the maintenance. They monitor the dashboard for possible compromises, and our specialists have to use the device protection and application controls.

There are also tasks related to reporting issues that arise during monitoring, including those concerning possible attacks or infections. One of the managers in our IT staff is responsible for updating the definitions that we get from Symantec.

There was an incident where we had problems with a password and we had difficulty recovering it. We contacted our local partner and I think they contacted Symantec. After that, we recovered the password. That was the only maintenance-related problem that we had.

The pricing was one of the factors that led us to choose this product.

That said, I was not the decision maker. I simply proposed it to our manager.

When our subscription to Kaspersky ended, we were tasked with comparing features between different solutions. The three options we considered were Symantec, Kaspersky, and Sophos.

One of the things that we liked about Symantec is the low resource utilization. I am not the person who completed the analysis but I know that the fact it is lightweight was one factor.

We liked the functionality that Sophos provided but the deployment scenario functionality was not useful for the workstations in our environment. It involved deploying the dashboard to workstations in the cloud, which is not our preferred approach.

Kaspersky has richer reporting capabilities. This is an area that could be enhanced in our Symantec solution.

We deployed the product one and a half years ago, and we received training to configure and maintain it. It was recommended that we complete our training in terms of policies, which is something that we also did. Once that was finished, we experienced the stability and good features that the product provides.

This is a product that I have recommended for use in another company. I have been told that after they adopted it, they were pleased with the fact it consumes fewer resources than their previous solutions. They manage it from the cloud.

Currently, I am referring another company to this product and my understanding is that they're going to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Symantec Endpoint Security as an antivirus solution to protect our servers.

The product has valuable features for insights.

There could be definition updates installed and running for the product, similar to new EDR solutions that receive updates from the internet. We still have legacy concepts where clients have installed definitions themselves. It could be more effective. Additionally, the memory usage by the product could be reduced.

We have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for ten years.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have 13000 Symantec Endpoint Security users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team’s response time is slow.

The initial setup process is easy.

I rate the product's pricing a six out of ten.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We have used Symantec for several scenarios depending on a client's requirements. We have used the Symantec solution for host integrity, device control, and communication policies. It has the host integration part where we get the custom option to add certain scripts.

Most of the clients have been using it on-prem, but we are now looking into the cloud or SaaS environment because it would be much easier to manage the infrastructure. Our clients have Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure.

Policies are very important and valuable for us. We have to ensure the security of the client environment. We have to ensure that there is no tampering, and restrictions are applied to the devices when one uses third-party devices such as storage and pen drives. It has the flexibility to integrate with other devices.

It is helpful in identifying the rogue devices in the environment where we don't have any agents deployed. We can identify them through Symantec. We have also heard that with cloud Symantec, we can do remote deployment through the console itself.

The dashboard view and reporting are valuable. It is stable and easy to integrate, and it provides custom options.

The agent is lightweight, and the response to the known infections with regular updates from Symantec is also valuable.

Nowadays, threats are changing, and they are moving more towards script control and zero-day attacks. So, we would like to have more control similar to an EDR solution. Symantec Endpoint Protection has certainly come a long way as a traditional antivirus, but because the threats are changing, we would like to have more EDR features so that we have a detailed view of the source from where the infection entered the environment and whether it has tried to connect any other endpoint. It should provide such a detailed view for investigation. It should protect against zero-day threats, etc. These are the key enhancements that can make it a complete solution for any enterprise. Currently, we have seen organizations going for two solutions: antivirus and EDR. With both these capabilities, it would be a complete package.

I have been supporting various clients for six to seven years.

It is stable, and that's why I recommend Symantec, especially when it comes to the server environment.

We follow the N-1 process. Whenever there is a new version, we don't upgrade immediately because there can be potential risks. We upgrade to a new version immediately only if we get the recommendation from the vendor or they have fixed any vulnerability or issue that was reported. Otherwise, we follow the N-1 version approach for upgrades.

I have not seen any challenges with the scalability of the solution. I have worked with multiple clients. One of our clients has about 30,000 end users. They are located in eight to nine countries and have about 15 different remote locations.

We have plans to increase the usage of the product, but it all comes down to client requirements. It depends on their environment, its size, and how we want to further enhance that.

Generally, we get a response, and it works, but we have seen some delays or very generic responses. If there is a quarantined file and we need information about what kind of data is there in that file, it takes a lot of time. We sometimes have to escalate to the next level for getting a proper and timely response because it's our client's data that is in quarantine. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with multiple solutions, such as McAfee, Cortex, and CrowdStrike. McAfee has several components, and if any component stops, it impacts the compliance status and puts everything at risk because the definition will not be distributed. Symantec has an edge there because it does not have too many components. Only with the GUP server, we can distribute the definition in remote locations, which makes it easier. It also provides a view of all the GUP servers in the console.

EDR is a different solution. It provides complete visibility and footprint of zero-day and other threats based on the behavior. Symantec also provides that, but it needs more enhancement on the investigation part.

Based on what I have seen and the feedback I have received, its deployment is straightforward. It takes almost a week because it goes through various stages, such as planning, designing, and deployment. It also depends on a client's environment.

The implementation strategy varies, and it depends on a client's environment, such as whether they are a huge organization or whether they have multiple remote locations.

After the deployment, the next stage is doing the configuration, which takes a little while because it involves engaging different departments of a client and doing segregation and restructuring.

It doesn't take more than four to six months for the technology to mature in the client environment. Immediately after deployment, we start making changes to tune the policies based on a client's requirements and define the exceptions. It takes four to six months to have a stable environment.

We have a separate team that does the deployment, but I do share some recommendations depending upon the client environment. After the deployment, that team hands it over to my team for operations, and then we make the changes. So, they do the basic deployment, and we then take over and make the solution mature.

Generally, its deployment does not require more than two people. At the initial stage, they collect and gather information from various sources and proceed with the deployment, and then it takes some time to do the configuration. So, two people are good enough for initial deployment, but when it comes to rolling out the agent to the entire landscape, it takes time. You have to engage various people from different departments. The people involved in its deployment and configuration are administrators and engineers.

It usually doesn’t require much maintenance. We do our regular health checks to see whether the definitions are getting updated or not and whether their replications are working or not. Its maintenance is a one-man job, but the operational activities of the organization generally require two to three people, but the number can vary based on the size of the environment.

Our clients have certainly seen an ROI. They have been using the solution for a long time. They don't want to switch from one solution to another, and that's why we recommend the most stable ones to them.

Pricing is handled by a separate team. Whenever a new client asks for a recommendation, we provide it, but they deal directly with Symantec or other vendors for the pricing.

You should first understand a client's environment in terms of:

• What does the client environment look like?
• What is the size of the environment?
• What are the features they are looking for?
• What is the criticality of their environment?

All these aspects are important. At times, we have seen that clients just ask for the best solution, but they don't have a vision of what would make a solution best for them and what are they expecting from it. They should summarize their requirements, and accordingly, you can propose how Symantec can meet their requirements.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.