CrowdStrike Falcon Reviews

We have various use cases. We are protecting servers and endpoints that are utilizing this product to focus on advanced, persistent threats, with the goal of reducing the overhead on the endpoint for early detection.

Right now, we have not put enforcement, and we're moving to the next level of detection.

Using this solution has reduced my need for imaging. We can mitigate the issue and address it immediately, for people both on and off of the network.

The most valuable feature is that we don't need to re-image machines as much as we had to.

They need to strengthen the forensic capabilities of this product, for e-discovery.

We started testing and deploying CrowdStrike Falcon about a year and a half ago, in the early part of 2019.

In terms of stability, it's a great tool.

At this time, we have between 5,000 and 6,000 endpoints.

We have been in touch with CrowdStrike technical support and they have been very supportive.

Prior to CrowdSrike, we used a signature-based solution from Symantec.

The initial setup was very straightforward and very easy. We've been bringing stuff into the SWOT platform and getting that data. It has been pretty good.

The implementation was done in-house. We had, in part, help from a strategic partner, EY.

CrowdStrike is what we did for the time and for the moment. It is number two when you look at the magic quadrant, and we have implemented that for the time being. When we selected it, that was right for us to get away from a Symantec signature-based environment for endpoint detection response.

We have moved over to CrowdStrike for now. When you look at the quadrant, the number one is Microsoft. With Defender built into the operating system, there is less overhead on the endpoint. We will eventually, most likely, migrate to that.

I have experience with Cylance, as well. They gave that the advanced persistent threat leader title, at one point in the market. I implemented that for one client and now, being in this CISO role, I went with CrowdStrike over Cyberreason and Cylance/Blackberry. The main reason for CrowdStrike is the Falcon technologies and what they do with their strategy.

We're moving to Office 365, and it will make sense for me to adopt Microsoft Defender because it's integrated into the platform. One of the differences between Defender versus CrowdStrike or any other of them is that they have to sit outside. Microsoft Defender can go deep down into the kernel, and that's a good thing for the endpoint. You can do a lot and detect a lot, which makes it far safer against advanced persistent threats.

Overall, this product has been pretty good and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is primarily being used at our endpoint, which includes roaming users with laptops. It is being used in all of our servers at our data center. Our security team can monitor everything centrally using the Falcon dashboard. If there is an incident, our team can actually go to the root cause of the incident to try to solve it there. 

The overall user experience is good. As of today, there have been no incidents that we've had to deal with and we've been using it for years. 

The solution has a very good graphical interface. It makes it easy to use. The central monitoring is excellent.

There's almost no maintenance required. It's very low if there's any at all.

The solution is an AI and ML-enabled tool for protecting our endpoints. We're still able to use Symantec as an endpoint as well.

The solution needs to have integration with on-premises security devices and security facilities. That means all the security products, including the perimeter firewall, the DMZ. 

I'd really like to have a complete solution. Right now most of the incidents happen on our endpoints. It is visible at the endpoint, the end server. If this can have a correlation tool that could actually give us a comprehensive dashboard, that would be useful. It could give us top-down visibility and could be from the firewall or any kind of security protection tool. It could be part of the DNS protection suite. However, that's why it's so important to have better integration capabilities.

If this endpoint is trying to get at this particular website and it is identified as DNS level protection, that also comes to this dashboard. Around 80% to 90% view of whatever it is happening with this endpoint, whatever action it is doing, can be inspected on the dashboard.

 If the endpoint is protected by CrowdStrike. I am only to access this application through a CrowdStrike protected device. 

We have been using CrowdStrike as a tool now for the last three months.

The stability may be too early to judge, as we are still in a POC. However, when we see the product, it is very, very stable.

We didn't go with the Basic version. We went with Superior. Even the insurance companies are also sold on this product. 

We find that the solution is very, very scalable as a tool and it can completely manage and protect the endpoint. It offers around 99.99% of your protection and assurance and can scale up however much you like.

We have implemented it for approximately 200 users as a POC. We are ready to have a contract with CrowdStrike and we will be implementing it for 700 users in the end, so we will scale it from the POC when we begin to officially use it.

Due to the fact that we are still running a POC, we have direct access to the principal on the contract. They have given us a lot of confidence in the product and they are always available alongside the system integrator. We basically have two layers of support.

At this initial stage, if there is any troubleshooting needed, or any type of support is required, the system integrator will provide this to us. If we need to escalate to support for some reason, we have agreed to have CrowdStrike themselves look into any issues.

So far, it's been an effective system and we are satisfied with the level of support we've received.

We were using Symantec products, which were Symantec EndPoint Four and Five. We found that the latest modules needed additional tools to protect us. There were multiple tools needed at various levels. There was complexity in increasing users on this platform. It also took a more traditional approach to security, and we were looking for something more advanced that had advanced AI and ML capability.

We evaluated CrowdStrike and we found it satisfactory in our environment. Therefore, we decided to change to it from Symantec.

The initial setup is very, very straightforward, and very easy to use. So far, we've found it very easy to drill down to the root cause.

This is a new area and product for us, so we decided to start using it as a POC. We started in March, or the end of February, of this year, and we have done a POC for some of our users. We'll be going forward with a full implementation and increasing our usage.

In terms of maintenance, I don't find there's much of a requirement for it. It is very easy to maintain. For monitoring and reporting purpose, we have access to a dashboard. Our security can take a look at everything themselves. We also have team members that are capable of configuring this product. That will help us to reduce the requirement of manpower in the long run.

We had a system integrator partner that assisted us with the POC.

I'm not sure what the exact cost of the solution is.

We're a customer. We don't have a business partnership with this solution.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using right now. It is the latest, as far as I know. We're currently running a POC with it.

In today's environment, it's very crucial to protect a company from ransomware, and malware. We focus mainly on avoiding these types of attacks. We're always interested in the latest tools that have the latest techniques and are effective in our environment.  

On top of that. we've noticed during the pandemic, there are even more threats happening. We need to focus most of our energy on the endpoints which are basically connected to an unprotected network.

The focus on the endpoints has to be increased at this point in time to ensure we have maximum protection. We prefer to have a cloud-based product rather than an on-premise-based product to protect our data and our endpoints. Therefore, we may need to move to a cloud-based protection suite. Other companies should also consider this. Whether they choose a product like CrowdStrike, Cortex, or Cylance is up to them.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as advanced threat protection. It is used to protect all endpoints, servers, etc. 

They're very good at what they do. As far as the product is, in its current state, I don't have any complaints at all right now. They do a quarterly review with us, just so they can let us know how many viruses or how much malware they've stopped, etc. Those features are quite good. They also go through the portal step-by-step to describe whatever they improved or tightened up. They will explain everything clearly and in a way that a customer can understand.

They do also ask for feedback, which is nice. They'll ask things like "The last time we changed this, how was your experience?" or "Did you get a lot of false positives?" or "Did you get any complaints?" etc. That's pretty good. Not many companies do that.

The UI is simple and self-explanatory. Everything is easy to understand.

So far, in the past three years, they've been absolutely great. They've been more proactive than the solution we had previously was. They even introduced new products in their line and they came back and told us that they could add that product to our current solution. At first, we added them, then we decided we had sufficient resources in house to manage it ourselves and removed it. They were great about the change. 

They've caught quite a lot of viruses and malware that have been sent through improper links, which is very reassuring. 

They report any network isolation that has been done on certain endpoints if they detect a malicious file or malware on the device that couldn't be cleaned by automation. They isolate it or us. The end-user can contact the service desk and say, "Hey, I'm not able to surf the internet. I can't do anything, so can you help me?" or we're able to look at the endpoint and see "oh, your PC is infected, that's why you aren't allowed on." It's protecting us well.

Even though the users are somewhere else, even when they're not at headquarters, we are able to remediate everything before we put them on the network again. Those network isolations are great when we detect high threat malicious items. Those are valuable tools that we appreciate.

If an operating system is stopped by support by the original vendor like Microsoft, or maybe Apple, within a few weeks, CrowdStrike will also decide they no longer support it, and they kind of move on. I understand their model. However, if we still have the OS, it's hard to keep it protected. So, for example, if Microsoft decides to stop supporting or patching a solution, Crowdstrike too will stop supporting it and making updates. It's still a useable product, it's just not getting updates or patches and therefore may be vulnerable. 

The result is that we can't guarantee we're going to be able to protect that hardware or operating system. We either have to upgrade to a newer platform, which sometimes is not possible because you have a legacy application. Whatever that constraint is, sometimes we're not able to move things. We still have to rely on other products to support that. That's the only quandary I have with them. 

Basically, they don't cover legacy OS or applications. That's the only issue we're concerned about.

When a file is infected or it detects a ransomware file network, when it does remediate, it should self-heal as Sophos does. That's a good feature to have, but I don't know enough pros and cons about that to kind of recommend that because if it is a false positive, that may be a problem. If it detected a valid file and if for some reason it decides, "Oh, this looks like an infection," and maybe it's not actually infected, and if it goes in and remediates it by replacing it with an older file, that may be a problem. However, I don't know, because I've never used that feature or heard anybody say that's a problem.

I've been using the solution for about three years now.

I have two engineers that regularly watch everything. We all get alerts. We'll see if something gets isolated, or a user will tell us. We isolate the issues and work on them so nothing gets through the endpoints into the system. Within 30 minutes to an hour, an issue can be cleared.

It's therefore very stable. We're able to catch everything before it can get it. It's reliable for sure.

They're so pro-active there's very little intervention that we have to do on our end.

The solution is easily scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with that aspect of the solution.

Technical support is great. We've never had to contact them at all. Instead, they've always been proactive and reached out to us.

Their quarterly review manager will contact us every three months. They schedule it months ahead and we actually jump on a Zoom or WebEx meeting. They actually go through the improvements, how much detections they go through, all of our features, anything new that has been added, anything they're seeing out in the world in terms of threats, and where we need to tighten up the roles.

They would improve the sensitivity level or they will decrease the sensitivity level for some false positives. For example, they might say "Hey, we detect these, but they're not really a threat because this is just a Word document that's produced in an older format. It's not something that's malicious." Then they would decrease the sensitivity in certain areas, to eliminate the issue going forward. They always ask permission before tweaking anything. They will come to us and say, "this is what we're considering doing it and why we want to do it. Is that okay?" We usually agree to that and then they go ahead and do it.

It's just a phenomenal company. If they ever stopped the way they handle their customer service, then I would probably move on to a different company. So far they've been pretty good. For the last three years, they contacted us always and told us about every aspect of the solution. I don't think I missed a quarterly meeting so far with them due to the fact that it's all been so valuable.

Originally, we had Webroot. We used to get, every so often, a slew of viruses that would get through the cracks. I don't know if Webroot's definition didn't get updated in a timely manner or if they were just delayed in something, however, whatever it was, we used to get that intrusion quite a bit. Then we would patch it and we would have to remediate everything. It wasn't ideal. 

We were looking for a product that would be more proactive than a reactive solution, and after doing a bunch of research, we decided on CrowdStrike. 

The solution's initial setup was very simple. The only thing we had an issue with is our network operation. Is a separate organization that manages it. We have a network operation that we used for 24 hour monitoring. They don't support CrowdStrike and they were not experts in it. They stood us we would have to manage it ourselves. In the beginning, we were kind of worried about it. However, after that initial stage, the simplicity of how to install it, configure it was like a breeze.

We manage the entire solution in house. For maintenance, we have me and two engineers, plus a second level of support. There are around five people altogether.

I'm not sure of the exact cost of the solution. That's a detail our finance department handles.

We did research on Cylance. We looked at Norton as well. We went through a bunch of products and we decided CrowdStrike was probably the most advanced threat protection at that time, which was three years ago. 

One of the products we were looking at is Sophos. The reason we were looking at Sophos is we were purchasing a backup and disaster recovery tool. In that tool, they had a built-in Sophos pack; they integrated Sophos in to protect the backup and replication and recovery. That way, if a backup had infections, for some reason, and they weren't picked up, and it got into our backup product, then Sophos could kick in and pick it up. It has automated remediation, meaning it reverses back the infection before infection if that makes sense.

Sophos has a self-healing technology built into it, which is an AI technology that they invented. We were looking at that because we thought that may be a better product. We were doing some homework on that and trying to figure out more about it. We're still in the process of purchasing a backup and recovery tool, so we're still doing our homework.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. The last time I checked, it was version 5.6. It is up-to-date, however. I get a report every so often saying, we've updated the sensors, or current version, etc. It's an auto-update and it does that. Whenever it's missing something or it couldn't reach an endpoint, the company will send me a report of that, saying these endpoints are not updated because we couldn't detect it on the network any longer.

The only advice I would say to others considering the solution is, if they have an unsupported operating system or legacy application, to look closely at CrowdStrike to see if the solution actually makes sense for them. This is due to the fact that they're not going to be able to support it. If they have thousands of servers and 20% of them are legacy applications, they may not want to think about CrowdStrike because the solution doesn't support legacy products. Other than that, I fully recommend CrowdStrike. The advanced threat protection they have has always been great.

I'd rate the solution a solid nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is EDR and ransomware.

The features I like the most are the response time and the dashboard are both excellent.

I would like to see a more accurate integration and an option to check the local machine.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for more than two years.

The stability is around ninety-eight percent. The other two percent deals directly with the node being unable to detect as normal.

There is scalability but this is not our focus.

We have not had any issues with technical support. Much of what we use is online documentation.

We have used Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, SentinelOne, Carbon Black, and Trend Micro. The observation we have made is the accuracy and detection of CrowdStrike Falcon is excellent.

The initial setup is very straightforward given you have set your file control and detection levels correctly.

The cost is usually a challenge in the industry. I think we pay around sixty-eight dollars.

I would rate CrowdStrike Falcon an eight out of ten.

We use it to monitor everything related to the activity and to block any malicious activity. We are new in the security field in our company.

All the features are beneficial.

They should provide us with good visibility for everything.

We have been using this solution for two years, and it is deployed on cloud. We are also using the latest version.

The stability is amazing, and we don't have any issues.

It is scalable. We have 700 users, and we plan to increase the usage. We only need about three technical staff for deployment and maintenance, a senior systems engineer and two infrastructure managers.

We've used technical support, and I rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

The setup was straightforward, and it took one month to enable the policy and use cases. We completed it in-house.

It has an annual license, and it is not that expensive.

We evaluated Trend Micro before moving forward with CrowdStrike Falcon.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. Regarding advice, it is important to learn about CrowdStrike Falcon's capabilities and features. It would be easier to use if they gave that understanding.

We are a CrowdStrike partner, selling their products to our customers. We have small and medium-sized enterprise clients and clients in the government sector. Depending on customer requirements, we provide different CrowdStrike Falcon products, ranging from Spotlight to XDR.

The features we showcase to potential customers are prevention, malware protection, zero-day protection, and application scripting. Vulnerability assessment is another valuable feature.

Sometimes CrowdStrike changes the GUI, and they need to be better at informing us and providing guidance concerning that.

I would like to see a web filtering feature, and better application features. This would make the product easier to sell to smaller businesses, and would make it so that devices follow the applied policies anywhere; even when users are at home or travelling in another country, for example.

We have been working with the solution for three years. 

Crowdstrike Falcon XDR is a stable product. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is good; we raise a case using the portal and get a call back within a day. Help is available specifically for India, which is where we are based.

The initial setup is towards the middle; it isn't remarkably straightforward or complex. The GUI changes complicate setup, so our process begins with consulting the documentation, and then we can download and implement the agent onto a machine. This typically takes around 15 minutes per machine.

I'm not directly involved in sales, so I can't comment on the exact price, but I know the price decreases the higher the quantity we purchase.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use CrowdStrike Falcon for malware mitigation and hunting.

The most valuable features in CrowdStrike Falcon are the full EDR with antivirus, hunting, reporting, and RTR remote control.

CrowdStrike Falcon could improve by having an easier way to search and use the interface for extracting queries from the data. The interface could improve.

I have been using CrowdStrike Falcon for approximately eight years.

CrowdStrike Falcon is stable.

The scalability of CrowdStrike Falcon is good.

We have approximately 500 people using this solution in my organization.

We have contacted the support from CrowdStrike Falcon and it is very good.

The initial setup of CrowdStrike Falcon is straightforward.

The price of CrowdStrike Falcon is expensive and should be reduced.

I rate CrowdStrike Falcon a nine out of ten.

I mainly use Falcon for endpoint protection.

Falcon has decreased the load on our analyst team because they don't have to manually contact the system owners to stop that particular event from happening as Falcon detects threats and quarantines the machines itself.

Falcon's best feature is its detection and blocking of threats.

Falcon could be improved with more function on the mobile end of things and better optimization with mobile devices. In the next release, CrowdStrike should include the ability to send logs to SIM tools.

I've been using CrowdStrike Falcon for three years.

Falcon hasn't missed any attacks - it's very stable and reliable.

I'm very happy with CrowdStrike's technical support.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward because the vendor helped us throughout, and there was training while it was being deployed. The deployment took between one and two weeks to complete.

We used an in-house team.

I would recommend anybody looking at Falcon to go for it because it's an easy-to-understand solution that's really worth having. I would give Falcon a rating of nine out of ten.