Symantec Endpoint Encryption Reviews

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 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. 

We are using this solution to be compliant with CSP.

After the cyberattacks, that impacted the Swift platform of the Bangladesh Bank, the Central Bank, and another bank in Africa. They created a custom security program that contains twenty-seven controls. One of those controls is to encrypt the infrastructure in the Swift platform.

For the Swift operation, we acquired this solution for the servers and the Endpoints.

We can extend it to all of the critical endpoints and the servers, and we can ensure the confidentiality of the data.

This is a pilot project, deployed to be tested. After all of the testing is complete, we can cover the infrastructure.

The most valuable feature of this solution is encryption.

The reporting is very important for us. 

It's a well-known solution and the PGP Solution is a good solution with good performance.

Symantec has SONAR for the antivirus and ransomware behavioral analysis in the endpoints.

We need to develop a process for this solution. We can't deploy the solution without being assisted by or followed by a process. Also, we need to define the process for administrative responsibilities, and the help desk to be notified for every issue with the solution by the users.

If for example, a user forgets the endpoint key, they cannot access their data. We need a support team that is a single point of contact for the IT entity to be trained and to have documentation for troubleshooting and managing the solution.

We would like the editors or solution providers to present us with a roadmap of the new features and their functionalities. If we were to have this roadmap, we could define our roadmap to integrate the new features.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable.

It's efficient and we discovered that we can extend the perimeters to cover the entire infrastructure.

We have ten people, but we need three more for the succession plan, and a back up for someone who is not available so that there is continuity when managing the solution.

We haven't had to contact technical support. The solution is very good for us and it responds to our needs.

I used Check Point while I was in Citibank, which was in 2009 and 2010.

The initial setup is not complex, it's easy.

The deployment is easy. You enroll the users and the server, then go to the user and deploy it, reboot the system, then clarify that it is running. From there, you will have an operator to access it.

When the system is rebooted you will be asked for an encryption key. Everyone in the organization has to enter an encryption key.

We have five operators for this platform with four servers.

It is an obligation to deploy it. The scope of compliance, with the goal being to cover all of the infrastructures.

Currently, we outsource the managing of our infrastructure to another company, and we have a dedicated team for our bank. We have the help desk, all of the infrastructure, the networking, the security, and the systems.

We had an integrator to assist us with the implementation and deployment.

Data protect, a Moroccan company that was created in 2009, are also data service providers in all of Africa. 

The created subsidiaries in France, Asia, and other countries. They're a good team that is very helpful and efficient.

The price is very good.

They have two solutions for encryption including Symantec Endpoint Encryption and PGP Endpoint Encryption. With one PGP license, you can deploy the two solutions. The PGP license gives you two options.

Checkpoint has better support. With Symantec, we have subsidiaries involved.

The performance is good and it's efficient.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it to patch information systems.

It helps us put antivirus solutions in place and prevent malware from getting to our machines. It's a pretty clear-cut solution.

Semantic is out there doing the work, identifying viruses and malware that come out weekly. That's the real-world landscape and they're pushing that stuff out as quickly as they can. But I can only patch monthly. I don't know what the solution is there, besides being vulnerable for three weeks out of four. But there's got to be an option somehow.

The stability is 100 percent. We've never had a problem with downloading it or accessing it. It works as advertised. It's an extremely good product.

I can put it on anything I want. It's 100 percent scalable.

I've never had to use technical support.

The government requirement was to be using McAfee, and we're using Semantic and we just pushed back on it. I told them I have a solution, it's deployed, it's working. It's 100 percent. Why is the government specifying a solution for one particular vendor in an environment where there are many solutions out there? It actually got quite heated and they backed off on the requirement. I was really surprised at that. It's an argument I went into expecting to lose and they came back and said, "Okay, maybe you have a point." But it is a DoD requirement to use McAfee as the antivirus solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. We downloaded the software, put it on a disk, sneakernetted it over to an isolated network, dropped it in the drive, initialized it, and enabled it. It was pretty easy.

It's satisfying our requirements at a very high level. That's a return on investment. I don't have a metric, but the results are very good.

This solution was chosen for me. I didn't make the decision.

Last year at RSA, Malwarebytes had a booth. I was talking to the vendor and he had some very interesting research. I won't go into too much here, but he had a graph on how many threats McAfee misses, how many Symantec misses, and how good Malwarebytes is, of course. He was trying to sell their software. He said Malwarebytes is a stopgap between the two. We could use it as he suggested. The problem with that is that when you have multiple antivirus engines installed on a machine, they identify each other's threats and cancel out each other's work. It doesn't really work that way. 

But I have to look at the results. We haven't had a malware incident as a result of the Semantic solution that we have on 95 percent of our machines. We actually have McAfee on two machines because they are for a different customer and it was easier to do that.

If you make the investment in tech, in updated hardware and software, there are other tools - here we are at RSA 2019, those tools are all over the place. There are other tools that are not single-point solutions. You can solve a whole lot of problems for a lot less money if you're using updated hardware and software rather than old stuff, end-of-life, where you just have one other thing that you have to take care of it. You can put an umbrella over everything with a bigger, newer, better product. But you have to have your hardware and software up to date, rather than the situation that my organization is in.

Semantic an excellent product. It's really just the timing that I mentioned earlier that doesn't work well for us.

On the other hand, we haven't had a breach. We haven't had any issues. We haven't had any incidences of malware popping up. But that's more due to the isolated aspect of our networks. We're not touching the outside, so it's really hard for anything to get in. But disks can be sneakernetted in, hard drives can be brought in, USBs can be brought in, mistakes can be made. Not everything is malicious. Sometimes there is just incompetence involved where somebody hooks up something that they're not supposed to and you have exposure. But we haven't seen any threats related to any of that kind of behavior. I can't really say that we have had a case where anything has gone bad.

In terms of security maturity, we're "mature" in the sense that we're ancient, using old equipment that has reached end-of-life. It's really from the old-age home, it's so mature. We're in dire need of tech refresh and I don't have the budget to support that. But if you unwrap that and look at it from the other side, what would we do without it? 

But the real mitigator, the thing that's actually protecting us, is our isolation. We have isolated systems so nothing can get at us. If I get audited, I'd better have antivirus definitions loaded up, current ones. But it really has not affected our security maturity.

If it wasn't for the exception that I mentioned, Symantec Endpoint Encryption, would have been 100 percent successful and I would have to have given it a ten out of ten. With that exception, I have to knock it back to 90 percent, a nine out of ten because, as I said, we're exposed.

The solution is primarily used for encryption. It encrypts drives. It protects drives. The information pertaining to the drive is secured.

We have been very satisfied with the solution's security capabilities.

The stability is good.

The product scales very well.

The encryption is pretty seamless.

The primary objective is to encrypt drives. It's doing a good job. I cannot recall coming across any missing features. 

From an administration point of view, maybe it would be ideal to have it centrally managed.

I used the solution more in my previous role, and probably have about four or five years of experience with the product.

The solution has been stable. It does not crash or freeze. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The product can scale if a company needs to expand it. It's not a problem.

We have around 3,500 users on the solution currently.

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

There wasn't really an implementation process. It's pre-loaded on our Golden Image. It was in with the Windows 10 addition. We didn't have to do anything really.

The product was part of an enterprise solution. Therefore, the pricing was tucked in as part of other Symantec products. It was part of a bundle procurement. There was an antivirus, endpoint encryption, and a whole lot of other Symantec products bundled together.

My understanding is that everything was under a yearly subscription, however, I can't speak to the exact price of the bundle.

Up until last year, I was using the latest version of the solution.

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

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We use Symantec Endpoint Encryption to encrypt either emails or files that a user might want to upload. We typically deploy the encryption on the client's network in order to encrypt their messages or documents before they send them, or after they've been received.

We have just under 20 staff in our company and most of the people working with Symantec Endpoint Encryption are Symantec engineers.

The best feature of Symantec Endpoint Encryption is the encryption itself. Encryption truly is the way to go because nowadays we are living in an era of widespread server threats, and you need to encrypt your emails and documents because you never know who might get hold of them.

None of our customers have complained about this solution at all, so I take it that everything is still working fine.

One feature that is lacking is integration with Symantec Information Centric (ICT). As it is now, I don't see how to integrate the encryption with ICT, and in my opinion this is an area that certainly requires encryption, even though it's no longer supported by Broadcom.

Another improvement that comes to mind is that it could be made much simpler. The user must be able to use it easily and without any hassle. At present, it's not user-friendly.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Encryption for more than five years.

So far, we haven't seen any performance or stability issues.

We haven't been through the process of scaling it as such, but we have plenty of experience in deploying it to the cloud. However, sometimes a customer who wanted to deploy it for the cloud won't get back to us, and I think in these cases it has to do with finances rather than more practical matters.

If we have any problems, our best option is to go online and log a ticket, but we haven't yet encountered any issues. 

We started with Symantec Endpoint Encryption and haven't used any other solutions of this kind before.

It is complex to set up so you really have to know what you're doing. You must have someone with experience in it before you can deploy it on a customer's premises.

We do the deployment in-house, and it takes a team of about ten people.

We don't directly make money when using this tool; instead, we are just using it for protection and security.

Although the performance and stability of this solution are good, our challenge is the price tag. You buy the solution once, but you also have to keep on buying the licenses yearly.

In the future, if we decide to evaluate other products we will first compare the new product with Symantec and if it is more user-friendly and cheaper to use, then, naturally, we will go the route of the other product instead.

One piece of advice I would like to share with anyone who'd like to use Symantec is that you need to dig deep into the product and learn it well.

Before you take it into production, you should study it within a simulated environment so that you can really understand how to use it and how you can convince other stakeholders of its value. This includes learning how to deploy it and integrate it with all the other servers that might be found on the customer's environment, especially when it comes to email and file storage, file servers, database servers, and application servers.

I would rate Symantec Endpoint encryption a five out of ten.

This solution is used predominately for data protection. We want to protect our data in case it is lost, or if we are replacing or upgrading hardware.

The most valuable feature is that it works in the background so that the end-users are not aware of what is happening on the laptop.

I do not find the environment to be very user-friendly.

The technical support is not very good, especially for issues involving the encryption.

If the user loses their encryption key then the process for recovering it is complicated and should be made simpler.

During the last upgrade, I experienced some data corruption on my laptop. I was unable to view the data, nor get support from Symantec.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Encryption for about ten years.

I would rate the stability as good. We use this solution on an occasional basis.

With respect to scalability, we have had some hardware compatibility issues.

We have more than 1,000 users.

My team is in regular contact with technical support, although I have had no direct involvement with them. I do not find them to be very good.

The initial setup is of medium difficulty. It is neither simple nor complex.

The cost of this solution is a little on the higher side.

After implementing Symantec Endpoint Encryption we have been exploring alternate vendors to look at additional features like application protection. One of these solutions is the native Windows 10 BitLocker, and I am also evaluating a product by Dell.

I do not recommend Symantec Endpoint Encryption. The support needs to be improved.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is security encryption for email, mobile and important company documents. We install the solution on cloud and on-premises.

We find the dashboard, endpoint mobile encryption, and email encryption valuable.

The solution does not have endpoint control. It should be included so clients can easily uninstall their endpoints.

We have been using the solution for approximately eight months and are currently using the latest version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. I rate it a seven out of ten.

We previously used Sophos Intercept but switched to this solution because of its ease of installment, unique features, and antivirus protection from Symantec.

The solution is not expensive.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.