ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform Reviews

In terms of use cases, there are quite a few good ones that come to mind. One instance is when people unexpectedly download items, especially in the downloads folder or the documents folder, and try to run them. It is effective at blocking those. We need to vet them to ensure they are legitimate and intended, not just random malicious downloads. 

Another scenario involves items in the Windows folder itself, where sometimes an update might get blocked, requiring us to verify its legitimacy. 

Occasionally, we receive help from Cyber Heroes as well. Those are the three use cases I can think of.

It helps keep track of shadow IT activities. We have more compliance because we know who is doing what. Previously, we did not know who was doing what, especially at the application control level. Some people had some administrative rights that we did not know about. We now have got more into compliance. We have everything in a single pane of glass. Everything has to be approved before it can be run. It helps our company become more secure and more compliant.

We have more consolidated security. We are three to four times more secure than before using the solution. It helps us be more compliant with what we do on a daily basis, even though sometimes it can be confusing, such as a whitelisted app getting blocked. That is probably because of fine-tuning. We will have to fine-tune that policy to make it run more smoothly.

It helped us consolidate security tools. We are now focused on this rather than looking into other tools we had in the past. We just go to ThreatLocker, look at the path, look at the hash, and see whether it is vetted. If yes, we just allow it. We had ManageEngine Application Control, and we thought we did not need that anymore. It was like an add-on. We had Endpoint Central. On top of that, we had Application Control and other things. Now, with ThreatLocker, we do not need them anymore.

I am not the finance person, but I believe it has helped our organization save on operational costs because we got this product with other security products from our managed service provider. They gave us a good rate when we combined multiple solutions together. We purchased Huntress for antivirus and other security tools from them.

I would rate it highly in its ability to block access to unauthorized applications. It works and does its job. It does what it is supposed to do, especially if you train it well. If we fine-tune the policies, it works the best. Some of the policies might be confusing, but it works well.

I am not sure if it has helped reduce help desk tickets. We still get help desk tickets here and there. We are a small company. We do not have a whole lot of applications running in our environment. In a large organization with thousands of employees, it might reduce helpdesk tickets.

We can now shift the gear and focus on other things, such as server logs or security logs, more firewall rules, etc. It saves us at least three hours every day. 

The most valuable feature is its learning capability. Not every application it learns is allowed to run, so my involvement is necessary. Those based on path and certification are particularly important. When an application is on a specific path in our network and has a valid certificate or hash, it assures me that the application is safe to run and offers comfort that it is probably 100% okay to proceed. It locks a threat.

This is my first Zero Trust conference, and so far, it has been good. The only thing I have noticed is that sometimes they encounter technical issues. For example, in one of the demo labs, the laptop trying to connect to the projector was not working, which affected the demonstration of the victim versus attacker laptop scenarios. It would be helpful to fix these issues. 

Additionally, when people come to the hacking lab, presenters should ensure their fonts are larger. With 500 to 600 people in the room, it is difficult to see everything clearly, especially when there are only two projectors. Improving the sound quality and similar aspects would be beneficial.

It has been over three years now since we have been using it. We got it through our MSP. They have given us access as admins, though not with full control, to allow the whitelisting of some applications and paths if needed.

It is pretty stable. It is doing its job well. The algorithms and coding, developed by smart individuals, ensure the app performs its tasks effectively.

It is quite scalable. From what I understand and have learned, we can manage as many environments as we want. It remains scalable and manageable from one portal.

Customer service is pretty good. I would rate it highly. Their response is almost instantaneous when issues arise. I just communicate my concern, and within minutes, I get a response. 

We previously used ManageEngine Application Control, but we eliminated it. It was doing a similar thing, but it was a little bit different.

By switching, we were getting a better discount, and the consultants or the advisor also said that this solution is better based on the previous experience with the solution. 

We have a cloud version when it comes to the portal. The agents are installed on every machine and server. For the most part, we use the Azure cloud. We also have AWS. 

The initial setup was pretty easy since we received assistance from a third party. Everything is deployed via GPO, so once a computer joins, it installs by itself. However, we have limited access to the portal as of now, and I hope this will change.

From a technical perspective, it does its job by saving our team time and reducing confusion. It saves effort working on people who engage in shadow IT by preventing unauthorized applications from running on their computers. The installation of the ThreatLocker agent has ceased such activities. With only three IT personnel, it has proved efficient, assisting us in managing and streamlining our workload.

I do not know about the licensing and price as it comes bundled from our MSP. However, it seems fairly reasonable for us, which is why we chose it.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

It is not easy to use. I am still learning. I highly recommend finishing the Cyber Hero course to understand the solution, the way it works, and the secret behind each tool. This course is available in ThreatLocker University. It has a lot of modules that you can go through. Once you can master those, you will have a good idea of what is going on. After that, it is easy to implement.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. At the Zero Trust conference, eliminating some technical difficulties in future iterations could raise this to ten. Overall, everything is excellent, and everything is well-prepared, from the laptops provided to the overall setup. These minor issues could happen anywhere, not just here. If resolved, it would be a perfect ten. It is not a huge issue.

When we assessed application whitelisting and ringfencing controls, we decided to sign on with ThreatLocker. The way we operate our business is that it is deployed across all our clients. Once we identified the benefits of application whitelisting, we knew it belonged in every client's setup, and we implemented it for all our clients.

When we adopted ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, there were frustrations among clients as everybody was learning and getting used to it. We were learning how to administer it, and our customers were learning what it was, but it ended up becoming a fantastic thing where we now get referrals from our customers to other companies. Over time, it transformed into a positive experience, leading to customer referrals and advocacy for ThreatLocker. Although some clients overstate it by claiming it makes them ransomware-proof, the product's impact is undeniable. The contributions of Ben and Garrett were pivotal in this success, resulting in enthusiastic customer recommendations.

It has not helped eliminate or consolidate any security tools or solutions. We do not see ThreatLocker as a replacement for any of the current base functionality of existing tools; we see it as augmenting it. We see it as something that is important to have. One of the philosophies at our company is that we do not believe there should ever be an all-in for any security product. There should always be a check and a balance in place. One of our main checks on ThreatLocker is Huntress, so we use them in combination. It is something that maintains a balance. They are not overlapping by any means. Even though ThreatLocker has an MDR product now, we are electing not to use it because we want to have a separation and those checks and balances in place.

We initially anticipated a reduction in ticket hours through elevation control, but rather than a decrease, over the years, the nature of the tickets changed. Instead of broad, permissive policies, we now focus on diligent policy creation, accompanied by an increase in technical costs. I do not see that as a negative. While it increased our overall technical costs on an average basis, the benefits that come with it make it completely worthwhile and something that I would recommend to every MSP.

It has not decreased help desk tickets. It has changed the nature of the tickets, and that is not a bad thing. It means that we are using ThreatLocker properly, and we are not making broad sweeping policies that are overly permissive. It requires us to do our job a little more diligently.

It has increased our operational costs, but it is entirely worth it to increase those operational costs.

It can block access to unauthorized applications. It is very dependent upon the implementation and the access that is allowed. If you are giving this to your technicians without the appropriate training, it can be dangerous and not helpful. It can be a false sense of security, but if you implement it properly and are willing to make the investment in training your team properly on how to manage ThreatLocker, it is fantastic.

It has changed what our IT team is working on. Instead of working on old-style things, such as GPO or CryptoLocker policies and reviewing enforcement and deployment of that GPO and linkage, they are now spending their time reviewing policies within ThreatLocker. There is a shift in focus, but it is far more worthwhile. Every hour that has been replaced with ThreatLocker time is a much more effective use of their time.

Application whitelisting is significant, though it may seem obvious. What sets ThreatLocker apart from competitors offering similar solutions is ringfencing. The ringfencing controls, along with the application elevation features, keep it out of the user's line of sight while still protecting them. This protection is unobtrusive but effective, as users are protected without their awareness. 

I find that the learning mode is too accessible. Technicians sometimes default to it instead of manually building policy controls. I would prefer the learning mode to be harder to access, ideally hidden behind a layer that requires creating at least one policy first before using the learning mode as a supplement. 

Because of the accessibility of things like the learning mode, it moves towards defeating the purpose. The level of learning and the processes required to use ThreatLocker properly is high. You require a very high-tech person to truly understand its in-depth nature. We have tried it with our junior techs, and they just default to throwing learning mode on everything. It is too easy and allows techs to push through things that they should not. When you are using it properly, it has a high learning curve and a high difficulty level.

It requires quality-of-life enhancements from an administrative perspective. Currently, there is a strong technical focus but less emphasis on the business aspects, such as billing and portal administration.

I believe we have been with ThreatLocker for about three years.

The platform's stability is solid, but I have concerns over their rapid expansion into areas like the endpoint solution acting as an EDR. They might be trying to become an all-in-one solution instead of focusing on their niche of augmenting other solid solutions. Companies like SentinelOne and Huntress have strong offerings, and ThreatLocker excels in complementing them instead of competing directly.

It is quite scalable. This scalability is partly due to our implementation strategy, where every client receives it without exception.

It has been fantastic. The feedback from our technicians working with Cyber Heroes has been positive, and my experience with our account managers, Ben, Lansard, and Garrett, has been exceptional. The service has been outstanding.

I would rate their customer support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We had no application whitelisting platform prior to ThreatLocker.

The agents are on-premises. The deployment of ThreatLocker agents has been very smooth and clean. Our challenge has been the maintenance of the accounts. As devices go offline and are retired, there are no automated falloff methods, and that has caused some challenges for us.

We had a sales engineer provided by the ThreatLocker team to assist us. I want to specifically acknowledge Garrett, our second sales engineer, who made the product work effectively and built our trust and confidence in ThreatLocker.

It is less about a tangible dollar return on investment and more about risk management and peace of mind for both our MSP and our clients. Feedback from technically inclined clients indicates that having this solution in place allows them and their teams to feel secure, helping us all sleep more soundly at night. For an MSP, it has been one of the most effective solutions.

We have encountered a few challenges regarding pricing, contract renewals, and additions. As we explored adding features like Cyber Hero, it proved to be an increased expense for our clients. This was primarily a mistake on our part due to how we initially priced it to clients. After conversations with other partners, it became clear we underpriced it initially, which caused most of our issues, rather than any fault with ThreatLocker.

We evaluated multiple solutions beforehand such as SentinelOne, CyberFOX's AutoElevate solution, and others. We evaluated these options before adopting ThreatLocker and continue to reevaluate them annually, but ThreatLocker has consistently remained in our stack because they do it right. ThreatLocker stands out because they understand application whitelisting and elevation controls deeply, addressing real issues effectively.

A lot of companies get into application whitelisting and elevation control, but they lack a true understanding of the real issues and how to properly address them. ThreatLocker does a great job of knowing what they do well, and in a good way, staying in their lane and excelling at what they do. A lot of the other people who have similar products either are vastly overpriced or try to do it all. When you try to do it all, you end up not doing it all well. ThreatLocker excels in knowing its strengths and not overextending.

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. More emphasis on the business aspects, such as billing and portal administration, would push the rating to a ten.

Our main use case for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is to protect our Linux endpoints.

The feature I prefer most about ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is the default deny because our endpoints are mirror machines, and we do not expect any behavior other than the expected. Blocking everything by default is the best solution that we found in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform benefits our company because we can be secure while remaining relaxed, as we are only expecting normal behavior and nothing unusual. Every action that is not expected will be locked by default.

My impression of the allow-listing feature in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform in terms of managing which software, scripts, or libraries run on our device is that it is amazing because we can block everything and only allow the things that need to be executed to work. It is a ten out of ten for us.

We use the Ringfencing feature. I would assess the impact of the Ringfencing feature in controlling the behavior of approved applications as perfect, but I do not know how well it performs overall because we do not use it extensively. We only use it for one application, and it is only to control which server it connects to.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform can be improved by making the installation easier. We have one policy applied for all devices, and that policy was created for the first device. Since they are mirror machines, we can copy and paste the policy on all machines, and we do not need to do a manual deploy for each new device that we add to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform.

One thing I would improve in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is the time it takes to apply a policy. Although it is very short, it can be improved. Additionally, I think there should be more options for Linux distributions because I am a penetration tester, I use Kali Linux, and it is not available for Kali Linux. I need to execute some tricky commands to be able to install ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform on my machine, and I think this is something that needs improvement.

I have been using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for the last two months, and we are very new to it.

Regarding the reliability and stability of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, it is a ten out of ten. I have never experienced a problem or downtime with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, and everything runs correctly.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform scales well with the growing needs of our company, and we are planning to expand the usage, so I think it will be expanded.

I did consider other solutions before choosing ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform. We considered Huntress, but it was not very accurate for our solution.

We were thinking of a solution based mostly in Linux, and Huntress is more for Windows. The principal device was a Linux machine, so we decided to select ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for that.

This is my first experience with a solution of this kind in this area. I do not use the Network Control feature. I do not use the Elevation feature. I do not use the Storage Control feature. I do not use the DAC Dashboard. I do not use the Web Control feature. I would rate ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform a nine out of ten, only because it does not have compatibility with Kali Linux. My advice to other companies considering ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is to use it and create great policies because it is amazing.

I deploy it on every endpoint that I can, primarily focusing on application control, ring-fencing, and elevation control.

The ring-fencing and elevation control are the most valuable features for my use cases. The benefits, specifically regarding elevation control, allow me to enable an end user to complete tasks independently. They can install the software by requesting access, saving time and empowering them while maintaining necessary controls.

It's very easy to use, implement, and deploy. The caveat is that you do need to dedicate resources and effort that are focused on the product, and you need to truly understand it. You can't just deploy it and forget about it. 

The tickets that we get are more actionable. When ThreatLocker blocks something or when there is an elevation request, we can do more with the request. We are more actionable. The requests come with more data and information about what's going on so that we can react. If it's a proactive request like installing software, we can provide access to the person without having to manually do it ourselves.

ThreatLocker helps with cost saving. It's not an operational cost. It saves on reactive and recovery costs by preventing it in the first place.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped us protect our environments and have more meaningful requests for access as well as meaningful logging for response.

I don't see ThreatLocker as a time-saving platform. The caveat is specifically with things like control. It allows us to save time on the elevation controls allows or helps us to save time when it comes to monitoring and getting on a user's computer and watching them install something or going through the steps with them when they are capable on their own. We can empower them to have that access as needed in a controlled way. That saves our time by giving them the access rather than having to go do the action for them.

For the space that it's in, it's already there. I don't know of another product that compares to its level. Even recently, with the addition of the detect module is a very nice add-on to the packet we already have. We have all that auditing, logging, and visibility for which we don't need to go to an endpoint. 

Adding more direct integrations with cloud platforms and services would greatly improve it. When managing file control or storage control, having the capability to manage more granular access within platforms such as SharePoint or OneDrive would be beneficial. Controlling the cloud environment, not just endpoints, is crucial.

I have been using it for about two months. Previously, in a different company, I used it for one or two years.

I have not encountered any issues with the stability of the platform. I have not experienced any failure, degraded service, or functionality. It has been very stable, reliable, and accessible.

Scalability is challenging, not due to the platform. Scaling ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform usage requires dedicated resources for maintenance. Improper management can complicate scalability, though the platform retains its functionality and performance. It is well-structured to handle scaling.

The support and service from the team for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform are excellent. Their cyber hero team is very responsive and knowledgeable, and all the engineers and team members I worked with have been great.

Neutral

I did not use other solutions for application and network control. I have used other solutions for tasks like firewall management, policy management, and maybe even data loss prevention. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform fills those gaps. I moved control of those functions to this platform.

Deploying the ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform offers several methods to deploy the software. It is well integrated, with excellent instructions for specific use cases, and the guidelines and guides are very clear.

I haven’t, thankfully, encountered a situation where significant cost or response was prevented, and hopefully never will. I know what it does for my endpoints daily. Honestly, the return on investment is the peace of mind that it provides.

Pricing, setup costs, and licensing have been pretty accessible and manageable. It was not too expensive to get started, especially at a small scale for a smaller MSP. It is very accessible, easy to enter into, and scalable. As the product scales out, my ROI can also increase. ThreatLocker teams have worked with me to make it fit.

I didn’t switch to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for this specific function. However, for functions I adopted from it, outside of application whitelisting, I evaluated it against other products and chose to use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for those purposes.

My tasks and job function within the company focus on cybersecurity, managed IT services, and overall platform support for customers. The ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped me control client environments and prevent unauthorized applications and access. It does not cut costs but saves on reactive and recovery costs by preventing issues initially. It has not reduced help desk tickets significantly, but it has helped protect environments and foster more meaningful requests for access and comprehensive logging for response. Elevation control allows me to save time by granting users controlled access as needed. The overall product rating is ten out of ten.

I use ThreatLocker at a bank and at a trucking company mainly because one has been hit with ransomware a few dozen times, and for the other, we just wanted to ensure it never got hit. It has actually stopped threats in their tracks at the trucking company. We haven't had a problem yet, so thankfully, nobody randomly clicks on things. 

At the other company, there are 300 employees in a warehouse, and only two of them are computer literate, so they click on everything. It has been very helpful in reducing the madness that comes with phishing and random malware or ransomware.

ThreatLocker has been excellent for reducing the issues with ransomware and malware, keeping end users in check, and ensuring they have to request access for certain actions. This process involves verification for necessity, particularly when considering VPN bypasses.

The application control has been great so far, and while I am still exploring the network access controls, I unfortunately don't have access to one module I would love to have due to licensing restrictions. 

It's easy to use in regard to reducing attack surfaces. For me, it's a piece of cake. We can have something approved within 30 seconds, thanks to the mobile app.

We haven't eliminated security solutions. We just add to it, and ThreatLocker has been a great addition. We also have Kaseya and ThreatLocker as a supplement to that. It's useful. They have overlap, and we look at the overlap as a good thing.

It's helped your organization save on operational costs or expenses by ensuring that many fewer hours are spent dealing with ransomware nonsense. I cannot count the amount of hours that I personally have not had to put in to recovering an environment from a ransomware event. The last big one took us about three weeks to completely recover from. Since we've grouped ThreatLocker in, the management of that whole setup has gone down to just daily help desk tasks and general server maintenance instead of having the whole system on fire. There are probably thousands of hours of saved time between our teams. It's been great so far. 

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications is great. It's my biggest protection, the blocked applications. In a lot of cases, you go to install something yourself that you need for management, and it comes in and says, nope. And then I have to log into the portal and approve it. I get our other guys saying, hey, why are you trying to approve something? Any of the tools that I'm using on a day-to-day basis that haven't been in the environment during the whole learning mode initially, I could go through and set extensions and all that. So, while it's a headache on that end, the amount of saved time I can't even count. It is a little frustrating on my end since I like to go as quickly as I possibly can, and it slows me down. However, that's a really good thing.

Depending on the site, it can save a lot of time and cut down headaches. It's likely saved a week's worth of time. 

It's cut down the amount of sever help desk tickets. Those have become minimal. 

Identifying areas of improvement is challenging, however, perhaps adding a few more built-ins could help. There are items updated a couple of times a year, especially in the banking industry, where some applications could benefit from built-ins. While it's understandable why they aren't available, manually building rules and adding hashes takes extra time. Some built-ins are reportedly in progress and should eventually be available.

Unfortunately, I lack access to one component due to licensing requirements, however, it is what it is.

I have used the solution for almost two years now.

I have yet to encounter any problems with it, apart from end users complaining that they can't install whatever they want, which is exactly the desired outcome.

I have not had any issues at all. At one site, I started off with just the servers, and within a month and a half, I set up the entire company with ThreatLocker. I expanded from maybe ten to fifteen initial installs to well over one hundred in two weeks. It was super simple.

I joined a conference call with a colleague and asked a question. The detailed explanation provided by the representative was impressive, showing features I was unaware of. It encouraged me to explore the training materials in ThreatLocker University. 

Neutral

I have been researching various options, and if I remember correctly, Kaseya recommended ThreatLocker. I have contacts at Kaseya, and there are ongoing discussions about new solutions. The suggestion to try ThreatLocker led us to run a trial, initially planned for thirty or ninety days. However, within two weeks, I decided to license it for the entire company due to its impressive performance.

The initial deployment took me about a day to figure out how to do the initial deployment correctly and it has been solid since. In terms of implementation, I have no complaints at all.

We've got data RMM that we can use to push it out. We can use the VSA RMM to push it out. We can push it via GPO. So it's super easy to do. The only time we have to manually install it is on systems that we haven't plugged into a network yet.

The return on investment is significant as I am now recommending it to all our clients, even those with just one or two servers. It keeps malware, Trojans, and ransomware at bay. It is a worthy investment, reducing management headaches and cutting down on hours for minimal investment.

We probably looked at about a dozen options.

Overall, I would rate it probably a nine out of ten. I don't like to give a perfect score if it doesn't directly benefit someone within the company. It should be a ten since I've had no problems with it, and it is as rock-solid as expected. 

The time saved from dealing with ransomware nonsense is invaluable. We spent about three weeks recovering from the last significant attack; however, since implementing ThreatLocker, management has been reduced to daily help desk tasks and server maintenance, saving our team thousands of hours.

As a managed services provider, my use case involves monitoring when managed users attempt to install any kind of file, whether malicious or benign. ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform generates an alert whenever this occurs. After checking whether the file is malicious or benign, I as an admin will approve or disapprove the request. I check whether the file, application, or whatever the path is, is benign before we allow the user to install it.

I appreciate how ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform can specify the exact path that you want to give access to for the user. Rather than just a file, you can specify an entire path in the folder, straight from the folder to the file, pinpointing the exact file that you want to install. You can pinpoint that and only give access to the user to install that, and nothing else in the folder.

The allow list feature in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is very handy. When you specify an exact path, it will only allow you to go there, and you cannot go anywhere else in the folder to install any other file but that exact file that we have specified. This is where the allow list feature is particularly useful.

The elevation feature in ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is basically approving the user to elevate to local admin mode, wherein they can do whatever they want in the software. Depending on the kind of software, if it is an in-company, company-made software that is bound to the company, only then do we allow the elevate feature. Otherwise, for external software, downloads, and installations, we do not allow elevation. We do not elevate the users and give them local admin access.

I do not see any improvements needed for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform. I think perhaps they could make the dashboard a little more appealing, but other than that, I do not see any issues with the software and how you use it.

To be honest, I have not actually explored the entire ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform dashboard. I do not think I am qualified enough to tell you if there can be improvements or if I want to see something new, because I myself have not explored the entire dashboard. I just recently discovered the different features that were explained to me. I just recently found out that those features are also there. I do not think I am qualified to tell you that this should be added or that should be removed.

I have been using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform for a year and a half.

I have never had an issue with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform being down or not being accessible or any problems. I have not encountered any sort of problems with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform where it is not accessible or it is not doing something that I want it to do.

There are no specific issues or complaints regarding ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform's scalability. The deployment and scalability process appears to be straightforward.

Before using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform, I have only used Defender for Endpoint, which is Microsoft's solution.

For all the deployments, I push it through Intune. You make a hash file and push it through Intune and I do not think there is a lot of fuss. It is just as simple as every other application or software that we make policies for in Intune.

I think the biggest expense that you can save is an attack from an outsider. If your data is not going outside and if you cannot be bullied or your data is not being kidnapped by external attackers, I think that is the biggest benefit of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform. I do not think you can ask for any more than that.

I have not used an exact alternate to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform. If you could ask me about the closest technology or software that I have used to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform, it would be Cisco Umbrella, wherein you can specify the links, websites, and data that you do not want your users to access. I think the closest thing to ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform that I have used is Cisco Umbrella.

Again, just as mentioned, if you are pushing it through Intune, it is just another application or software that you are pushing.

If you are implementing ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform, I would suggest you to explore everything. I am sure that it is inclusive of everything from endpoint management to where the user is trying to install something or trying to delete something. The entire managed endpoint, I think the company that is implementing it should utilize all and explore all the aspects of whatever ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has to offer. I would rate this product a ten out of ten.

I work for an architecture firm. We use ThreatLocker Protect to protect the company's systems from unknown malware by blocking unapproved applications. We encounter a lot of malware and ThreatLocker has been able to help with that.

As an architecture firm, we rely on TAISE’s Cybersecurity-as-a-Service (CaaS) to keep our systems safe from malware threats. TAISE introduced us to ThreatLocker, which has become essential in safeguarding our infrastructure by blocking unapproved applications and defending against unknown malware. Given our exposure to frequent malware, ThreatLocker, through TAISE's expert implementation, has proven invaluable

ThreatLocker Protect is very simple and easy to understand. You do not need much technical knowledge to be able to use it. It is very good. Anybody with a bit of IT knowledge is able to handle it.

Ringfencing adds an extra layer of defense. If an application is compromised, you can just exclude the computer and do your troubleshooting and find out what the problem was. It goes hand in hand with application whitelisting. It has been very helpful. It adds an extra security system which is very much needed for our infrastructure.

ThreatLocker Protect has improved my organization greatly. Before using ThreatLocker Protect, we experienced a malware attack that caused significant damage, corrupting many of our files. Since implementing ThreatLocker Protect, we have not faced any such issues, and our operations have been smooth.

We were able to realize its benefits immediately. No user can install any unknown applications or unauthorized applications on their own. I have been able to manage my systems effectively without any malware.

ThreatLocker Protect has reduced our help desk tickets by about 40%, as every software they use is approved by me before use, limiting unauthorized installations.

ThreatLocker Protect has freed up a lot of time. I do not have to do much with the help desk because our systems are protected with ThreatLocker Protect.

The application whitelisting feature allows us to block and manage approved applications effectively. It ensures that no one can install an application on our systems unless it is approved by me, which is very efficient.

It is very easy to use. When a user sends a request, you can go to the dashboard to view the application that the user wants you to approve. If you are okay with the application, you just click the Approve button to approve. It is very easy.

The support could be quicker. There are times when there is a delay in getting a response. This is problematic when immediate attention is needed.

The stability can also be better.

I have been using ThreatLocker Protect for the past three years.

Stability can be improved as there are times it goes down or requires management to adjust policies. I would rate stability a six out of ten.

It is scalable to an extent, depending on where it is used. I would rate scalability a seven out of ten.

We have one location but multiple departments. Overall, we have 25 users.

Our company is small. I know which applications each user is supposed to use and what they need. Once I get a request, I go over to the application they need to install. If it aligns with the work they do, I approve it.

I would rate their support a five out of ten. It could be better, especially with response times.

Neutral

We did not use another solution before.

The initial setup was straightforward. Its deployment took about a week.

Our return on investment with ThreatLocker is about 20%.

Its time to value was immediate.

The pricing is reasonable and normal. I do not have any problems with the cost.

I would recommend ThreatLocker Protect to other users as it is a very important tool for IT administrators like me. It helps manage user access and secures the system efficiently.

I would rate ThreatLocker Protect an eight out of ten.

My main use case for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is the protection of our servers and endpoints from potential cyber threats.

A quick specific example of how I use it for protection is that it helps in whitelisting applications and ensures that only business applications are running on servers and endpoints, blocking any other services that are not whitelisted.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform also helps in reviewing threats detected and blocked by the platform in my environment.

The best features ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform offers would be its capability of whitelisting known applications and in-house applications, and also in proactively blacklisting ones which are not utilized in our organization.

The allow-listing capability of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform compared to other tools I've used before does give a sense of security for our organization when ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is working efficiently, and it also helps in making sure that our IT team and our security teams are well aligned in terms of whitelisting.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has positively impacted my organization by making sure that developers and other users do not utilize applications which are not allowed as per our IT policy.

It does help in ensuring that threats are reduced, the attack surface is reduced, and our team is not overwhelmed with too many alerts.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform serves its purpose effectively, and there is nothing much to highlight about how it can be improved at the moment.

I have been using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform for the last three years.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is stable.

The scalability of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is straightforward, and we can scale up when required.

We have not required customer support for ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform.

This is the first zero-trust solution we have implemented, and I did not previously use a different solution.

I have seen a return on investment with ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform; I require about three fewer people in my team.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform has saved on people costs since the application does the job.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is straightforward, and there are no issues.

I evaluated other options, specifically Zscaler and CrowdStrike, before choosing ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform.

By using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform, my organization has been able to consolidate certain features such as application control; I can use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform instead of application control on the firewall.

My impression of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform's allow-listing feature in terms of managing which software, scripts, and libraries run on my devices is that it is most useful and is the main purpose of this application.

The efficiency of the real-time threat intelligence and category controls employed by Web Control in blocking malicious and non-compliant sites is very useful.

My advice to others looking into using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform is that you can look into a proof of concept before you buy. I give this solution a review rating of ten out of ten.

I primarily use it on servers. We deal with smaller customers, and they don't always have the money to get it on every endpoint. The main thing exposed to the internet is, of course, the server, RDP, and other functions. 

We have some customers that have it on the endpoint. In the past few years of using ThreatLocker, I haven't experienced ransomware on servers. However, there are small occurrences on endpoints when they're not using ThreatLocker.

With ThreatLocker, we don't have shadow IT, and it has reduced ransomware. 

We have a lot of companies concerned with compliance. They have an application list, and anything outside of that application list is not allowed. ThreatLocker makes that really easy for us since you just allow what they need, and no one can run anything else.

Ringfencing is a valuable feature. If someone gains access to something or some end user attempts to run malicious PowerShell commands to download malware, it simply doesn't allow it. It's like saying, I'm not permitted to reach out to this. 

ThreatLocker eliminates shadow IT and reduces ransomware. We have many companies that need compliance. They have an application list, and anything outside of that list is not allowed. ThreatLocker makes this easy by allowing only what we need, preventing us from running anything else. 

Previously, I used AppLocker, a Windows tool, which is a lot of work to manage. ThreatLocker reduced work, allowing us to hire fewer people for this job. The time saved from not having to do recovery when malware runs, which can't happen with ThreatLocker, also saves money.

It's fairly easy to use. It has a learning curve. However, if you go to the university, you should be fine. And if you don't know something, you can just click the chat button. You'll be chatting with someone in 30 seconds.

It reduces work. It helps us save on operational costs that way. You can hire fewer people or move people onto other stuff. People can be moved to other tasks. We likely save one FTE a year, so it saves us around 30,000 euros.

We can block access very well. They are doing their job. 

It reduces the amount of time a ticket takes to action. 

It doesn't really have to do with ThreatLocker as a company. It's really annoying when other companies don't sign their executables with a certificate, requiring new rules for new files. It would be beneficial if it became more recognized in the EU to gain respect. That's about the only issue I can think of.

I have used the solution for a little bit more than three years now.

It's really stable. Once deployed, it downloads the policies locally, so even if the computer doesn't have internet, it doesn't matter. It still works.

The scalability is great. I can put as many endpoints in it as I like.

The customer service is very good. If I need someone, I hit the chat button, and 30 seconds later, there is someone there to help me.

Neutral

I used the Windows built-in AppLocker, and that was it.

We use RMM to deploy the agent.

The initial setup had its ups and downs. That was all on us. We tried to roll it out for everyone at the same time. I'd advise against that.

I had a Solutions Engineer help me. He was from ThreatLocker.

I would estimate savings equivalent to one person per year, which is about 30,000 euros in our country. Not dealing with recovery when malware runs, as it can't run, saves a lot of time and money. The subscription includes help desk time, saving us even more.

The setup is quite cheap, considering what it does.

I didn't evaluate a different solution before choosing this one. Afterwards, I looked at Cyberfox for the elevation control, however, it was unsatisfactory.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

If something isn't working, you get a helpdesk ticket. If they don't know the answer, they escalate and eventually hop on a call with you without automatically closing tickets. It's been great. My Solutions Engineer has been fantastic. Even as he's moved up within the company, I can still call him.

Many of our firms are currently using ThreatLocker, and they have been very happy with it. It can block unauthorized software from being downloaded. 

A few years back, we had an attack on one of our biggest clients. After that, we implemented ThreatLocker. For the last couple of years, there have been no issues or attacks. This has been really helpful.

Currently, we are not using the full range of modules, however, we are using ThreatLocker elevation. That's really good. 

The deployment is very easy.

We've been able to save some operational costs and expenses by using this product. However, the main thing is that it protects our customers. 

The zero-trust endpoint availability is good. It can block unknown applications straight away.

We have reduced help desk tickets. It helps with management. We have a good team in place. 

Some reporting areas need improvement. We need to generate more reports. That area should be improved. We'd like reporting on if someone tried to install software, we'd like to be able to generate reports on what was blocked.

I have been using ThreatLocker for the past four years.

Stability is good; it is a growing business. Over the last four years, it has grown significantly.

Scalability is good. There has been no impact in the last couple of years.

Support is good, with very quick support from Cyber Heroes if any staff requires help. From our side, they are really helpful.

Neutral

We did not use another solution previously.

The initial setup is good; deploying is very easy.

We are managing the implementation ourselves.

It's protecting our customers. That is the main thing. That's our ROI.

In the last couple of years, the price has remained the same. Nothing has changed, and it's good. I hope it will not increase soon.

We did not evaluate other options. 

The overall rating of the solution is eight out of ten. We need to improve the reporting side, including reporting and generating reports. That area needs to be improved.