What needs improvement with Cynet?

One area where Cynet needs improvement is tamper protection for Mac and Linux agents. It currently has tamper protection for Windows only. Users have permission to uninstall the agent from their system at any time. Cynet should have tamper protection for Linux and Mac operating systems.

I'm not the right person to identify areas for improvement; my technical folks can provide that insight. They are developing interfaces to pull logs from various types of firewalls, which is a work in progress.

There are some issues, especially with the integrations. There have to be more integrations with other firewalls and domain controllers of the network. This could be improved. When we speak about other improvements, I think integration is the only part to improve.

I have only been using it for one month, so I don't have extensive experience. However, compared to Trend Micro, the price of Trend Micro is high and support from its vendor was inefficient. Cynet offers enough visibility into our infrastructure, showing all endpoints and other agentless devices.

Maybe they should add more cloud-to-cloud integrations and also focus on integrations with local, on-premises services. Integration with local Active Directory, not only Azure AD, is a must. Also, integration with Exchange on-premises, not only online, should be considered. Many customers use on-premises servers like Exchange on-premise, Active Directory on-premise. They have email protection that works with Google Workspace and Office 365, however, it cannot work with local Exchange or free email domains like Yahoo or Gmail.

Their deployment needs some work, especially with integration with remote monitoring management systems like Datto AutoTask or ConnectWise Automate. They need to provide plugins that integrate with these tools commonly used by most MSPs. Also, there should be more options than deploying solely through group policy, as the assumption that GPO is working isn’t always the case. Their onboarding support is another area that needs improvement.

They are continuously improving. I knew them when they were a startup, and they've changed a lot since then. They've added cloud and mobile capabilities. I suppose everybody's working on AI these days. So, I would like to see more AI-based features in the next releases. For example, I am referring more to AI as a threat. How they use it already to detect threats is pretty cool, but what about detecting AI being used against me?

I cannot provide more details about Cynet's automation features. While Cynet claims to be automated, the specifics of this automation are unclear. They claim to have a high capability to detect and block attacks, but I am cautious about companies that claim to solve every problem without limitations. It does help in identifying malware on the network but doesn't specifically identify vulnerabilities.

The reporting functionality in Cynet may not be as comprehensive or flexible as desired. In this scenario, it might be more beneficial to create a separate policy administrator fee where users can construct highly detailed reports according to their specific needs.

There could be more customization options and detailed information provided in the reports. As a quality manager, my work profile involves implementing and ensuring compliance with ISO 27001, including detailed reports to meet internal business needs and external auditor requirements.

There is room for improvement in terms of support. The support should be faster to respond.

Cynet fails to deploy the same technology in mobile devices.

The solution lacks URL filtering. There is a need to have URL filtering in the solution.

There is room for improvement in the prevention aspect. One thing to note is that I highly recommend adding a deep learning-based prevention environment as an additional layer to Cynet. However, I always advise my customers to start with Cynet or XDR, for example, and then focus on the people, technology, and processes involved. This is the best approach to ensure that you are not breached with ransomware. While Cynet can prevent most attacks, there have been cases where ransomware has been quicker than Cynet's detection capabilities. In these situations, an additional tool is necessary to ensure complete protection, and that is what I sell as well.

Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement.

I have a new customer. It's a university, the largest in the country. They did very thorough research and implementations, and they were just raving about it. That said, they did have some hiccups. However, it's hard to say what areas need improvement. Cynet has a lot of experience with large companies. They cover the largest companies in the world, including the largest insurance company in the world. However, they could adapt their documents a bit when they deal with smaller organizations. For more complete functionality, I'd like to see them in SIEM. They have quite extensive SoR functionality, so operations automation is really good. However, there is room for improvement there. They could make it even broader and more in-depth. They have started a SaaS security posture management module, and of course, that can be expanded. They have only started adding platforms to that module, so they are working hard on expanding the number of products included.

Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use. I would also like to see a feature that makes it possible to do a better check of the network.

Reporting in Cynet needs improving. It is an excellent product. I would like to see more user-friendly reporting features. Certain reports are missing, but I am confident that they would work on them. The only downside of Cynet is the reporting. If you look at security, I believe it is more about building a data lake with everything in it. That is something that we are talking with Cynet about. I would like to see more emphasis on building the data lake and storing all endpoint data in the enterprise data lake so that data mining can be performed. CrowdStrike could do the same thing, in my opinion.

Sometimes, it is necessary for me to make important changes to a hard drive of a computer, and because Cynet does not allow me to do that, I have to go to the console and remove the computer from the security group just for Cynet. After that, I have to wait for 10 or 15 minutes for that to take effect. I would like to be able to disable Cynet locally. I shouldn’t have to go to the console to find the PC and then take it out of the group and then add it again to the group. I should locally be able to disable Cynet on a computer with a password or something like that, but it is currently not possible.

I'm quite happy with them. Compared to other tools that I've seen, they're kind of ahead of the curve. So, it is hard to fault an organization that I see as a leader. Other companies spend a lot more money on marketing but don't really do much more in terms of protection. They have automated response capability, and they're moving more and more into SOAR capability. They have built-in deception technology with host-file users, phantoms, etc. We used to call them honeypots. So, they're on target. They're doing a really good job, and they should continue to improve with SOAR.

Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play. If I compare Cynet with Trend Micro, DDI, and DDA. Cynet does not have a deep investigation in the network. I would like to see DDI and DDA into Cynet.

It is an endpoint agent, but they don't have a probe for checking the network traffic. They could improve from this point of view.

One problem is that Linux servers are not supported. We have our sites, but our servers that are in the cloud supporting the sites are not supported. The second problem is they don't have a solution for mobile yet, but it's expected next year. I want to install the solution on mobile devices. We have quite a lot of tablets and phones. A mobile solution will close the pyramid of all the clients in the data being used in the organization. Also we have outside suppliers and customers, or suppliers that are attached directly to the organization, and we also covered them.

Cynet gives a few false positives. It would also be nice if Cynet added the ability to put comments on each device. I would love to be able to say, "This is a computer in the conference room. This is a computer at the Mac desk." That way, when you have an alarm, you don't have to go to a separate registry to see which device has an alert. We have offices worldwide, so sometimes having an alert inside one building is fine, but sometimes we don't know if it's coming into our office in Morocco or the US. The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server. Then I would know who has access to that server registry and so on. But, on the other hand, I understand why they have not done that because they don't want to ask for private information on who is using what and what phone number. I can see both sides. I trust Cynet, so I don't have a problem sharing that information. However, some customers may have an issue. At the end of the day, it would be a field that the customer can choose to fill or not. So if there were one feature that I would like to improve, this would be at the top of the list. I'd like to be able to personalize the device labels so I can say, "This is the IT desk in our Montreal office. This is the IT desk in Saint-Laurent. Patrick is a salesman in Toronto who has had his computer attacked." When it's giving a warning, it isn't always providing notice to the user because it lets us decide whether it's a threat or not. So when it solves a problem automatically, I don't have to call. But some users are sensitive. And at the very least, we need to advise them that one of their files has been encrypted because the security software thought it might be a threat. So I think it's a valid request there, which will not take a long time. I mean, Cynet is already maintaining a database of the unit. So it's just setting a field that the IT can decide to use or not use. So it's a simple implementation of a modification as they had. Another disadvantage I have found so far is the platform has to be based on a desktop PC or server. It does not deploy on a mobile unit, like a cell phone or something like this. But for our primary requirements, it is doing the job.

I haven't had the solution for that long. So far, I haven't run into issues. I've been very happy with it. It's my understanding that they're coming out with different additional features that cover different endpoints. These things all take time, so I'm ecstatic with what they have out right now, for what it's able to provide protection. That said, we actually have protection prevention solutions also, however, with Cynet, we augment these. We're the inside, they're the outside. They're outside on the global scale, watching what attackers are doing, and we're inside trying to plug up cybersecurity holes and known vulnerabilities in applications within our customer's IT ecosystems. So far, it's working well. They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet. That said, you can't really say, "I wish they'd do this" or "I wish they'd do that." No, they need to keep doing what they're doing and helping me fend off these attacks. It's not about what else they could do, as we don't know what the attackers have planned until they strike.

The reporting is a little weak and could be improved. Seeing more of the threat intelligence would be a definite advantage. The other downside is that Cynet does not use the local time zone. It's based off of Greenwich Mean Time.

Its dashboard is not so good. On the dashboard, they don't show the count for client endpoints, which is a failure of this product. This count should be shown on the dashboard. I have 1,000 clients, but I can't see it anywhere on the dashboard.

Compliance reports need to improve. However, I think they might be releasing this in an upcoming update. More report customization is also needed.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the usability of this product for new threats. Meaning, not everything which is new is properly seen by the product and not all the required actions are taken. We don't have information for everything which should be generated by this product. I am referring to the functionality and accuracy of the product. We know that this product is probably not on the higher end of available products because the price of the product is lower than some competitors. We are sure that the functionality is also limited. But in some cases, the information is different. Ours generated from some hostile activity on the workstation is not enough information about the incident provided. The visibility and the explanation of an incident which happens on a workstation should be extended.

I can't think of anything, in particular, I would like to see changed. For our customers, it covers everything they need. The solution just needs to keep maturing and they need to keep up with the threat landscape to ensure they're protecting clients well as time passes.

They're a young company and very responsive but they probably need to mature in their processes. For example, I think it should be easier to deal with false positives. Part of the issue could be that we deployed very quickly and we still have to organize training and things like that. Maybe when we've done that and we understand the solution better, there won't be that issue with the false positives. It's quite a powerful solution but one feature that they could add would be to have more standardized third-party integrations, then it would be an amazing product. This however can still be achieved with the very comprehensive API.

There has not been much that I could currently identify as major areas for improvement, experience in the US Market will come because while newer to the US market their support has been very good and the solution solid. Functions-wise, at present the times for events are not a user's local time, but we assume that will be corrected soon. It would nice to be able to see local time zone capability.

I would like to see support for mobile protection and some additional reports included.

They need to create an Android app to support more mobile devices. A support center in Asia is needed.

Something that needs to improve is the mobile support and support for work tablet equipment. The technical support from Cynet could also be better.