If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Symantec Endpoint Encryption, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
In terms of encryption, we do deployments in the region on behalf of Symantec. We have Symantec DLP for almost 20,000 plus users. We have the messaging gateway from Symantec and we have SSL certification and issue verification from Symantec. We also have Blue Coat from Symantec, which we keep selling to our clients. I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.
Up until last year, I was using the latest version of the solution. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.
I'm in Nigeria, and we also serve Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, and a bit of South Africa. Whenever you're deploying security solutions such as Symantec Endpoint Encryption, there has to be a lot more focus on sensitizing the people who are going to be affected. We train the IT staff on how to manage it, but we don't train the end-users on what it involves and the advantages of the solution. We also don't inform them of the changes they may have to make in terms of their behavior, how they access data, how they use the data, etc. We need to let them know that it doesn't mean that they are completely secure. The biggest issue about security is human error. So, I think sensitizing the users should also go hand in hand with deployment. I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption at eight on a scale from one to ten.
This is absolutely a product that I recommend. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
We are a customer and end-user. I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. It's not the latest one. I understand the latest one will be able to go page Windows - which we also partnered with. The problem is not all our machines are on the latest version. We are looking to see if we switch to the latest one. In a few years, Microsoft will likely change to a new version again. Then we will be having the same problem again. It's best to align with Microsoft so that we do not have to do so many changes. Not catching up with Windows is also a risk currently due to the Microsoft Edge issue now. Without the latest Windows version, we cannot use the latest Edge version. I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten overall. It works okay, however, the switching part and initial setup make it an undesirable option for us.
I would recommend this solution. I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption an eight out of ten.
I would advise others to be aware of their requirements and about the complexity that they need to adopt. Sometimes people want to have all the information encrypted, but they are not clear about what encryption means. In the case of hard disk encryption, some users don't like to enter an additional password for encryption. They have to enter a password before Windows start, which many users don't like. Therefore, we have to bring some awareness to them and explain the necessity to have another point of control to open their hard disk. So, the main advice would be to be clear about what encryption means. I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption a nine out of ten.
I would definitely recommend this solution. I have seen a lot of endpoint encryption products, and Symantec is the best because it doesn't hamper the performance of the machine. If you use McAfee, it hampers the performance of the machine. I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption an eight out of ten. Right now, there is an issue going on with their support. That's why I'm not giving it a ten out of ten.
We only use the solution on our own endpoints for our own company and don't necessarily deploy it for clients. There are a lot of companies in India who are promoting these types of products. They may have quite a good idea about the packages and so on, what you can do, what you can't do and so on. Everyone seems well educated on it. It is not a very complicated solution. It's basically solid. You don't need that much technical support. Whether it's Symantec or TrendMicro or AVG or any other package it's all pretty self-sustaining. You'll simply notice it when you have a compromise, at which point you get alerted and then you look at what went wrong. Until you are compromised, you're happy with the product. I approve of Symantec Endpoint. I've been happy with the solution for the last four or five years. There have been no issues and we have not been compromised until now. I'd definitely recommend Symantec. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It does tend to slow down a machine when it does the scan. However, I've noticed the same slow down on competition like Norton or AVG and it doesn't slow anything down near as much as Norton.
On a scale of one to ten I would rate Symantec Endpoint an eight.
I do not recommend Symantec Endpoint Encryption. The support needs to be improved. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption as an eight out of ten. There is room for improvement and I think they need to make more effort here, but I would still totally recommend Symantec products and I'm a fan of Endpoint Encryption as a mature solution.
My advice to others who are considering this solution is to make sure that they do some testing if they are using disk encryption as we have had problems with updates. Our problem may depend on the version of Windows. So it may be different for other people. I didn't choose to use encryption before, so I learned a lot about the performance and the principle of encryption when it comes to messaging and share folders. So that part is good. On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption as a six currently. The main problem for us is working with Microsoft updates within PGP. This should be possible because BitLocker is currently doing that which might be a reason we would switch. Updates for Microsoft OS are very complicated for us right now.
Checkpoint has better support. With Symantec, we have subsidiaries involved. The performance is good and it's efficient. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
I would recommend cloud implementation, rather than on-premises if it is possible. The on-premises deployment model will lead you to have errors. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We're using the on-premises deployment model. I would rate the solution eight out of ten.
Give it a serious look. Our security team is more on the immature side rather than the mature side, as we build thing out. This automated solution puts us at the base level where we can get better. We went from not being happy with what we had to this product.
It is a good product.
If you make the investment in tech, in updated hardware and software, there are other tools - here we are at RSA 2019, those tools are all over the place. There are other tools that are not single-point solutions. You can solve a whole lot of problems for a lot less money if you're using updated hardware and software rather than old stuff, end-of-life, where you just have one other thing that you have to take care of it. You can put an umbrella over everything with a bigger, newer, better product. But you have to have your hardware and software up to date, rather than the situation that my organization is in. Semantic an excellent product. It's really just the timing that I mentioned earlier that doesn't work well for us. On the other hand, we haven't had a breach. We haven't had any issues. We haven't had any incidences of malware popping up. But that's more due to the isolated aspect of our networks. We're not touching the outside, so it's really hard for anything to get in. But disks can be sneakernetted in, hard drives can be brought in, USBs can be brought in, mistakes can be made. Not everything is malicious. Sometimes there is just incompetence involved where somebody hooks up something that they're not supposed to and you have exposure. But we haven't seen any threats related to any of that kind of behavior. I can't really say that we have had a case where anything has gone bad. In terms of security maturity, we're "mature" in the sense that we're ancient, using old equipment that has reached end-of-life. It's really from the old-age home, it's so mature. We're in dire need of tech refresh and I don't have the budget to support that. But if you unwrap that and look at it from the other side, what would we do without it? But the real mitigator, the thing that's actually protecting us, is our isolation. We have isolated systems so nothing can get at us. If I get audited, I'd better have antivirus definitions loaded up, current ones. But it really has not affected our security maturity. If it wasn't for the exception that I mentioned, Symantec Endpoint Encryption, would have been 100 percent successful and I would have to have given it a ten out of ten. With that exception, I have to knock it back to 90 percent, a nine out of ten because, as I said, we're exposed.
Try to look at many vendors. There are a lot of papers about solutions, especially this one. So, it's really nice. I started my security program four years ago, and we now have a mature security program. We added this solution as the last part of our security program.
Which is better and why?