BlackBerry Cylance Cybersecurity Reviews

Our primary use case for the solution is for endpoint security. It protects your computer or any other device from any malware, APT or spyware. We are customers and I'm the security domain architect of the company. 

What is valuable to me is the protection the solution provides against unauthorized applications. It secures different entry points into the network so that instead of being outside the internet, it's actually in the network and helps to protect internally.

The user interface could be improved, it's very outdated. The solution could also do with more help actions and explanations such as what has been identified, things like that.  

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The stability of the solution is awesome. 

This is a very scalable solution and easy to deploy. We have about 2,500 users in the company which is pretty much everybody. 

I would say it's really good because I've only had to use it once. The product is really low maintenance and easy to configure. So I really haven't had to do very much.

We moved over to this solution because it was more advanced at being able to identify how the malware is going to attack or how it's going to interfere with the operating system. There are just more tools to help security at the end point.

I wasn't involved in the setup, we have an IT department that deals with that. They were replacing another solution with this and the roll out took about a year to get to all the end users. 

I would advise anyone thinking about implementing the solution to go through a testing phase and see how the solution interacts with the users and cost out the employee population of the company. I've had this experience in another company and sometimes when you roll out a new product it can really change the way users work, sometimes negatively, and it can impact the business. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

We are currently using CylancePROTECT and CyclanceOPTICS.

Our primary use case is an anti-virus solution.

It is deployed globally throughout the organization.

Cylance is quite lightweight and does not require constant updates.

The Application Guard and ByteGuard are useful features.

The OPTICS component could be made more user-friendly with respect to giving people more information.

There are some issues that we have around our configuration, so I think that more training with respect to setup and configuration would be helpful.

I have been using Cylance for the past year and it has been in the organization for a couple of years.

This solution is very stable.

Cylance scales very well both on clients and servers. We have between 4,000 and 5,000 users.

I have not personally been in touch with technical support, but I know that when we have contacted them about anything in the past, they've been very responsive. Our account management team is very good, as well.

The company did use another solution prior to Cylance, but I don't know what it was.

The initial setup is very straightforward and the deployment took a few days.

We got a hold of the installation files and deployed them ourselves.

I think that the price we are paying is good for what it is. It could always be cheaper, but cheaper doesn't make it better.

Cylance is a product that I recommend trying. It is different from the traditional products that are out there like Symantec, McAfee, and Sophos.

This technology is very good, very stable, and we have great trust in it and what it delivers. They also do health checks from time to time and they help, which is useful.

This solution works well but there is always room for improvement. Nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use this solution as a customer and I provide services for my clients. We are system integrators and we use this solution for endpoint security.

I like the AI and mathematical components that they use.

I like the pre-execution method of protection that prevents infection. It is a nice feature.

I have already suggested features that need to be improved and Blackberry is already working on those improvements. For example, the interface and the Cylance Optics need to be improved a fair bit.

It's a good solution but some features just need to be updated.

I have been using Blackberry Protect for almost four years.

Blackberry Protect is stable. I have not experienced any issues with bugs or had any limitations with this Blackberry product. It's a good solution.

Technical support is good, but the response time could be improved. They can take two or three days to get back to you with a solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to install.

It's not so heavily priced; rather, it's average and decent.

I would recommend going with Blackberry Cylance, it's good. 

It's a very lightweight agent that doesn't put very much pressure on the computers, it's really good in terms of resources.

I would rate Blackberry Protect a nine out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for security purposes. I use it for endpoint protection and response. That's the only real use case for us.

The product works pretty well. It does a good job catching good viruses. While we haven't had a chance to test against any kind of ransomware attack, I know it works great and I'm not worried about its capabilities in that respect.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The solution has proven itself to be very stable and unobtrusive.

A user can continue to add endpoints and the solution will continue to perform well.  

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

Having worked with SentinelOne, Cylance is good, however, it probably needs to add a feature similar to SentinelOne's rollback functionality. With this feature, if you get infected, with a click, you can go back to the pre-infection state. If Cylance could add this functionality to their offering as well, that would be ideal. 

I've used the solution for only a few months at this point. It hasn't been too long. It's still rather new to me. 

The solution's stability is good. Most importantly, it is unintrusive. Even when it really goes through a lot of resources, it remains pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable.

The scalability is very good. I can add additional endpoints and the solution continues to perform well. If a company needs to expand, it should be able to do so with no problem. 

We have thousands of departments. We are quite a sizeable business. 

My understanding is that technical support is quite good. I don't deal with them directly, however, I have heard that they are helpful and responsive. I would say that we are satisfied with the level of support we receive.

I've used both Cylance and SentinelOne. I have more experience with SentinelOne.

However, they are very similar in terms of their offering. both offer good performance and are AI-driven with good machine learning capabilities. Neither has an impact on an endpoint's performance levels. They offer good protection as well. The biggest difference is that SentinelOne has a rollback feature, which is something Cylance should consider adding. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward and very easy to deploy. A company would not have any issues with the process. 

I don't have any information in relation to the pricing or the licensing. it's not an aspect of the solution I deal with. 

However, I can say that it's my understanding that it is 20% less expensive than SentinelOne.

We are Cylance partners.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It's likely the most up-to-date version. They update them quite often.

I'd advise companies considering the solution to take some time to do a proof of concept to see how it would react in their environment and then decide if it is the right solution for them.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used as the last line of defense for the customer. In regards to network security technologies that focus on protecting the network, the endpoint, if something gets through, someone brings it in, the endpoint protection will actually, as our last line of defense, detect it, prevent it from executing, and in some cases, actually remediate the issue. This solution is the last line of defense within your organization for events such as a breach and it also protects users.

In most cases, the solution's ability to detect in the MITRE framework and its ability to be able to detect attacks in any one of seven or eight different areas of the life cycle of an attack is very useful.

The product needs to continue to offer better alerts. In particular, around false positives. It needs to reduce them from happening.

I can't speak to the solution lacking any features per se.

In terms of reviewing the product, I've been dealing with it for about four or five years.

The stability isn't something that we measure. We're consultants and we just advise clients on if the solution is protecting them correctly or not. We don't look at stability issues.

As consultants, we don't look at scaling. It's not an aspect of the solution I can comment on.

We don't integrate or set the system up. I couldn't speak to how the deployment process happens, or how easy or hard it is. That's not an aspect of the solution we handle. We have nothing to do with implementing or managing the solution.

We don't handle the implementation process at all or advise clients on it.

We deal with a variety of other solutions in the market. It depends on which our clients are working with. We evaluate their security based on what they have. Sometimes it's Cylance, however, that's not always the case.

We're consultants. We don't have a direct relationship with Cylance. We are working with clients on security, and handle assurance-type work for them. We're not specifically working with Cylance, however, in some cases, we may be providing it from a security review standpoint. We'd look at the client and at the product and ask: Do they have it configured properly? Are they using it properly in their overall security strategy? et cetera.

We're not managing it, we're not integrating it or installing in anything in that. We just look at it from a security review or assessment standpoint and tell the customer whether or not they have it properly implemented based upon what they're trying to accomplish.

Clients may use a hybrid or a cloud deployment model and may have it on various clouds, such as AWS or Azure.

I general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case of this product is for protection of our computers and network. I'm the coordinator of special projects and we are customers of CyclancePROTECT.

The solution does a good job of blocking whatever it thinks needs to be blocked and it doesn't require a lot of performance from the computer.

The implementation was complicated requiring some things that felt unsafe. After that, it was easy

I've been using this solution for the past 12 months. 

Scalability is perfect - we have around 100 users. It doesn't require a lot of staff for maintenance. 

I haven't needed to use technical support, the supplier helps us with anything that needs fixing.  

The initial setup was quite complicated, it took us a month or two with the reseller doing a good job assisting us with the initial configuration. 

We currently pay an annual license fee although I'd prefer we were paying on a monthly basis. 

I would recommend this solution. It's important to have a plan and the time to deploy it correctly. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use CylancePROTECT for overall endpoint malware protection.

CylancePROTECT works really well with the way we work. It's flexible. It moves with people, whether you're virtual or working off-site or working here or whatever, it doesn't matter. We can manage it all in one place.

I find the actual overall endpoint malware protection the most valuable feature of CylancePROTECT.

I'd like them to do software distribution too, but they said that that's architecturally not at the product line. I'd like to see where they can push to avoid using another product to push the agents.

I have been using CylancePROTECT for almost seven years.

It's a stable solution, and I haven't seen anything bad.

CylancePROTECT's scalability seems very good. All the way from one to 100,000. We've seen it go both ways. All the way around. I've been in organizations that have had it too—they were much larger.

Technical support is very good and pretty responsive.

We used Carbon Black before and switched to CylancePROTECT because it failed.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

We are resellers and CylancePROTECT is one of the products that we offer to our customers.

The standard configuration is an agent that is deployed to every workstation. It protects against malware, scripting, and other threats using its built-in AI business logic.

The most valuable features are script blocking and macros within Word documents for stopping unwanted applications from running in the background.

The dashboard is good.

There is not too much overhead, which is good because you don't want unnecessary things that just build in bulk. 

The process of whitelisting a script that you want to be able to run can be a little bit difficult, or awkward. Some enhancements to this process would be an improvement.

I have been working with CylancePROTECT for about three years.

The stability is very good.

This is a scalable product. About 600 people in our organization use it.

I have not personally been in contact with technical support. However, we do have a support ticket, the odd time, and I would say that the support is good.

The initial setup is very easy.

The management platform is in the cloud and there is an agent on each device.

We have an in-house team that deploys this product for our customers.

This cost of the license is approximately $5 USD monthly per user.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.