Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We use the product as an antivirus solution and install it on every end-user machine.  

I think Symantec is a good antivirus solution. There is not really a specific feature that I think stands out. If you consider the protection as a feature, I would say that antivirus protection is the most valuable feature the product has.  

We have had some problems with the Symantec solution. The problems were bad enough that I was compelled to start to research into other products. The biggest issue was the whitelisting feature. The Symantec software has a feature that detects certain things as malicious and it takes care of the issue. It is supposed to do that. Sometimes the things it flags are not real issues — they are essentially false positives. Sometimes there are things we want it to let through that it would otherwise flag. We put these things on a whitelist so they get allowed. We were having a problem keeping a particular file on the whitelist. It was an EXE and Symantec kept flagging it even when it was whitelisted.  

To fix the issue, we had to do in-house software development. We had to run some extra code. The process was not smooth and, in the long run, it basically did not work. The support by Symantec on the issue was of no further help and it remained a problem.  

A feature that seems to be missing from Symantec is reporting on external devices. For example, if a remote user gets a virus on their computer and they are accessing our system, I want to know. The Symantec agent should be checking this in the cloud and informing us that a particular end-user got a virus. I should get a report or alert somehow. The computer in question should be isolated — or something like that — to mitigate the potential of the threat. Instead, nothing happens.   

The enterprise product that we have now does not have that feature. Maybe Symantec has that feature implemented in other products, but I do not know about it. Maybe it is not there at all or maybe it is some type of cloud feature. But the end result is I have looked for the solution in the product, can not find it, support did not inform me that it can be resolved, and we are essentially left with a vulnerability. That is really not acceptable.   

I have been using Symantec Endpoint security for about 2 years.  

It is stable. We do not really have problems with the product crashing.  

Endpoint Security is not that scalable right now because it is hard to even get a new quote. It is part of the problem happening during the transition when they got bought up by Broadcom. The whole process of renewing and buying new licenses has become a pain. It takes forever to get a quote.  

On a daily basis in our company right now there are around 300 people using the product. The system is monitored by the system admin and myself. We have a cooperative situation.  

The Symantec customer support team is responsive by email. I would say it is between 80% to 90% effective.  

I have not used other antivirus products as an admin. The Symantec product was already in use at the company when I came here.  

I would say that the initial installation is moderately straightforward. It is not really completely straightforward and it is not really complex. It is somewhere in the middle.  

The deployment of the server takes more time, but I am not the one who deployed it. I do not know exactly how long it took. I am not aware of any surprises or difficulties with the deployment.  

The system admin did the installation without external assistance.  

I was not the one who implemented Symantec at our company. The decision was made before I arrived and I inherited the product.  

I am now researching products in consideration of deploying a replacement option for Symantec because it is not totally meeting our security needs.  

The honest advice I would have for someone considering this solution at this point in time is to move on. I say this because Symantec is being bought out by Broadcom. That may not be a bad thing on its own. Symantec has traditionally been a very good company and still was up to this point. But being bought by another company just means that there will be a mess because of the transition and integration between these companies and products. Developers of the product will be spending time focusing on that merger rather than core product issues. It creates a little bit of a mess that the client should not have to suffer through when there are other capable solutions.  

Another thing is that Symantec still needs to implement some features that it does not have. They have very good, strong protection, but they are behind other products on the market. There are a lot of more features they have failed to implement. Especially now when everyone is working remotely and with cloud products, the security does not seem complete.  

Maybe the cloud version addresses these issues. I have not used the cloud version because I am on the enterprise version and like in-house deployment. Our version is missing a ton of features that are very important to security especially in the current environment.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as a seven-out-of-ten. It is missing too much to be rated higher.  

We basically use the solution for endpoint protection.

The single-pane management is the solution's most valuable feature. It makes administrative control very easy.

I'm not sure if the solution can improve that much more. Right now, for me, I'm asking the question "How does Defender stack up against the product we're paying for?" 

Defender comes with Windows 10 and we have Windows 10 throughout our environment. With that being free, we're asking ourselves why we would pay for another solution that's sort of redundant.

I know they were just bought out by Broadcom and there have been some difficulties with Broadcom as far as getting license renewals, etc. Mostly, due to the fact that it's confusing, even for the vendor, people are turned off by it. The vendors are telling us that it can take weeks for them to get a renewal quote, nevermind the actual renewal.

I've actually had to call Symantec myself because my vendor said "Well, we're going to try it, but it's going to take weeks to get an answer from them." In the end, it was internally expedited and I got the answer the next day, however, that's an exception, not the rule.

I know a number of people that have left just because of the fact that when Broadcom first bought them, and their licensing ran out, the company provided a temporary license and then another instead of dealing with a proper license. One had to argue for another renewal or for them to promise to give them the proper license in the third month. He finally got it, however, it took three months of begging. That doesn't seem right.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been at least a decade.

From a usage point, it's very stable. With the new company Broadcom, that's taken them over, I know they've had some shakeups. My concern is whether or not Broadcom continues to support it going forward. If they do I'm fine with it. If they don't or they start having failures in their support, then I'm going to have to leave them.

I don't know enough about the scalability to really have an opinion on it, one way or the other. I wouldn't be able to comment on it.

Currently, we have anywhere between 100 and 500 users on the solution.

I've used technical support in the past. They've always been okay. We've had very few incidents where we've had to have to call them and ask for assistance. Out of those incidents, in my recollection, the last one was probably a couple of years ago, but those incidents were quickly resolved. 

I would say, overall, we've been satisfied with their level of service in the past.

The initial setup wasn't complex at all. It was very straightforward. However, in our case, the initial set up was 10 years ago. Its been a very, very long time. I can't speak to what it is like right now. It may be different, or just as easy.

We're a not-for-profit. We do get exceptionally good pricing, however, I cannot say exactly what the costs are for us on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just a Symantec customer. We aren't a partner or reseller.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution.

Overall, we're pretty happy with the product.

I would tell other organizations considering implementing it that it's a great tool. My concern again would be if Broadcom doesn't really invest in the product's success. Often companies will buy out their competitors and/or they'll buy out a product line thinking that they want to get into that field. Then they turn around and they dump the product line after a year or two and decide, "Well, I guess we don't want to go this way," or they are just buying it out to get rid of the competition.

My concern lies in the new company failing to come through on updates or the delivery of the service. It remains to be seen whether they're going to fail, or whether they're going to continue to support the product and keep it as a high-end solution.

So far I've been very happy with them. I would rate them overall as fairly high, maybe a nine out of ten. The only thing that worries me as a user is whether or not Broadcom is going to continue to support them going forward.

The primary key is because it doesn't impact much in the performance of the endpoint.

For me, the end point is almost a commodity. So, an advantage with Symantec is the integration. The integration with our two directories for taking control to administrate people, and then follow up with the segmentation to different people. To be able to manage a subset of the endpoint registering the solution, the distribution is in geographical sounds. The dashboard can be emailed, and I can receive the solution.

I find the most valuable features are the security features that have been developed in the past few years. 

A good improvement would be altering the console in the console manager. Sometimes we need to add and improve the security to access to the console because the indicators and we can take management activities into the console, and it's, nice to have to improve the security access to the console.

It is very stable. I do not have any problems with it at all. 

I only use the technical support once or twice a year. I find that sometimes they are a bit slow to find a solution. 

The most imprortant criteria for me to find a proper solution in this sphere are:

• Knowledge of the market
• Study of the solution

I also looked at McAffe, but I noticed that Symantec was the better performing solution when I researched respected user performance.

The valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that the tool serves as a complete solution and can be deployed on either the cloud or an on-premises model, which also makes it a solution that can be deployed on a hybrid cloud model.

There are no additional features my company expects the product to offer since it has no limitations and works properly in any given environment.

Symantec has not properly promoted Symantec Endpoint Security in the market. In my opinion, the product should be properly promoted.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for five years. My company is a reseller of the product.

It is a stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution.

I recommend the tool for large-sized organizations.

So far, my company has not faced any problems with the solution's technical support. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

,

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The price of the product is competitive if compared to its competitors in the market.

I usually recommend Symantec Endpoint Security to others.

As a partner of Symantec, I recommended Symantec Endpoint Security to others.

I got the product's documentation online.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We provide support, services, and licenses to customers. Clients mainly use it for security features: antivirus, anti-spyware, host firewall, and the application development tool. Our clients are in enterprise industries as well as small finance companies.

The solution is deployed on-premises. I'm working with the 14.3 RU4 version.

The most useful features are the antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewall features. It also provides application control and Host Integrity, which is a very unique feature.

Symantec helps prevent attackers from stealing domain credentials and launching stealthy attacks.

Almost all threats are detected by Symantec, which is a very good feature. They also have Global Intelligence. It's a great detection technology.

We blocked indicators of compromise. We created multiple custom rules for that in the application control, which is helpful if it's a zero-day.

Symantec needs to develop some reporting features and notifications. For instance, if the server is not on or it's shut down. There should also be time-based USB control.

The APIs could also be more developed.

I've been using this solution for 12 years.

The product is very stable.

It's scalable. Our clients plan to increase usage.

Currently, the technical support is not very good. I would rate them four out of ten. Their response time is slow.

Initial setup is very easy. There's no complexity. It's simple compared to other products.

We deployed the solution through the remote deployment tool.

Our implementation strategy was to first implement the managers, test the solution, then deploy it.

Two or three people are needed for deployment: one person for administration, one for deployment, and one for reporting.

The amount of people needed for maintenance depends on the different policy creations. It mostly involves creating the policies for the threat actors, the indicators of compromise, and upgrades. It also depends on the size of the company.

I heard a lot about McAfee, and their reporting feature is very good compared to Symantec.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the product for all of our desktops and laptops; we use it for security purposes - for endpoint protection.

The solution is constantly getting updated with the latest definitions. 

It's easy to get it across to all clients. The agent installation is very easy and the agent will talk to the server. 

It is very easy to managing everything in relation to the implementation and processing. The initial setup is very easy.

The solution scales quite well.

The solution has proven itself to be very stable over the years.

Technical support has been pretty good in general.

It would be great if the solution could match up with the competition's offerings - for example, making sure they are keeping up with, for example, CrowdStrike and other offerings.

They need to ensure they are continuously keeping up with cybersecurity trends.

If the next release contained advanced threat protection and EDR, et cetera, it would be really fantastic.

If the agent can be minimized so that it can work with in-memory concepts, that would be ideal. As of now, it is file-based, signature-based. If they should come with an in-memory option, it should work at the random-access memory level also. 

We've been using Symantec for the past two decades. It's been a long time. I have years of experience with the product.

The stability has been very good. We haven't had any issues in that respect. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is very reliable.

The solution can scale if you need it to. If a company needs to expand it, it shouldn't be a problem to do so.

I can't speak to how many of our users are currently on the product at this time.

As of right now, we do not have plans to increase the usage within our organization.

Technical support has been very good so far. We find them to be helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of support we get.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is very simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the initial implementation.

We may switch to another solution and we are evaluating a variety of options currently. We have not come to a decision just yet. We simply want to see what else is on the market and how this product stands up to other solutions. We're mostly just curious to see what is happening in the space. We've looked at, for example, CrowdStrike, among others.

We are a customer as well as an end-user. We don't have a professional or business relationship with the company.

We only ever use the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure what version number we are on right now, however.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use it to maintain a minimum of security in our office. It's very important to have an antivirus in our environment. The main object of the solution is to maintain stability so that our environment is protected from any websites that can harm our solution.

To prevent attacks you need a full range of protection: antivirus, anti-spam, proxies, and firewalls. Symantec provides the antivirus piece.

It has reduced our attack surface and that's why we keep using the solution. It helps prevent cyber attacks and spam. Symantec Endpoint Security is an important element for maintaining security in our company.

One of the most valuable features is the ability to manage antivirus security. There is an admin console that helps you make policies and do deployment of the clients, to make them reachable and to deploy updates.

Using the management console is a bit complex. There are many features that we cannot use and we could use some help. We need some assistance to make them work better. They need to add features to make it simpler.

It may also need to be updated for new attacks.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security since I started this job three years ago.

The stability is good.

We use it for every laptop, locally. We have about 50 users.

We have not used the technical support so far.

I have also used Kaspersky, in another job.

The deployment does not take very much time, maybe 15 minutes, under good conditions. But it depends on many factors.

It's affordable.

We haven't compared the pricing with other solutions. When our license renewal arrives we will look at our needs and we will evaluate every option possible so that we can choose the right one.

When I came to this company they were already using Symantec.

Symantec is a good solution. I recommend it over some other products. There are two or three products that can help, such as Kaspersky. Every solution has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends on your choice or needs.

We don't know how to use it to block attackers that are attempting to gain control of Active Directory. I don't know if an antivirus can interface directly with Active Directory. Our aim is to secure all solutions, not only Active Directory.

Overall, Symantec Endpoint Security is an important tool to help our factory make progress. Symantec has a good reputation and I would recommend it.

The solution is used for detection and endpoint protection against threats and malware. 

I like that the solution can be scaled to deal with different threats. The same agent will be integrated into different Symantec products, which obviates the need to deploy multiple agents. This keeps things very small and effective. 

The solution should have more integration with other platforms. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach to the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be resolved concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for over a year.

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled to handle different threats. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open. 

The installation is straightforward.

The deployment lasts two hours. 

The licensing terms can range from subscription-based to perpetual, to annual, to tri-annual. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

The Symantec footprint in Pakistan was once very big, numbering 40,000 endpoints which were deployed by us and more than 20,000 by other partners in the banking sector, although now it is considerably smaller. 

The solution can be deployed both on-premises and on-cloud. 

At one point in time, we had 20 customers. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as an eight out of ten.