VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Reviews

I am associated with the incident response team, and we use Carbon Visibility for converged networks.

Right now, Carbon Black CB Defense doesn't support cloud computing and Kubernetes. However, if it does support them, then it would be better.

I have been using Carbon Black CB Defense since 2019.

It is mostly a stable solution, but sometimes there are stability issues.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support is nice. We can reach them 24/7. I rate technical support a seven out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward. We use it for the environment server, clients like end users, and competitors. We use some automation tools like SCCM for Windows, Linksys, and some other automation tools, and we use a lot of them to deploy. So, it depends since it is a circle and because every day, there is a new server that joins the environment. And when your server line client enters the server environment, they automatically install blockings.

But the environment contains over twenty thousand clients. It may take three or three months, depending on whether the employee works in their home. They can only join the network once they log in to VPN. So as a result of that, sometimes deployment time takes too much time. We have very big environments, but a lot of the domain is managed by some administration. Less than ten people were required for the deployment.

We used local support to deploy it.

There are more expensive products than Carbon Black CB Defense, so we are using the solution for its availability.

I recommend the solution to others planning to use it. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

CB Defense could be more compatible with Linux, and its cloud provision could be improved.

I've been using CB Defense for two years.

CB Defense is scalable so long as the deployment has been done correctly.

Carbon Black's support team are very slow to answer questions.

The initial setup was fairly easy. Deployment will take one to two weeks, depending on how many endpoints there are.

CB Defense is available on a yearly subscription and is priced by the number of endpoints.

I would recommend CB Defense for users who want an on-prem solution that lets them see the whole process of any event. I would give CB Defense a rating of six out of ten.

Carbon Black is an EDR solution and a Next Generation AV. It works on the basis of machine learning and artificial intelligence. It's used to manage multiple endpoints from a central location and detects alerts on the basis of AI. If we have any custom alerts, they can be triggered or flagged. In that case, we can have a centralized alerting system. It can also be used to isolate, repair, or remediate a machine when it is taken by an attack.

We aren't responsible for managing the infrastructure of this particular tool. We're using it for investigation purposes and to monitor products that are being used by our clients.

It's deployed on a public cloud.

The solution has a library where we can have multiple threat intels onboarded. We just have to subscribe to a particular site intel and they'll provide us with all of the truncated details so that we can create IOCs and alerts on the basis of those IOCs. 

It's one of the best features because there are multiple third-party vendors who can provide us with site intel in one location. You just have to subscribe to them, and they'll start providing you with IOCs. If a new attack starts, you will have all the basic IOCs on that list, which can be used to identify if the same attack is happening in your environment.

We can isolate devices in just two clicks. That's also a great feature. We can remediate and repair devices from a central location. It's not too difficult to use that particular tool. The user interface is very easy to understand. You are not required to roam around the console to find where the alert went. It's easy to resolve that.

When we onboarded Carbon Black, there weren't many EDR solutions available in the market. It was one of the best tools when it was launched. We don't have any complaints with the tool. The tool is very good. It highlights many of the alerts and events.

When you're investigating an alert, you will get a graph and will see the details related to the process that triggered the alert. Below the graph, there are network connections, file modifications, industry modifications, and multiple other activities. If you want to specifically find which additional modification has been performed, you will have to find the log you're searching for. There isn't a search bar to check for file modifications or network connections. In that case, you don't have a search bar, so you have to check each and every event, which could be more than 1,000.

You would have to check 1,000 events manually, or you would have to export sheets to view what you are searching for. If they added a search bar, it would reduce the time it takes to do investigations.

If you want to log into a device, there's a process named winlogon.exe, which is supposed to be initiated. If I'm using Carbon Black, I will have to check where winlogon.exe is being observed or at what time it was being observed. Because there's no search bar, I will have to check for the event in all the device events.

A search bar in the investigation page and some AI-related tasks like outgoing alerts, or recent tactics that are being used in the market, must be embedded in the tool so that it's easier to find alerts. The AI must be stronger so it can identify activity that is actually malicious.

I have used this solution for a year and a half.

It's a stable product.

It's scalable because it's based on the cloud.

It's sensor-based, so you have to install the machine associated with your application. You will have the configuration file and the agent installation file. You'll have to run the configuration file, and then you'll be onboarded to Carbon Black. It's easy.

Deployment was fast. It took 15 minutes.

We have a group of about eight people for maintenance and supervision.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

It's a good tool, but it requires some updates. It doesn't have new features like multi-tactics, which other EDR products are providing.

My advice is to acknowledge or resolve a particular alert because once they resolve, it will be very difficult for you to find that alert. Handle it with care because with just a click, the device will be isolated. It could be a server, host, or network device. If you click the wrong button out of curiosity, it will destroy the machine. It has multiple accesses and won't ask if you're sure if you want to do an activity or not.

Carbon Black CB Defense is a sensor for ongoing monitoring. It was deployed and is being used in conjunction with a cloud product called Red Canary.

The feature I found most valuable in Carbon Black CB Defense is the ongoing monitoring, though I'm not sure if it's because of the solution, or if it's because of Red Canary. The ongoing monitoring feature works by emailing updates about any detections found.

Currently, it's hard to comment on areas for improvement, because I haven't used Carbon Black CB Defense long enough.

What was rolled out to my company are mixed versions of Carbon Black CB Defense, so what I'd like to see in the next release is more synchronization, where it can detect the endpoint that's running an old version and suggest updates. That's the only thing I can think of right now.

I've been using Carbon Black CB Defense since October of last year.

I haven't had any major degradation in the performance of Carbon Black CB Defense, so I find it stable. It's holding up very well.

I have no comment on the scalability of Carbon Black CB Defense at this point.

I haven't even had to reach out to the technical support team of Carbon Black CB Defense at this point, so no comment.

I did not use a different solution. This was the first time I used this type of solution.

In terms of initial setup, rolling out Carbon Black CB Defense was pretty straightforward. It wasn't that big of a deal.

The deployment of Carbon Black CB Defense was done in-house, and took two weeks total, because it was a hybrid deployment, which means that it was done on a one-on-one basis.

In terms of ROI from Carbon Black CB Defense, it's a little early to see it.

In terms of licensing costs, Carbon Black CB Defense was all associated with CROW and the services my company is using with them, so it came all-inclusive.

My company didn't evaluate other options, because Carbon Black CB Defense was suggested by CROW. My company just went with what they suggested.

I have experience with Carbon Black CB Defense. My company has already adopted a solution that uses Carbon Black CB Defense, particularly with a company called CROW.

Carbon Black CB Defense was deployed hybrid in terms of what my company does. The cloud provider used was CROW.

My company has 200 users of Carbon Black CB Defense. It's being used in the whole environment. Three people from IT are in charge of the maintenance and full deployment of the solution.

In terms of increasing usage, the solution is being used in the entire environment, and usage will be increased if there's growth in personnel.

At this junction, I'm rating Carbon Black CB Defense an eight.

We have a dedicated team using this solution. They create incidents, escalate the incidents, and then respond to the events detected by the EDR.

The best feature of this solution is that we have a live response, which is really tailored to our needs. 

There is no option for the solution to block automatically based on behavior. First, the solution needs a lot of time to record all the behaviors. Then, we manually have to create a behavior analysis rule to detect any malicious activity. The solution would be improved and be more effective if there was a way for this process to be done automatically.

We have been using this solution for six to seven months. 

The solution is not always ideal, but it is pretty stable. We did face a few issues, in the response feature for example, but they were resolved.

At this point we have not encountered any issues with scalability, but time will tell how much scaling is feasible for us.

The customer support is average. At times I feel like they should have responded to us immediately because we had some issues that needed an immediate reply, but their response was a bit slow. However, overall, they're good and the support is acceptable.

Neutral

It was not easy and we faced challenges, but it was okay. We're also dealing with an issue involving multiple unsupported OS's because we have so many Linux products in our infrastructure. I would rate the initial setup as a three out of five, with one being difficult and five being easy.

This is a good solution, but there are a lot of improvements needed. I am overseeing the project part of the solution, not the deep technical side. As far as my knowledge is concerned, it's an easy-to-use solution and it has many good features, but it also has many features that require improvement. I would rate the solution as a six out of ten. 

I know they have different forms in their Carbon Black Endpoint now, but we were using Carbon Black Prevent, which was basically just a pure whitelisting product. We didn't look at the other kinds of things that it was doing.

We were basically just using it for, "If Carbon Black picks up a new file in the machine and it's executable or something and it hasn't seen it before, it has to be whitelisted first. It has to be approved before it's allowed to run." That's what we're using it for.

We were technically one and a half versions behind the current version which is out there right now.

The solution is deployed on-prem.

We have cut back the amount of users. At one point, we had about 1,500 or 2,000 users. We're down to about 750 right now.

The solution just gave us another layer of protection from zero-day threats, because you can't always trust what your users are doing. You just have to do what you can technically to try to mitigate that.

I'm on the security department, so it's just in the layer of our prevention to give us protections against, for example, ransomware that might kick off and try to execute different files. If someone downloads something or whatever, it has to be whitelisted first. It has to be approved before it can run it all.

That's better to me than some signature-based thing, because it protects against zero-day. There are things that it doesn't know about, so it has to check them. We have Check Point now as well, but we have a Check Point on our firewalls, not our endpoints.

We have another piece of that infrastructure that does what they call threat emulation. You may have heard of it. It's like sandboxing where it takes files that it doesn't know about, puts them in a VM-type environment, and it kicks them off to see if there's any malware or tendencies that might look like malware, that kind of thing.

It's also a zero-day type of prevention thing, but it kicks them off in a safe environment so that you can see what it's doing. You need integration with Check Point to do that, but that integration went away with the latest release, the one we just put out there.

That was a big part of why we liked Carbon Black, because it is integration to not only do the whitelisting, but also we could have automatic rules set up so that if a new file got downloaded by a user, we could automatically send that over to Check Point and it could do its emulation on it in the sandbox. And if it came back clean, then we could automatically approve it.

We wouldn't have to go through a manual process of having our people approve every single file that comes across as having been seen before. So, it was a really good way to work those two products together. But that went away. And so now I'm like, "Okay, what are we going to do now?" I hadn't looked at the Harmony Endpoint at all.

I haven't looked at Check Point's piece, but I was wondering to myself, "If it does something like Carbon Black was doing and then we already have Check Point on the other one, that would work." So, that was what I was trying to do.

There could be more knowledge. I think they made a mistake when they took away the Check Point integration, because it provides more automation and also more threat intelligence. Maybe you didn't see something within Carbon Black's sphere of what it knows, within their product line or their threat cloud or whatever they use for their intelligence. Maybe it didn't see anything of the files that it knows about, but what about somebody else's? And what about kicking into another product that does those kinds of things like sandboxing?

I don't know why they would take that away. That doesn't make sense to me because they need to expand on that. The more they expand on that, the more confidence you have as a security guy. You have more confidence that that file is clean, and there's nothing bad about it. Bringing back the integration with Check Point would be a good start.

This product is being used extensively in our organization. I'm actually looking for a replacement because of the fact that we lost that integration. That's really crucial, honestly. Otherwise, it becomes much more manpower-intensive. I need to spend more man-hours going through it instead of using automations.

I prefer to set up things so my team doesn't have to spend a huge amount of time running down rabbit trails all the time. The more we can automate and still be secure about it, that is what we try to do.

There are no additional features I would like to see added. I know they already have a cloud offering as well. You can manage things through their cloud for people that are always on-site. We mostly just use it for our own managed devices. We didn't really put it on. We never planned and don't plan to put it on or make it available to a BYOD kind of thing. This is all company-managed devices.

It just made more sense for us to do it internally than putting it in the cloud. But we could have done either one, I suppose. But since we started out inside, we just kept it that way. It was just easier.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable. We have never had an issue.

I would rate technical support 5 out of 5.

We did a proof of a couple different products, but we chose CB. And we've been with them since, because they do a good job. They've been pretty easy to manage, and they've had good support. So, we've actually been really happy with them.

It was pretty straightforward. It took some time to roll out. We wanted to eventually get to a point where we are now, which was to totally block everything we don't know about. But that didn't come out of the box. You had to let things run for a while.

It did a good job of reporting things, but not blocking so we could go through there and say, "Okay, these are legitimate files. Or these files were signed with these certificates from these vendors that we can trust," for example. We spent six or eight months going through everything before we actually turned it into full blocking mode. As far as initial rollout, it was fairly simple, and it's been fairly easy to upgrade the agents.

We ran into some issues with some of the MSIs and things or some systems when we tried to update some things and it broke. I'd probably rate the setup a four out of five.

We do deployment slowly and in phases. We could have deployed it pretty fast, actually. But it took us about three months to deploy everything because we wanted to make sure we had test groups of machines that we put into each department or each part of the organization, because they do different things. We didn't want to inadvertently start breaking certain things. So, we took our time pulling it out. But I think, essentially, it could have been deployed in probably a few weeks at the most.

We have a team of about five people who take care of maintenance.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

The licensing cost is on the more expensive side, but I thought it was worth it because they did a good job. It was one of the vendors I truly didn't have to worry about too much until this latest upgrade.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I'd say, "go for it" if you don't have or need Check Point for an integration. But if you're relying on that kind of integration, if you really need that like we did, then of course I wouldn't go that route.

If I were to make a recommendation to somebody else just starting out, my advice is to check out the cloud first.

We use this solution as our endpoint security system. The solution is cloud-based.

The solution is very useful and easy to handle. You don't need much intervention with this product.

The client performance could be improved. When you install it in the client, the performance gets a bit disturbed.

In the user interface, the user needs to have more visibility regarding what's happening because it gives you a very simple client for the user. It doesn't give a full output for the user. It would be great if that could be improved.

I have been using this solution for more than four years. We are working with the latest version.

The solution is really stable. 

It is scalable.

The local technical support is very poor, but the support from headquarters is very nice.

For the local technical support, I would rather rate it at one, even zero, out of five. I would rate the global support at three or four out of five.

We previously used Kaspersky, and we switched to Carbon Black because it's a cloud-based application. It also requires minimum handling and basically runs on its own when you set the policy, so it's very easy.

The solution is a bit complex. Deployment took around six months.

The partners helped us. 

The license is annual. It's a standard license.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10 because of the support.

The product is very smooth and pretty simple. I like it, and anyone can use it. My advice is to be careful about the partners when you're selecting. 

Carbon Black CB Defense is a multi-purpose solution. We can use it for XDR ADF. This way, if someone is trying to attack one's end point, in which there is a script such as PowerShell, but without a signature, the solution will be aware of such an attack and respond accordingly. It will detect the behavior and respond to the SOC.

The solution will prevent communication of one compromised device with another. 

In the month-long evaluation of the solution that we conducted, we found the POC to not be helpful, owing to the issue the client encountered with the platform, the operating system, which did not lend adequate support. 

While we paid for both on-cloud and on-premises deployment, the issue is not with the entrepreneur's upload, but with the end point. 

And do you have already some customers regarding Carbon Black?

Syed Faisal:
No, even Carbon Black, everyone has this solution for Windows IoT and Linux environment. But this is something called the product called Dell. This is a Dell based, [inaudible 00:02:31]. More or less the Dell [inaudible 00:02:33] which is running Dell customer OS, [inaudible 00:02:39]. But unfortunately we cannot install the agent on it.

The licensing price is a bit expensive when compared with other solutions. 

We've been using Carbon Black CB Defense for just a month. 

The solution is scalable. 

The solution is stable and the policy can be configured with flexibility. The solution comes with its own pre-built standard policy. Yet, we can write our own, which means the solution serves us going forward. 

The tech support is mostly okay. 

The solution is very easy to install.

Full deployment takes no more than an hour. 

Installation can be done on one's own. 

The licensing is a bit pricier than other solutions. 

We pay for the license annually. 

While I do not know the exact number of customers making use of the solution, my understanding is that most of the MNC, multinational companies, and the majority of the banking sector are doing so. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Carbon Black CB Defense as a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for operations and also security. On the security front, we have a specific project that's ongoing right now. We are moving away from the on-prem Carbon Black to the cloud one. 

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection.

The protection of the user machines has been great. For example, if a laptop gets stolen, or let's say, an employee gets let go, the product provides us with the ability to actually lock people out of the network and handle remote wipes and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The on-prem one was very problematic, especially version 7.2, which did not play nice with Symantec at all. The last upgrade of the client actually triggered a block to the networking, to our active directory domain controllers.

There was a bug that we found was in Macs. It was triggering false positives as it wasn't able to figure out the right parent upon login. With the Carbon Black Cloud, we just got it two to three weeks ago. So far, I haven't seen any false positives. The cloud seems to be a much better product. 

With the on-prem one, the bug has been reported by the community in early January or February, something like that, at the beginning of the year, and it's still not addressed. They have released two versions since then, and yet neither of them addresses this specific issue.

I need more time to explore the cloud deployment, as we've only had it for three weeks at this point. 

It's been at least four years since we started using the solution. Four or five years.

We started with the on-prem one and now we're in yet another project with a cloud deployment.

While the on-prem has some bugs we have been dealing with, so far, after using the could for three weeks, it's like night and day. It's been very stable. There are no bugs or glitches.

I'm not aware of the scalability capabilities yet, as I don't have the entire company on it yet. We are still in testing mode. We just got the cloud deployment three weeks ago. So I can't really answer that truthfully.

Right now, we have seven people on the solution currently.

We haven't yet used the technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

That said, we did use technical support when we were on the on-premises version, and they were terrible. We would ask for bug fixes and new versions would come and yet they would not actually fix the problems that were highlighted.

We also use Red Cloak, which is a completely different prody=uct and something that we still use. 

The initial setup is very simple. The cloud version in particular is very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult.

I'm not dealing with the pricing. I can't speak to the costs involved.

There are two versions of Carbon Black that VMware has, one of them is the on-prem one and the endpoint clients are in the user machines and servers, so AWS and data center and VSS.

I'd advise those interested in the solution to go with the cloud deployment model. We've had a lot of issues with the on-premises version.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. There seems to be quite a disparity between the cloud and on-premises versions. 

The product is an endpoint security product. It's kind of like a replacement for a traditional antivirus.

One of the strong features of the product is its endpoint visibility. It gives you more visibility than a traditional antivirus would give you.

The visibility provided has been great.

The ease of deployment is definitely a great selling feature.

The stability is good and the product is pretty lightweight.

The solution scales well.

The reporting could be improved. Some of the built-in reporting isn't ideal. They have an API and everything you need that you can kind of hook into the product pretty easily, however, it'd be nice to have some built-in reports instead of having to seek them elsewhere.

The solution needs expanded endpoint query tools.

I've been using the solution for about a year.

The stability of the solution is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It seems to be a little bit lighter on resources than our previous antivirus.

The product can be scaled pretty high. We have about 3000 sensors deployed. However, it can go a lot higher than that. It depends on your internet connection for the reporting or the information, basically.

We have kind of a desktop security team that is about five individuals that administer the product part-time, and that can access the console. A couple of them are the ones that spend the most time in it.

We use the solution extensively and we may look at expanding the EDR  - stepping up to one of the other products and adding capabilities. Therefore, we're likely to increase usage in some form in the future.

Technical support needs some improvement. They don't seem to respond so well to technical help. The good thing is we don't need that much, however, they need to probably improve that a little bit for others who might require more assistance.

We had McAfee antivirus and it was difficult to tune the policy without compromising security, I would say. Its footprint was a little high. Its performance wasn't that great in terms of end-point performance.

The solution is easy to deploy. The implementation process is simple. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

While the rollout is pretty easy, you have to kind of tune it a little bit for applications as it discovers them.

To deploy a sensor, it takes just a couple of minutes or so. Then, to kind of tune the policy itself, you are probably looking at a couple of weeks.

Initially, we use the services provided by the vendor, like an on-ramp kind of service. They were great. The team was pretty helpful. 

We pay about $15 a node. It's just a standard licensing fee and that's it.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I've been using the latest version of the solution.

The sensors are on-premises, however, the console is in the cloud. It's a VMware product that runs on Amazon.

I'd advise those considering the solution to seek out some of the training to see if you can get it bundled in with the deployment. The more advanced training, to kind of how to tune the policy and stuff like that, would be helpful to have.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten as there's still room for improvement in things like reporting. However, the impact on performance and the ability to have greater visibility were pluses in my book.