Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Reviews

We use this solution for data theft and for some forensic work.

Forcepoint DLP has very good reporting whether it is at the gateway or it is the LP. The product is user-friendly. 

We faced some issues with the endpoint installation of the agent as it is not from a common ground. Rather than being able to give a command from the central control and install the agents on the laptop, you need to install them one by one.

I have been using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for 10 and a half years.

This solution is stable. There is no specific maintenance of Forcepoint DLP, it is just a matter of tweaking the product to comply with any new or amended corporate policies.

Forcepoint DLP is scalable, it is just a matter of installing the agents.

Previously, I worked with Symantec DLP and McAfee DLP. Forcepoint is more user-friendly than both of these products.

The initial setup of Forcepoint DLP is neither easy nor complex. The technical setup is easy, however, the user education takes time and can be a bit of a strain. 

If you are considering implementing Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention into your organization, be sure to be clear of your initial requirements. Sometimes users are thinking something totally different and the DLP will not meet those needs. 

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

We are customers of Forcepoint and I'm a senior information security engineer.

I like the encryption feature of this solution as well as the proxy aspect of it. 

The deployment and troubleshooting aspects of Forcepoint are very difficult. Implementation is complex and not user-friendly. In addition, we have a problem because our Mac systems are not able to support Forcepoint which requires us to have two softwares to make it work. 

I've been using this solution for one year. 

The solution could be more stable. 

The solution is somewhat scalable but could be more so. Our whole organization uses the product, we have over 20,000 users. We have at least 10 staff involved in maintenance.

Technical support is good but lacking in troubleshooting skills when it comes to Forcepoint. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Licensing costs could be cheaper. 

I rate the solution five out of 10.

Forcepoint DLP's most valuable feature is that it provides complete end-to-end security. It gives us an understanding of any violation happening in the network or via endpoint.

The post-optical character recognization feature could be improved because it only really works on documents with some length (at least three paragraphs). If someone has copied half a paragraph or half the content from a webpage, it doesn't work. In the next release, Forcepoint should include DLP, antivirus, and encryption in the same solution, which would resolve many of the IT problems we face.

I've been working with Forcepoint DLP for about five years.

Forcepoint DLP is stable.

This is a scalable solution.

Forcepoint's technical support is very good - they help you the moment you log the ticket. They're much more helpful than Broadcom, Symantec, or McAfee.

The initial setup is very simple and can be completed without an integrator.

Forcepoint has been very cost-effective because they gave us a good deal while procuring the DLP solution, and we just needed to add one license as we already had the appliance-based solution for the web proxy.

We evaluated Symantec, McAfee, and Trend Micro but found that Forcepoint was the best for complete on-premise without comparing the CASB solution, had the best UI, and was the most easily maintained.

I would recommend Forcepoint DLP to other users and would give it a rating of nine out of ten.

We have different areas of DLP like drive, chat, email, network, and endpoint protection. We have different data classifications which are regulated in our industry. Based on that data regulation, we created a few policies as per our government standards, like the social identity number, personally identifiable information, and personal health information. 

We categorized data for different sectors, and we have applied policies, and Forcepoint DLP actively filters it. If I'm sending some PII to you, it should get filtered out because it's against the organization's norm. It does its job actively.

I like that you can quickly create policies and enforce them in a matter of minutes. 

It would be better if we could easily integrate with other products. Suppose I want to integrate this DLP with some other CASB solutions or a firewall solution. In that case, it takes a considerable amount of time because Forcepoint DLP doesn't come with a legacy firewall or CASB solutions to integrate with it. We need to do it separately.

It's not improvised for different sectors, and I need to look for other solutions. I'm investing a lot of time researching and implementing other solutions for other areas. That is one point where I can't feel satisfied with this Forcepoint DLP.

The only problem we have faced is that it consumes most of the CPU whenever a Forcepoint DLP is deployed on an endpoint. This is when users feel some lag in their machine's performance or their Internet performance. That's when we uninstall and try to reinstall, or we'll give a cloud link to which it gets access. We use Forcepoint DLP for endpoint protection, not for email or cloud. For email and drive, we went with the Google DLP.

Forcepoint DLP isn't as efficient on drive or chat, or email. For that, we have some specialized solutions, but it would be better to have a single console where you can control all these areas. It would be pretty easy for a consumer who is going to use this product. All in one shot, you can try to track it and enforce your policies on a single dashboard. That is one point currently lacking in Forcepoint, and I feel they need to work on it.

In the next release, I would like to use this DLP across different solutions like network, firewall, email, or chat with a consolidated dashboard and with integration facilities with other solutions.

Security should work as a whole. It shouldn't work individually in blocks. It does not serve our purpose. It should be integrated with multiple solutions. For that, it should have enough intelligence to work with other tools.

I'm looking forward to seeing that kind of capability with Forcepoint.

I have been using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for three years.

Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is a stable solution.

Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is a scalable solution. 

Technical support is pretty good. I don't see any kind of delay. As soon as we raise the request, we always get support from Forcepoint DLP immediately.

I heard that the implementation was pretty simple. Only the policy creation took time because we had to build use cases for it. Your industry might have a different use case, and my industry might have a different use case. It took a little bit of time, and it came from an implementation standpoint, and I felt it was pretty good. 

You just need one person working in shifts to use this solution. As we have 8,000 employees, we are doing it in shifts with three professionals.

We used an integrator to implement this solution.

We evaluated Google DLP and Netskope DLP. We chose Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention because of the ease of policy creation. For any DLP solution to work effectively, we need to create our use cases. On top of use cases, we need to build policies and enforce them. In Forcepoint DLP, it's pretty simple to create any kind of policy and enforce them. It doesn't take a lot of time to get it enforced. It all takes a matter of minutes, and I feel this is the biggest advantage of using this DLP solution.

If the organization is pretty small, then I can recommend this solution. However, if it's a pretty huge organization, I will step back a little bit because it won't serve its whole purpose.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention a six.

It's for DLP and to monitor and make sure that no key files are being sent out of the organization. It also helps in terms of tracking any abnormal behavior.

We have about 700 users and it's endpoint-based. We add an agent to the endpoints and it coordinates with the server.

With Forcepoint we found that one employee who left had taken some files, and we were able to stop it. And if somebody is under a notice period, we now monitor whether any files are about to go out. When they take something with them, we can see that. We can also identify any abnormal behaviors that are happening. A lot of times it happens that if somebody is about to leave, they try to take some information away with them. We catch that fast.

It also helps in terms of HR stuff because file movement can indicate people who are looking for jobs. We can see CV movements and it helps as an indicator of a dissatisfied employee. We can at least see the behavior and see if we can do something about it.

Before Forcepoint, we had data in terms of how many terabytes go in and out, but now we can specifically see what goes where.

One of the most valuable features is being able to see file movement, where files are going. Every week we review the files. It can identify software codes, so we code files and we know where they're going and who's doing what. It gives us visibility. It shows any key files, any strange behaviors, such as if somebody is taking too many screenshots, and alerts us about that.

I would like to see improvement in the reporting. We can only get one week's worth of data; we can't get more than that. Also, the reporting console is very slow, making it very frustrating to use. There are times when I open it up on a Monday and take a download, but it takes so much time. You can get busy with other things and come back and it's still hanging and you can almost forget about it. 

Also, the server goes down and we have raised tickets to resolve that. In the past two weeks, we've had to deal with that two or three times. It's been a little annoying lately.

I have been using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for one year.

The system is stable, but as I mentioned, the reporting portion is very unstable. If I want to get reports out, it takes a long time. Sometimes the server is down, and I have to raise tickets. I have had problems there.

The scalability is okay, there are no problems with that. We can add on more agents as we expand with more people. We haven't had any issues there.

I would rate customer service at 8.5 out of 10. When we have problems with the system, they respond and they generally resolve things within half a day.

This is our first solution of this kind.

The initial setup was straightforward but setting up the rules was very complex. It is something where things don't actually work as we think they will work. It generated a lot of false positives in the beginning.

Our deployment took about a month.

Our strategy was to start with auditing first. We haven't actually moved to blocking yet. When we tried to move to blocking critical files, it ended up blocking some other people at work. There are some issues around that and we have had to be careful.

We let it run on its own. I look at the data in Forcepoint on a weekly basis, but we don't have any administration of it, per se. My IT team handles the deployment of new employees coming in, meaning the deployment of the Forcepoint agent on their laptop. That's about it in terms of admin.

An integrator helped us, somebody who deals with Forcepoint products. There were no problems with that, although they were billing by time and the system is a little complex.

We have seen return on our investment because we're able to track our data. It's not so much an active return on investment, but more like an insurance policy. It prevents bad things from happening.

The pricing is reasonable. That's why we went with Forcepoint. They were pretty competitive.

There are no additional costs, other than the cost for additional licenses that we have to pay for ad hoc.

It's not as easy as Zscaler to connect. To be very honest, I think Zscaler has a better product with a better interface, but the cost of Forcepoint is more attractive. That's why we went for it. We looked at McAfee as well. McAfee is a bit resource-heavy. 

Zscaler was very good. The interface was really good and it's easy to set up. Forcepoint is okay. I spoke to some other customers who used Forcepoint and they said, "Look, the interface is a bit complex, but it has everything in place."

You need to put a lot of time and effort into Forcepoint, you need a dedicated team for it. You also need to have a data classification strategy firmly in place. You should classify your data before you get it. You also need to test your rules thoroughly before you implement them.

We do managed services. We analyze customers' requirements, and then we suggest a proper DLP or endpoint data protection solution. We have implemented Forcepoint DLP and Forcepoint Web Gateway for multiple customers.

Forcepoint DLP helped a lot when an incident was created and we tried to have an auto-remediation of the incident. For DLP, an incident is a key factor. DLP is meant to generate an incident, and that incident should be managed. If no one is managing the incident, DLP is of no use. Forcepoint has an email workflow. It provides email incident remediation wherein an automatic email is generated for the manager. If a person violates a policy, we can configure it in a way that one email is sent to the manager. One email will also go to the end-user. The end-user can again analyze the activity and give us feedback about whether it was a genuine business need and we should release that email, or whether it was a mistake and we should quarantine that email. The decision is made by the manager or by the end-user who sent the email. This helped a lot and reduced the incident count. It was very helpful to have such a report and to be able to say that the end-user was aware of the fact that this email has been quarantined. After providing the legal justification, the email was released by him. It reduced 40% of incidents for emails. This kind of feature is not available in other DLP solutions, and I really appreciate having that feature.

The workflow remediation is quite good. That is a key feature because of which it has the upper hand over other DLP solutions.

Endpoint protection, web protection, network protection, and storage use are valuable features. Among these, endpoint protection is most valuable.

It has good policies and good mechanisms to detect incidents.

They can have less memory consumption for their endpoint channels. They are not that adaptive with other endpoints solutions like EPP and EDR. They can improve in this aspect. 

Their discovery or the way they discover the data at risk can also be improved. There are many database servers that are not supported by Forcepoint.

Their login mechanism to find out the issue is another thing they need to improve. We would like to have the finest login to figure out what exactly is happening and why we are not able to communicate with the detection server. One of the products I have used is better in this aspect. We can have the finest level login, and we can figure it out, but I haven't found such an option in Forcepoint. 

I have been into DLP technology for the last eight years. I have been using Forcepoint for three years.

I have worked with another DLP solution in and out, and I find that solution to be more stable than Forcepoint. Once you implement a policy in that solution, the policy will always function. You can be assured that the policy will be functional. With Forcepoint, I always need to check whether the policy is functional or not and whether my policy is getting synchronized on the detection server or not. There won't be any sort of end trigger if the policy synchronization was stopped. 

It is quite scalable. It is comparable to other DLP solutions in terms of scalability.

I haven't interacted that much with their support, but whenever I created a case, there was proper support. As compared to other solutions, Forcepoint's support is more technical and professional.

I have used other solutions. Many of the customers are switching to Forcepoint. They are not getting proper support from one of the vendors. So, they are switching to Forcepoint. They are getting equal or more benefits with Forcepoint, and its cost is also low.

Incident remediation is awesome in Forcepoint. One of the solutions that I used did not have incident remediation. Forcepoint again has the upper hand in terms of policies. It has nearly 1,700 policy templates that we can use. Many compliance-related and PII-related rules are readily available in those templates. Forcepoint also has a time-based policy, wherein they can detect that a policy is active within a certain period of time. This visibility is not there in other solutions. Forcepoint also supports flow data transfer analysis.

Overall, Forcepoint DLP has the upper hand. Stability and scalability are secondary. The primary thing is that an application should be usable. Forcepoint is really user-friendly, and it has multiple options. They say that they can detect the malware if data leakage is happening to malware. They do have some sort of analysis in their detection engine to detect malware.

As compared to other DLP solutions, it is quite complex because they do have their policy server and analytics server in place, and their Forcepoint manager is also there. With other solutions, we need to have an Oracle Database in place, which is not required with Forcepoint. For Forcepoint, SQL Server can be quickly installed and is ready for use.

The installation duration depends on the organization and the size of the organization. For the same set of organizations, Forcepoint will take 30% less time as compared to others. In many organizations, I have implemented it within a month, and in many organizations, the project took one year.

The implementation strategy depends on the customer, but we do follow the implementation steps, such as gathering information and then deciding which detection server to go for, where to place it, and how many counts are required. If I have more than 30,000 agents, then I definitely need to think about one more endpoint prevent server. So, it depends on the organization size and the response of the organization in terms of how quickly they adapt DLP and how friendly they are with the DLP solution. The biggest implementation that we had done had 30,000 users.

Our customers have seen an ROI. 

Its pricing is quite low considering the features they are offering. As compared to other solutions, it is reasonable. 

They do have professional support. If we need professional support, then there will be additional costs.

You definitely need to do a proper calibration of the organization and data flow analysis. Even though there are 1,700 policy templates, each and every organization will have a different set of rules and data to be analyzed. So, data flow analysis is a must with Forcepoint DLP to create a proper policy.

Cost-wise, it is a very good product. An organization should really consider this product if they are in process of DLP implementation, or if they are thinking of switching from any other DLP solution. If there is a budget constraint or you need a good DLP solution, I would definitely recommend Forcepoint DLP.

I would rate Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention an eight out of 10. There is no DLP that will score a 10.

I am not satisfied with the tool and will replace it since its integration with the Microsoft platform solution, which the company has chosen currently, would be difficult, and we don't want to spend too much time on it. It is easier to have a fully integrated stack. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is not a very well-integrated tool. We also have artificial intelligence, which is easier to directly integrate into the heart of the platform.

The main issue is that you cannot be in security staff and put your data center in Dubai. You need to master your data redundancies. Putting two data centers in Switzerland is fine, and we can use it, but you cannot have DLP rules, and you put your data in Dubai, which can lead to mistakes. Even the rules are really sensitive data. We could think that only the patterns would go in Dubai or whatever, but the rules are the most important part because the rules define what is going to be detected and what won't be detected, and inside the rules, we have everything customized.

No financial institution will be able to keep Forcepoint in Switzerland when they move outside of the data center. The other issue is that when you are doing a setup with the on-premises version of Forcepoint, the big mistake here is the way the software is split. Speaking about the version of Forcepoint you are going to install in your data centers, the issue here is that it is done for a VMware setup inside the data center, so you can have many servers. In the cloud, you are going to pay for what you are using. If you are using eight or ten servers, you are going to pay for ten, making it really expensive. The web version that you can set up of Forcepoint has not been designed for the cloud. The cloud version is located in Dubai.

I have been using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for ten years.

The solution's technical support was bad as they have no skills at all. We are not able to get replies from the tool's support team. I am not sure if the tool's team could offer advice or consultations because a local company used to do it for the product, as there are just a few skilled people available at Forcepoint, which is also an issue.

Instead of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, I recommend Purview to others, especially if you are located on Microsoft platform, since it helps with compliance and not only as a DLP tool. There is a gap we need to close in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention as it is useful for security operations. For example, it can be used to ask an end user to unlock your blocked emails.

AI is mostly used when you have to check the DLP inside artificial intelligence, and it is not perfect. We were also looking for SSE solutions, and the point is that Forcepoint could have been a good candidate, but it is located in some bad countries, making it one of the main issues why the tool was no longer a satisfying solution for our company. The tool is also quite heavy. In some cases, it is slow, making it not so comfortable to operate.

The tool is fine for the DLP features, especially when you are on an on-premises model with a data center. If you are on the cloud, I would not recommend it.

Purview and Forcepoint are almost the same, as both can be used to block, upload data, or send emails. Once something is blocked, you ask the security operations, who will start, to provide us with the document we can look at to see if it is legitimate or not.

The incident management process is not based directly on Forcepoint. Forcepoint is used to detect and block, but the response is not done inside of Forcepoint. It is done at the data level.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I am using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for security.

We have not implemented the solution fully and it is still being configured.

The solution is stable overall.

The implementation could be improved.

I have been using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention for approximately three months.

I did not experience any crashes. The solution has been stable in my usage.

I rate the scalability of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention a four out of ten.

I have used the support from Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention.

I rate the support from Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have used a similar Microsoft solution to Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, and the Microsoft solution was better. However, we were using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention because we had a contract.

The initial setup of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is of medium difficulty level.

I have not seen an ROI at this time. I have only used the solution for a short time. I would need approximately one year to determine the ROI.

The price of the solution is expensive.

I rate Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention a five out of ten.