VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Reviews

My clients are using this solution for security as their frontline defense. They are using a whitelist that has all known software allowed.

Once the solution is installed and configured correctly it does not require a lot of hands-on attention until you need upgrading.

There are many different controls that are needed to be put into place for upgrading that makes it difficult. Having to re-engineer your IT infrastructure to match their software, as opposed to having it integrate and work independently causes difficulties. When there is an update to any software everyone has to be involved.

I have been using this solution for approximately six years.

The solution has been working well, nothing stands out as an issue.

I have found this solution to be highly scalable. We have clients that are large-size companies using this solution.

The technical support was great when we used them.

I rate the technical support of Carbon Black CB Defense a nine out of ten.

The solutions provider has made great strides in the last four years making it easier to implement. However, the way their architecture is makes it difficult, the installation is quite a cumbersome process to integrate everything together.

My advice to those wanting to implement this solution is it not easy and it takes time and money.

I rate Carbon Black CB Defense a five out of ten.

While there is an IR team that is responsible for managing EDR or deep analytics, our focus is on endpoint and antivirus protection. This is where we encounter signature updates. We look for false positives in their relation to file interpretation. Should anything occur, we can instantly respond. Instead of sending a sample and getting coverage, we can put a policy and place an immediate stop on the false positives.

While I consider the product to be top notch and am happy with it, its reporting aspects need to be addressed.

I would definitely recommend Carbon Black CB Defense to others who are contemplating using it, but its administration features need fine tuning. I believe this is already being addressed so that gaps can be filled as these relate to other leading technologies on the market.

The GUI and reporting should also be addressed.

We have been using Carbon Black CB Defense for the past seven to eight months.

I have not had occasion to make use of technical support, although I may have in the future, as I am the product person who is working with another experienced team and there is a process under way to migrate from McAfee to Carbon Black CB Defense. 

The initial setup was a bit difficult since we had to do it manually or through the use of a script.

The price for the solution is completely at government level, meaning one which is very high, although it is up to management to consider this criteria.

Our company has over a thousand people who utilize the product. Going forward, everything will be managed by Carbon Black CB Defense.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution is primarily used for protection. It's used on all of our servers and all of our workstations.

The product has considerably decreased any of our malware or malicious software injection within our organization. Since March of 2018, we have not had a malicious intrusion success. It's kept us quite safe.

The solution's most valuable aspect is its process monitoring due to the fact that it doesn't necessarily use signature-based definitions. It uses processor-based definitions. If a process tries to spawn some type of malicious process, it'll stop it.

The initial setup is easy.

The organization has to protect against users and Carbon Black does just that for the company. What I mean by that is not all users are savvy enough to understand, "Hey, I shouldn't be running this or I get a pop-up on a browser and I don't click on it." Carbon Black stops that if they do.

The solution is extremely scalable.

The alerting mail needs to be customizable. Right now, it isn't. That has to change. Right now, I get a lot of what I call noise email alerts. All I hear from them is, "Well, we're working on it. We're working on it." Well, they've been working on it for four years now, and nothing has changed.

In the past, we've seen some stability issues in the latest version releases. We tend to hang back one version just to make sure issues are fully resolved to avoid user disruption.

We've been using the solution since 2017. It's been a few years at this point.

The solution is generally mostly stable. We tend to try to stay one version back in order to get better stability. I've run into problems already where Carbon Black has flagged certain things in a later release that they weren't flagging previously and it disrupts my user base.

The scalability is very good. It's pretty much unlimited at this point. A company can scale however much they like with no trouble.

We have over 500 licenses. The use cases are mostly for our servers and our workstation user roles are drafters, engineers.

We use the solution enterprise-wide. I'm not going to increase usage except maybe to increase the license count if servers or workstations go up.

Their technical support is beyond compromise. They've been absolutely excellent. We're quite satisfied with their level of attention. 

We were previously using Symantec. We switched for numerous reasons. One of them was the fact that Symantec was just not catching a lot of our intrusion at that time. Again, this would have been back in 2017, and a lot of the malware that was coming out back then, the agents weren't catching as quickly. Nobody really had much sense of what zero-day attacks meant.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment was fast and the process took maybe two hours or so. The deployment strategy was just running the installation agent.

There really is no maintenance required. It's just as simple as re-installing or installing the agent.

We didn't need to use any integrators or consultants for the deployment. We handled everything ourselves in-house.

We noticed an ROI after about six months of working with the solution.

Previous to Carbon Black, we had a malware attack that cost us a significant amount of money. We haven't had one since, and therefore, our return on investment has been significant.

We simply auto-renew every year. I can't speak to the exact pricing. My standard license includes everything that I need without any extra costs.

I was looking at the possibility of replacing this solution with Defender, as that's part of our Office 365 licensing package that we have. I was asking myself "will this help? Is it really worth me spending x number of dollars for CBD versus using Defender?" However, after careful examination, we decided to stick with Carbon Black.

We're generally always using the latest version of the solution, minus one. What I mean by that is it's not always current, however, it's always at least within one of the most current versions. We've got too many things going on to really be on the bleeding edge if you will. At times to go up to the next one I want to be sure I have a good stable one. What I'll do is let's say 3.3 comes out next week, I won't necessarily go to it. I will wait until 3.4 comes out to go to 3.3.

While the agents are installed locally, everything basically goes through the cloud. We don't deal with on-premises deployments.

I would advise new users to be cautious or policy settings. I'd also warn them that they should be prepared for lots of emails.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We use Carbon Black agents that are monitored by the Forescout Extended Module for CB. It will check that CB Agents are deployed and are in running state to secure containers across vmware environment.

The dashboard shows the security analyst who looks at the reports of the threats around policies monitoring Carbon Black agents. The discovery happens in Carbon Black, and as part of the discovery, it will monitor multiple Carbon Black agents. Deployment is on hybrid cloud VM cloud on AWS.

Technical support is excellent. It's also stable, scalable, and easy to implement.

In the next release, it would help if we can get better control over containers. This will help secure the containers in multiple environments. For example, we need to secure the Kubernetes containers. Apart from admin user login to see containers processes running, developers & operate team users also should be seeing the container's processes running.

I have been using Carbon Black CB Defense for the past year.

Carbon Black CB Defense is a stable product.

Carbon Black CB Defense is a scalable product.

We have extended support from the IT technical team and the engineering team from VMware. Their support is excellent. I don't see any issue with technical support.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. Typically it takes just two days to set up Carbon Black agents for the post cloud. A team of about 15 technical people deployed this solution.

There is a very big team from VMware, including VMware support, who implemented this solution. 

The licensing costs depend on how many policies you have on the extended module for CB. We pay between $5,000 to $7,000 for a license for the Carbon Black monitoring agents.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Carbon Black CB Defense a seven.

It has allowed us to protect our organization from viruses. We've seen many cases when people try to install innocent application, such as a web browser or something like that, and then there are attachments that are not so innocent. Carbon Black tells about such things.

I like its protection very much. It protects and allows us to lock the environment pretty tightly. Nothing that is not approved through Carbon Black can run in the environment. There is no default. Everything goes through Carbon Black Protect, and everything has to be first approved. Every software is considered to be guilty before prove innocent.

It could be a bit complicated. You have to be very familiar with Carbon Black to understand what it is doing and why it is doing. I would like to have more explanations and simplification in the user interface. It would be good to get help and see more explanations. It should tell us that a software is blocked and the reason for it. It would be good to be able to build chains in terms of what caused what, what worked, and what caused an issue.

We are now moving from Carbon Black to Cortex XDR. While choosing antivirus software, we were also looking at Carbon Black because it also has an antivirus package, and it is next-generation, but we were told that Carbon Black doesn't support firewalls. We have Palo Alto firewalls. We would have chosen this solution if it supported firewalls, in particular next-generation firewalls, but unfortunately, it doesn't. Therefore, we decided on Cortex XDR because it integrates with Palo Alto firewalls.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years. In our company, it has been used for around five years.

It works. I was actually very surprised about its stability. It is in a virtual environment. It works in a VMware environment for us. Sometimes, latency discrepancies are very high, but it is pretty stable.

It is scalable. We have about 400 machines here, and everyone is using it. It protects 400 nodes. We have one server that serves all nodes. The number of machines is growing slowly. We had 350 machines earlier, and in one year, the number is 400.

I never had a need to use the tech support. My boss, who actually implemented this product, used their technical support, and he was okay with it. 

We have Symantec Endpoint Protection, and it has some functions similar to Carbon Black, but not all. Carbon Black is definitely better because Symantec Endpoint provides some protection as a part of their antivirus solution, but it is not as powerful as Carbon Black.

When I joined this company, Carbon Black was already very well established. All rules and all groups were in place. The person who worked before me did a great job.

It does everything that we need. We can configure it very strongly and lock the environment, which sometimes can create an administrative headache for us and some hassle for users because the users cannot install some of the software and have to ask us to enable the software, but it is exactly what we wanted.

I'm pretty happy with this solution, but unfortunately, at this point, we will have to stop using this solution, but this is not what we want. We are going to use Cortex XDR, but we are not sure if it is possible to work back to back with Carbon Black. Cortex initially told us that Carbon Black and Cortex XDR are not compatible, but it was just word of mouth. At the same time, Carbon Black is not on their incompatible products list. It would be good if these two are compatible because I can imagine the amount of time it would take to translate all the rules from Carbon Black to Cortex and handle all errors and other things.

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

Basically we use the solution for protecting and detecting misuse of end-users while using their end-points to access the internet, especially for browsing websites, or suspicious activity as far as misusing their web browser. It protects them from web-based attacks such as DDos (Denial of Service) or ransomware. 

What I find most interesting is the performance of the end-point client, as well as the capability of detecting any activity on the end-user while using their browsers to navigate the internet. 

To monitor that activity from a security standpoint, detecting cross-site scripting or SQL injection activities that might be coming out from the browser. That's a very needed feature that allows it to distribute the security across the company and not centralizing it only on the firewalls or in the intrusion detection systems. 

The solution is quite customizable.

It's easy to set up the solution.

There's lots of very useful documentation online to help troubleshoot and learn about the product.

I can't think of any feature that needs to be enhanced or reviewed at this time.

Some of the features that I see as an end-user, unfortunately, I haven't been able to see from a project management standpoint. I'm not sure if we're actually taking advantage of all the available features. I don't know if it's because we haven't configured it yet, or we are not using it. 

I'm not sure as to the logic of how we've decided to customize it. We've only really used it since February and therefore there may be more to do on that front. That's why it's hard to say if something is missing or if we just aren't utilizing it.

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

It's pretty stable. We haven't heard of any issues and we don't know yet about usage and security issues outside of the performance or any stabilities in the product itself. So far I would say that I consider it stable - very stable in fact.

Given the number of people that are using it, I would consider it as scalable without having specific details on the performance, on the central management, or the management points. I would say that, due to the behavior of the solution with the end-users, it's a good solution. It is scalable.

I haven't used technical support myself just yet. I've only really gone as far as looking at their documentation on their website, including the blog, user support page, and other related documentation. I would say that is good. It's enough. 

There is more than enough information for tech-savvy people, and knowledgeable people that are looking for specific things. There are details telling them how to fix certain issues related to the product, or how to manage some of the product software. I would say that the documentation and the support are okay. It's what I would use personally. I prefer either looking at the documentation myself and then calling the call center after that if it's still necessary.

We found the initial setup to be relatively straightforward. It's easy. It's not complex at all.

The time it takes to deploy depends upon the number of end-points that you are deploying. That said, as far as I know, it took us probably six to nine months. This is due to the fact that there were some other technical issues not related to the service. That was my understanding at the time.

We're just customers and end-users. We don't implement this solution for clients or anything like that.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. It might be the latest, however, I can't say for sure. We use it at a bank for our endpoints. Therefore, it's likely the latest.

There are between 20,000-30,000 people using the solution within our organization. It's definitely 20,000 at least.

I would advise others to basically set the expectations as far as the features they expect or need from a security solution. This solution can't solve problems related to security practices within the company. Internal policies must be in place. Then, figure out how to integrate this solution and its available features into your internal security protocols. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with the product so far.

What I like the most about it is the dynamic grouping, where you get to group endpoints based on setup criteria. That's pretty cool. I like the simplified policy management and simplified white-listing process. Coming from McAfee, management has been much simpler and much easier to look at. 

I like the simplified management, it has a nice UI, and it's very simple.

The EDR portion could be better. I'm not a big fan, but it works.

The End Point Detection Response and the way it lays our processes with our endpoint and its detection engine, in the way that it detects the admin or alerts we based on a threat. I feel that they're a little behind on the market from my perspective.  

Overall, areas of improvement would be the EDR part, the detection, also the cloud console. If you're trying to write queries or something, it's very slow, just not robust.

It's a cloud console so it should be fast. If I run a query and I press enter, if it took two seconds, it wouldn't give me a nice loading interface, because it's stuck. I would see an operating system most of the time. 

I feel like it should be faster. But as far as the price and everything, I think it's a good product.

We're actually doing a migration from McAfee to Carbon Black. The migration project has been about 12 months right now. We're slowly migrating.

Stability is one thing that's not robust. Other products are faster, but as far as the CB Defense, it's slow. We had some issues with the sensors and we also saw slowness on the Windows side, Windows file share, which actually was fixed in the next new version of the sensor.

I'm the only network security person here. But the other users who have different roles have access as well. In my team, there are five or six people. But I'm the only one actually directing changes.

We use it on a daily basis. 

There are always alerts so I'll always have to check into alerts and see what's going on and then do some more analysis. If it's a new application we are implementing that will also need to be configured on Carbon. 

The deployment process is straightforward. 

We're still deploying it slowly, little by little because we use a lot of critical applications and if Carbon Black interferes with the application, it will stop working. It needs to be tested thoroughly. It's a long process. 

All of its applications need to be tested thoroughly and then tested in a testing environment. Then we deploy and monitor, make changes, and stuff like that. As far as general users, laptops, and stuff, that's pretty straightforward. It's just part of the image. I have to write that script to uninstall McAfee, the whole migration. It's pretty straightforward. It wasn't complex as far as the installation or deployment.

There was also a technical lead for this project. It automatically comes with professional services for 10 hours and the documentation is pretty clear. The professors helped through the process. 

I think it's 28 per employee a year. 

We also looked at CrowdStrike but it was a little too expensive. 

The implementation is very easy but the security aspects could be better. 

If you don't have a SIEM solution in your organization, you're probably engaging via email.But there's no way to point me to customize the email templates if I want to see more information on that email before going to the console. It's still a business and company, but I'm the only one who is managing everything. So when I see the email on my phone, I want to see more information before logging into the console. I want to see more filtering options to narrow down more field training. 

I also wish it was easier and more intuitive in terms of searching for queries. I feel like it should be simpler. It doesn't make sense to have it this hard.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

We started using it to protect our environment from ransomware specifically.

Carbon Black works completely differently from other products. We tested different products and Carbon Black was selected because it does not remove a virus but it kills any suspect operations and it's up to the admin to check the scenario. It kills the "effect," if you will. If you receive ransomware or anything suspicious, it will kill the process unless you allow it, after receiving warnings.

I cannot say it's pure AI, but the way it works is that it stops any suspicious activity, not based on signature-based attacks. It works in a way that it detects that a given effect is unusual.

Also, you can deploy it through the cloud so that even if your stuff is outside of your controlled environment, you are still under control, based on the policies you create. The policies are controlled through the cloud. For example, if I don't allow anyone to do a certain activity or to install a particular app, and a consultant or a partner who is not part of our environment is doing so, it will stop them as well. Because of COVID-19, we are all working from home. Imagine if the centralization and control provided by the product were not on the cloud. We would lose control of the people working from home. So the centralized cloud control is one of its more effective aspects.

As far as I know, Carbon Defense has nothing that can be installed on mobile devices. It lacks a defense solution for mobile devices, especially mobile tablets. I would like to see support for mobile devices and the pricing should be less than the pricing for a normal workstation.

Also, there is not much education for customers about Defense versus its other products. They promote Defense as enough, but then they say if you need more protection you can go for CB Response. I don't know whether it's a technology issue or a marketing issue, but they should teach the customer more. They tell you you are secure with Carbon Defense but then they recommend Carbon Protect. There is not a lot of education on this.

I don't want to have an incident in the future and their answer will be, "Sorry, you did not buy Protect." Security is a continuous process. I can accept that it has more features, but don't tell me, "You are not protected because you did not buy the more expensive product."

In addition, these other products should be add-ons, not separate products. And the cost for them should be much less for adding on because you are already a customer.

Finally, we receive a lot of high alerts. There is no priority system, from one to 10, where 10 is very dangerous and one is something easy. There is no way for us to tell why this alert is similar to that one.

I have been using Carbon Black CB Defense for two years.

It is stable. It does not use a lot of CPU or RAM. This is one of its good points.

We have about 1,000 users. Scaling is always possible because it's a cloud solution.

They have good local support, here in Dubai.

Deployment takes too much time because it has a lot of options. The implementation was not an easy process. I wish the implementation was easier. But it has a positive effect in the end. The complexity pays for itself ultimately. You do not spend time on the complexity and then get nothing as a result. So the complexity is something that is necessary.

We were new to this product. If the deployment took, say, two weeks, it took us a very long time, maybe a couple of months, until we knew this product was solid. The education services given by the partner are not enough. It was a completely new product for us, so we needed a lot of education. While the implementation took two weeks, it really took two months to go through all the options.

We had a consultant at the beginning.

We have branches, we have different companies, but we cannot buy less than 100 licenses. This does not make sense to me. We do have some big companies within our group. But if I have a small office with 20 users and all my licenses are in use, the next buy cannot be less than 100 licenses. We have to do a lot of implementation and communication to add that many. But we only need 20. They are not flexible in the licensing part. It should be more flexible. 

I can understand their saying, "Okay, to be a customer you need 100," but to add on to that number it should be something very straightforward. If I need to add five, for example, I shouldn't need to add 100.

I'm not happy with the way they are treating existing customers for adding licenses. I sent an angry communication to them, to the management, and said to them: "With 1,000 users, I need only another 50 licenses. Why do you want me to go for 100? It's a stupid policy." Then I got approval from them for fewer. I don't need to buy subscriptions for users I don't have.

Also, licenses should not be per endpoint but rather per user. If I am the same user on a mobile device or on a workstation it should be one license for me.

To compare apples to apples, before going for Carbon Black I was thinking about CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike has a lot of very beautiful features that Carbon Black does not have, like IT asset management. But I am not buying this type of software for IT asset management. I'm buying it to protect my infrastructure from big threats. While CrowdStrike has many good features that Carbon Black does not have, that's not the case when it comes to security. CrowdStrike is a very good product but it's more expensive. If you buy all the components of CrowdStrike I can assure you it will be much better than Carbon Black, but cost is a factor.

Our previous product, Kaspersky, was fine but it's not on the level of Carbon Black. Carbon Black is called a next-generation antivirus because it does not only work based on signatures. With Kaspersky we had an incident, and one of the servers affected was the Kapsersky control server.

My advice is to get enough information about the differences in Carbon Black products from day one. In other words, if Carbon Black is claiming that Carbon Black CB Defense is enough, why are they always promoting the more expensive product, which is Carbon Black Protect? So, you need to be educated well about the differences between the products.

Also, look at the roadmap of the product regarding whether there will be good mobile protection for mobile users or not. And be aware of the minimum license purchasing policy.

The number of people for maintenance of the solution depends on how your environment is structured, but in our company I need five people.