Symantec Endpoint Encryption Reviews

This solution is only used at the MAC level segment for the B Mission levels for security purposes. It is only from the ten user perspective.

It attempts to detect CVS quickly and recognizes it to fix it or alert us so we have to update patches if required. Better security methods are valuable features that we can suggest, as everything is under liability.

I am not owning that part and cannot comment on it. Our security team handles that aspect. I have not used it enough to provide detailed feedback.

We have been using Trend Micro for a long time.

It is stable.

Scalability is good and is based on the workload. It is performing the steps effectively.

Some solutions are good in the markets. The most used cases include Symantec Endpoint Encryption and Cisco, which are similar ten security devices.

It is not my choice. This is all comprising and not something yet.

Everything looks good and is based on the things. Something is available based on critical tickets, and then we take action. The security team responds to critical issues.

Currently, I am not using this because it is mandated on Office 365, which we are not currently maintaining. We are just using the manage feature, so it is not something we control. We are using Cisco SecureClient for VPN. Symantec Endpoint Encryption is only used at the MAC level segment for the B Mission levels for security purposes, and it is only from the ten user perspective. It is straightforward and not complex. I would rate the complexity as a seven, but I would rate the product itself as a nine. We have approximately fifty thousand in budget. Better security methods are valuable features that we can suggest, as everything is under liability. My overall review rating for this solution is nine out of ten.

Positive

We are using Symantec Endpoint Encryption for encrypting our file servers. I am not involved technically in the implementation. It is mainly used for file servers and profiles of users in the company.

The most valuable function of Symantec Endpoint Encryption is the integration with our current endpoint protection solution and its administration because it is already integrated with our operating system to Microsoft. We do not have any complaints about the solution from any management perspective, as I am not involved in technical implementation.

The centralized policy control in Symantec Endpoint Encryption is useful for us. We already have it implemented.

The removable media encryption in Symantec Endpoint Encryption is enabled by default, though I am not interacting with it directly.

Based on my experience, technically, the product already meets all our requirements. The only improvement would be if the prices of Symantec Endpoint Encryption could be lower to compete better in the market.

I have around three years of experience with the product, which continues to the present day.

I would rate the stability of the product a nine.

I would rate the scalability of Symantec Endpoint Encryption a nine.

As a user of Symantec Endpoint Encryption, I find it easy to work with their product. I can recommend Symantec Endpoint Encryption to other users.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption a nine.

The primary use case for Symantec Endpoint Encryption is to provide antivirus protection and application control for users within an organization's environment. Users are restricted from copying files onto removable drives such as flash drives. It enables administrators to block access to all drives, requiring users to request permission to access specific files or drives through Snowflake.

The benefits of using the platform include protecting our systems from malware and enhancing security against untrusted tools and websites on the internet.

We are running the product on-premises but are considering migrating to the cloud. Upgrades from one version to another may only sometimes be straightforward, especially if one needs a clearer understanding of the process.

We have been using Symantec Endpoint Encryption for ten years.

The platform is stable. The only time we encountered an issue was when one of the servers needed to be restored, but overall, it's been stable with no application crashes.

We have more than 500 Symantec Endpoint Encryption users in our organization. Recently, we increased from 300 to 500 users. For now, we don't have any plans to increase further. However, once the number of endpoints on the network increases, we will need to reconsider.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward. Once all the right requirements are in place, such as installing the necessary servers, deployment takes less than one hour. The only aspect that may require more time is setting up policies and rules and determining where to apply them, especially if it's a fresh installation.

The implementation was done in-house, using different resources. We have OEM support that we pay for annually, so we usually get support from Broadcom during installation.

We need to acquire a new license. Considering the fluctuation in exchange rates in our part of the world, we find it generally affordable. However, if there's room for it to be made more cost-effective, that would be preferable. Previously, a similar license cost us less than $1000, but now it's nearly $12,000 due to some automatic changes.

In a remote work environment, we utilize the enterprise version of the software. We deploy it at the client end by copying it directly to the system or installing it. Once the systems connect to the console, we can manage them from a central dashboard.

Symantec fits into our data protection strategy by ensuring users cannot physically copy data off the system. Any external drive plugged into our system is recognized as read-only, preventing users from writing to it.

Antivirus, URL filtering, and firewall protection are the most effective features for data protection. Together with antivirus capabilities, these features help ensure protection against various threats.

The centralized management console is crucial. We can deploy, create policies, allow or deny endpoints, implement application control, URL filtering, and more.

When it comes to ease of deployment and scalability, Symantec makes it straightforward. We separate them into one for the service and another for the application. Updates are easy to manage if you use the correct operating system, whether Linux or Windows.

I have recommended it, especially for those who want comprehensive features. It includes application control, malware protection, antivirus, and more, all in a single bundle. Symantec also offers deep encryption capabilities, further enhancing its value proposition.

We don't have issues with malware or viruses on our network because once they release a system fix and then scan, it applies or depends on the virus's status.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use it as the antivirus solution for our client machines.

Deploying it is straightforward. One notable aspect is the ability to customize alerts and other settings. Its detection capabilities are robust, including effective zero-day protections.

The GUI could use some enhancement, particularly in making option sets easier to locate on client machines.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is relatively good. Occasionally, certain clients may experience disconnection from the management servers, requiring a manual process to rectify. Even in instances where the link is severed, restoring client connectivity can be challenging, sometimes necessitating the uninstallation and reinstallation of the software. Additionally, when clients go out of sync, we do not receive alerts, indicating an area for potential improvement. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Scalability isn't a concern for us. I would rate it around nine out of ten. Currently, we have around four thousand users who extensively utilize the software, but we don't have any plans to increase this number in the future.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Deployment spanned approximately one month and was managed internally.
The deployment process involves setting up the management server, ensuring scalability across various regions with redundancy, and then connecting all clients to this designated management server. Following this, the antivirus software needs to be installed and integrated into the base image of the system. Subsequently, the interaction of all clients with the server and the receipt of appropriate updates are verified. A manager, along with a couple of cybersecurity engineers and a desktop engineer, are responsible for managing it based on the number of laptops.

In terms of ROI, deploying it doesn't demand an extensive skill set or knowledge. Deployment is straightforward, and clients can be easily integrated by providing them with the client software.

We hold an annual license, and their pricing is competitive, falling into the affordable range. I would rate it around three or four in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, deploying these servers onto a background server would incur additional costs for the management service.

I would recommend it to some extent, but they seem to be falling behind in keeping up with market threats and usability features. They may need to partially tailor it to meet their specific requirements. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

One of my customers asked me about a feature where they could encrypt files automatically. Symantec Encryption was a good choice.

I like the solution for its encryption.

It doesn't have traffic intelligence or a good UI, and it's difficult to integrate the solution with the DLP. When integrating with DLP, we have to work with endpoint computers, and though we give the package and teach users, they find it very hard.

I've used Symantec Endpoint Encryption for three years.

Symantec Endpoint Encryption is stable, and I rate its stability an eight or nine out of ten.

Symantec Endpoint Encryption's scalability is good, but it can be better. I rate its scalability a six out of ten. I have not had issues scaling up, but deploying the solution is bad. One of the organizations using the DLP with Encryption has about 5,000 users.

I've used Microsoft Drive Encryption before. I chose Symantec because of its integration with Symantec products. However, newer products have options.

The deployment takes about two hours for server-side installations because it has many features. There are extra installations, and we have to add roles and features on the server manager.

Symantec Endpoint Encryption is not expensive.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption a seven out of ten. It's a very good product to work with Symantec DLP.

The solution was used to find harmful files and viruses on laptops.

I would like to have less frequent updates.

Symantec Endpoint Encryption is a stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability ten out of ten.

Around 100 to 120 people use the solution in our company. We haven't faced any issues with the solution's scalability.

The solution's initial setup is not difficult because support is available to guide you through it when you buy the product. Even a nonprofessional person can set up Symantec Endpoint Encryption. One IT support person is responsible for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

I have seen the dashboard, which gives us information about the website on which the traffic is made. Overall, I think the solution's centralized management console is pretty good. Antivirus is very important. You should use Symantec Endpoint Encryption if it resolves the issues you have faced in the past.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

We use Symantec Endpoint Encryption for securing corporate data across various devices. It is part of our strategy to deploy encryption solutions effectively.

Symantec Endpoint Encryption helps us to protect our data and ensure its security across different platforms.

The most effective features of Symantec are those related to data protection.

I would like to see some features or functionality enhanced in Symantec Endpoint Encryption.

I have been working with Symantec Endpoint Encryption for several years.

I have not faced any stability or performance issues with Symantec Endpoint Encryption.

I haven't tried to scale it up. I find it scalable for adding additional resources.

I have a positive view of the technical support offered.

Neutral

We use BitLocker for full disk encryption instead of using Symantec's version.

The setup process was fairly straightforward without major issues.

The deployment process required several people. I do not have an exact number of who was involved.

The measurable benefits include effective data protection.

I am not sure about the pricing and licensing cost of Symantec Endpoint Encryption.

We compare Symantec with another management solution, BitLocker.

I would recommend Symantec Endpoint Encryption to others who are considering implementing it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten

Overall Symantec Endpoint Encryption is a reasonable solution.

There are other solutions in the market that have new features. The feature could improve.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Encryption for approximately six years.

We have approximately 5,000 users using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Symantec Endpoint Encryption an eight out of ten.

The support from Symantec Endpoint Encryption is not good. The response time can improve and the resolution speed too.

I rate the support from Symantec Endpoint Encryption a four out of ten.

The implementation of the solution is simple.

We did the implementation with support from the vendor.

The solution is good, but it is more expensive than other solutions in the market. Other solutions, such as BitLocker are less expensive.

When it comes to choosing an endpoint encryption solution, Symantec Endpoint Encryption is a highly valuable option that stands out from many of the other options available in the production industry. The primary advantage of using Symantec Endpoint Encryption lies in the fact that there is limited competition in terms of similar offerings. However, if budget is a concern, the Microsoft BitLocker option presents a more economical alternative. In evaluating these options, it is important to carefully consider both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution and make an informed decision based on your specific needs and circumstances.

For small companies, I would recommend implementing this solution for security measures as it is cost-effective. However, for large enterprises, the cost can quickly add up and become problematic. There are other solutions that are better out in the market.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Encryption a six out of ten.

We primarily used the solution as part of our company's regulations. It was for our governance.

It was fairly easy to encrypt and decrypt files. 

It is fairly stable. 

We could scale the solution. 

We'd like the solution to be lighter. Symantec used quite a lot of memory.

The product can be expensive. Price was a factor in moving away from the product.

We'd like it to offer a better decryption tool. If we lost the recovery key, we had a lot of issues. 

We've been using the solution for six or seven years. 

The solution was stable and did not crash. It didn't have bugs or glitches. 

The scalability has been quite good in general. We could expand if we needed to. 

At the time we were using the solution, we have upwards of 10,000 people on it. 

We never actually contacted technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. The only time we might have reached out was when we wanted to do an upgrade. 

We've actually already moved over to Bitlocker. We switched in order to take advantage of cost savings. 

The solution had a moderate amount of difficulty at the time of implementation. It was neither easy nor hard. 

We found the solution to be more expensive than Bitlocker, which is what we moved to. 

We looked into Bitlocker and began using it last year. We've since moved on from Symantec.

We were a customer and end-user. We replaced the Symantec Encryption.

I'd advise users, whether they use Symantec or not, to study their environment first and really understand what they need. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.