Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Reviews

We may be using version 13 or 14, although I can't say for certain. 

The solution provides protection for all our systems, file servers, endpoints and domain controllers.

We are dissatisfied with certain functions, such as those for application updates, which are not usable and don't work. 

The application updates and drive encryption are lacking. The former cannot be used or monitored. We would like to be able to use our domain controller for management purposes. 

The solution could also be more secure. 

We have been using Kaspersky Endpoint Security for three years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is not easy to scale.  

I have not had occasion to make use of technical support. 

The initial setup was easy.

It was over within a day. 

A friend of mine handled the installation.

Our technical team for our deployment and maintenance needs consists of nine people, one manager, three administrators and the rest are employees. 

There are approximately 300 users in our organization making use of the solution. 

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security as an eight out of ten. 

We used the solution to protect as against computer viruses.

We currently have had to move to another solution because we require faster response times and more advanced features other competitors offer.

The functions are very good and they have many different features that are available.

This solution needs to improve and get up to date with some of the new EDR technology anti-virus software available. There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports.

I have been using the product for 10 years.

It is a stable product.

If the company is big, more than 100 staff with different branches, this solution is good but for small companies, I think it's not very appropriate.

We have used support from Kaspersky China. They offer support through email and phone of which they provide a good service, fast response, and an overall professional resolution.

We now use Symantec End-user Endpoint Security software as our anti-virus protection solution. We opted to change software because of the current security risk our digital data faces, we needed a more robust solution.

The installation was not a problem.

We have had no troubles installing, maintaining, or deploying the product for our clients. For others, the deployment could take more time and might require professionals to do the job.

It would be a benefit for this solution to have better-advanced features, less maintenance required for operation, and faster response times.

Due to the current increased global security risks on digital data we have had to search for an alternative solution. 

I would have given the solution a ten out of ten a few years ago but they need to improve and provide more features as their competitors.

I rate Kaspersky Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

The signature update is done securely.

There are some issues that recently happened with this solution. The American government and other countries banned Kaspersky, since it is a Russian product, and customers lost their confidence in it.

There is too much deviation from Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Kaspersky could provide more training for the local support.

It is very stable. I have no complaints when it comes to stability. 

There have been some performance issues. They provide good security, but this slows down the performance of machines' servers. The software is not updating as frequently as we need.

Scalability is good, but if I want to update any patch or update for 2000 to 3000 machines, it can be difficult sometimes. If it is below 2000 machines, then it is fine.

In our organization, we have 3000 users utilizing the product.

The local support that they have here are great, especially for on-premise. If I call them, they can reach us very quickly. The issue is that they aren't always so knowledgeable. Kaspersky didn't provide enough training for them. 

The initial setup was straightforward, not so complex. 

Pricing and licensing is competitive. It's not so different from its competitors. 

At the moment, we don't have any alternatives that we are considering.

Think about the performance issues first. If I have a very good solution, but it slows down your server performance, then the productivity of your place will go down. The performance issues should be considered. Scalability should also be considered, then security issues. 

We are not happy with this solution and want it to change.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security and protection.

We haven't had any major issues with the solution overall. It's quite a reliable product so far.

The stability has been reliable so far.

The pricing has been quite good and very reasonable.

We found the installation to be very straightforward and the deployment process to be very fast.

We've found that sometimes the solution is not doing its job in detecting some malware. They need to make sure that they are advancing their technology to catch more malicious events. There needs to be more security in place specifically on the malware side of things.

I've used the solution for two years. It has been a while.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance has been reliable so far. 

The scalability hasn't really been tested by our organization. We've never tried to expand it, and therefore I can't speak to how successful expanding it may be for other companies. 

We only have two users of the solution in our company.

At this time, we likely won't keep using the solution.

I've never opened any tickets with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I've never dealt with them directly.

The installation was not complex at all. It was very straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment was also quite quick. It only takes a few minutes, if I recall the process correctly. It's not long and drawn out. It's easy.

I handled the implementation myself. It's not difficult. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant at all. 

At the time, when we purchased the solution, the company was giving us the best deal on the market. It's the reason why we ended up choosing it. I don't recall the licensing aspects or if we had to pay for it, and if so, how much.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I haven't suffered from a malicious attack, and therefore I'm treating it quite high, as it is doing what we need it to do. The protection levels so far have been sufficient.

It's a good solution that companies should consider if other options are not available to them.

Our primary use case is for monitoring. 

Before Kaspersky, I had to control each PC one by one but now it's just one update and it can detect a virus on all of the systems. 

The blocking feature is the most valuable feature. 

It needs more computer resources. They should have more anti-spam features. 

It's a little more expensive compared to other anti-virus competitors like Symantec. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because it needs more computer resources. 

Kaspersky is fairly good with endpoint management. Though, we do not use Kaspersky at our mail security levels because our mail security is done by another product that we use.

So far, performance has been okay. We just updated to the latest version.

It has improved our performance and deployment.

• The main thing for us is that we get our reporting.
• Deployment and centralized management are essential for us because of the number of loads that we have along with the number of geographic locations where we are based.
• If any policy has been breached, it will send you a report.
  

• I would like to see machine learning and AI as added features.
• It would be nice if they had a separate email security solution (instead of only their cloud edition), similar to what Forcepoint and Trend Micro have. 
• I would rate their encryption as a one out of 10. It needs a lot of improvement.
• There are some features built into Kaspersky that do not work at all, so we have to use other products instead.

It is a fairly stable product. 

There have been some disturbances going on in the market due to potential leaking of information, but I don't think we are very much concerned about what's happening in the global space. We know our data is secure at our level. We backing up our data and it is doing its job

It is a scalable product. We have been able to create a number of groups where we were to allow policies and deny policies. Another solution did allow us to do this, but we found it was not user-friendly.

The technical support is not very good. I think my mind fixes things before they get it together. I would rate the technical support as a three or four out of 10.

In the past, we went with Trend Micro. It was okay, but we needed a change, and we opted for Kaspersky. It had a lot more features from an endpoint management standpoint. We found it better in terms of deployment. Normally, with the other solutions, we would face issues with deployment.

The initial setup was not a problem for my team.

The vendor came in to help initially, but in the end, we set it up ourselves. 

I don't think it is a good product from a support standpoint.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

1. The product should work and do what it promises.
2. The vendor and product should have a roadmap.
3. Support.

Securing our network is now easier since we have divided the task between the antivirus and the overall network firewall. This means different people can focus on the different lines of defense, hence enhancing security.

• Network Agent
• Over the network deployment
• Monitoring
• Reporting
• Manipulation

I can easily manage over 300 computers antivirus from my desk. I am able to see detected viruses, run disinfection, and scans remotely. I am able to troubleshoot Kaspersky Antivirus installed on workstations from my desk by uninstalling, starting tasks, communicating with computer users (Network Message), and viewing and deploying to those who are not installed. Updates are also run on a schedule and this saves on bandwidth usage since some updates from the KSC dbase.

From time to time, some users loose connection via the Network Agent. This gives us a tough time, since they are in different localities, so we have to run tasks and sometimes manually re-establish the NetAgent connection.

At first, the whole centre concept was new to me, but the documentation really helped as I had a smooth time catching up. I also once lost a KSC server as it crashed and I had to redo all the setup since I had learnt about the backup method. However, the KSC team was and continues to be of great help via their assistance from the company account.

Yes, but it was largely our network settings. Setting up the slave servers is a headache if the network is not well-configured.

The support is very good. A 10 out of 10.

This is the solution I found when I joined the organization, so it is hard to tell if it was a switch.

Straightforward, since I used the provided manual/documentation guide.

It is quite standard, because we use the volume licensing.

Not applicable.

It is very reliable, user-friendly endpoint security software. I recommend it to any administrator.

Over the years, I have learned that we always need to keep updating our OS — especially Windows. Any application that sits on Windows needs to be updated. This allows us to better detect and remove any infections. Sometimes, there are a few infections that we can't get rid of. In this case, we have to find another way to clean up the registry; otherwise, we have to reinstall everything again.

In terms of the interface, I prefer something that is simple without so much color. 

I have been using this solution for the last 10 years. 

This solution is stable. 

Reaching their support team can be difficult. I've dealt with Sophos before; they were quite responsive to our issues.

We are actually going to be switching to Sophos Endpoint Security.

I think the price of this solution is good. 

Make sure you are online in order to receive updates. The engine itself doesn't do much without updated data. With updates, you'll be at least 90% protected.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.