ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Reviews

We use ThreatLocker for application allowlisting to enhance security. This is particularly beneficial in school environments, where it prevents students from bypassing security measures by downloading unauthorized applications like VPNs and elevation control, enabling specific local users to gain temporary administrator privileges when running designated applications.

ThreatLocker utilizes a cloud-based system where an agent is deployed on a server or workstation, either on-premise or in a cloud environment like Azure. This agent connects to the ThreatLocker cloud for management and security functionalities.

ThreatLocker simplifies the process for administrators to approve or deny requests. Built-in applications streamline approvals as ThreatLocker manages all associated rules. If a built-in application exists, administrators simply select and allow it. However, if a built-in application is not available, administrators can select from various parameters to create a customized rule. Overall, ThreatLocker provides a relatively easy and efficient approval process.

We use ThreatLocker's ringfencing feature to implement the principle of least privilege. This allows us to control applications like Microsoft Word and Chrome by permitting them to run while restricting potentially malicious actions, such as Word executing PowerShell scripts. This granular control enhances the security of our environment by limiting what applications can do.

ThreatLocker enhances security by verifying the trustworthiness of all access requests, regardless of origin. Its built-in checks ensure applications match their claimed identities, such as confirming that "Word" is indeed Microsoft Word. Additionally, ThreatLocker provides a testing environment to execute executables and scripts in a virtual machine, verifying their legitimacy. Finally, integration with VirusTotal allows for hash analysis, providing further validation. These combined checks offer a robust system for confirming the authenticity of user application requests.

We saw the benefits of ThreatLocker quickly, especially during security incidents. For example, we had a customer where ThreatLocker successfully blocked a threat actor's attempts to install malware and exfiltrate data using legitimate tools. This immediate visibility is crucial, particularly in environments like schools where students might use various unapproved Chrome extensions. ThreatLocker allows for swift action, like blocking ten different VPN extensions, preventing further unauthorized activity.

ThreatLocker has allowed us to consolidate applications by deciding which ones we permit, such as choosing between Firefox or Chrome, while not permitting Opera or Brave. This means we only focus on two browsers for patching and security purposes. It helped us to immediately identify and block unnecessary Chrome extensions in schools, like VPN extensions. We have experienced quick visibility into what students are trying to use and gained more control over our applications.

I find the application control valuable. ThreatLocker provides visibility into user activity and application usage, empowering organizations to define acceptable applications and web browsers. Additionally, elevation control eliminates the need for local administrators by streamlining privilege elevation for specific applications and updates, resolving the challenges customers previously faced with managing local admin rights.

A valuable addition to ThreatLocker would be a column in the audit page displaying a VirusTotal score for each file. This would allow for quick identification of potentially malicious files during allowlisting. Currently, ThreatLocker has a risk scoring system, but integrating VirusTotal results would provide more granular insight. This would enable users to efficiently assess the safety of audited files and prioritize those flagged by multiple antivirus engines for further investigation.

I have been using ThreatLocker for about two years.

The system is generally stable, with one exception during a customer demo where the portal froze and some applications failed to load.

ThreatLocker is scalable. We have customers with ten endpoints to thousands of endpoints. It scales well across different customer sizes and requirements.

ThreatLocker's customer support is exceptionally fast, typically connecting me with a representative within a minute of submitting a ticket and enabling a Zoom call within three to five minutes. While the support team demonstrates knowledge about ThreatLocker, they occasionally provide hasty answers without proper verification, leading to subsequent revisions.

Positive

The initial setup was easy and well-supported by ThreatLocker's documentation and training.

Most new onboardings require approximately 21 days of learning mode before transitioning to secure mode. Therefore, it typically takes about 21 days to a month for an environment to reach secure mode.

I am the one responsible for all the ThreatLocker deployments.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I handle the technical aspects, while my manager deals with pricing. Although the pricing seems good, there have been inconsistencies in contract negotiations. What we are told during calls sometimes differs from what is communicated later causing frustration.

We considered CyberFOX, but it prioritized elevation over allowlisting. ThreatLocker remains the only effective allowlisting tool we've found.

I would rate ThreatLocker nine out of ten.

The agent can be set to update automatically, which is the default setting. ThreatLocker handles the maintenance of the agents. Once in secure mode, the primary maintenance task is approving new application requests from users.

Users submit applications for installation, and I typically review them, granting or denying access as needed. While the volume isn't high, ThreatLocker Protect provides significant peace of mind knowing users aren't installing unauthorized or malicious software. Our biggest challenge has been user errors causing support requests. To address this, I've implemented rules for applications frequently used in daily operations. It's had a learning curve, but the effectiveness has been noticeable.

Making approval or denial decisions on requests is pretty straightforward for me. I haven't encountered any problems. However, I can see how it might be a bit confusing for less technical users. Things like allowing hashes and understanding all the terminology could be stumbling blocks. Still, I believe anyone with a few months to a year of IT experience would find it manageable. And of course, I was able to grasp it myself.

While allowlisting can help verify specific access requests, it doesn't guarantee overall trust as requests can still originate from compromised sources. In my experience, the zero trust model has proven the most effective approach. Its principle of "never trust, always verify" minimizes risk by scrutinizing every access, regardless of origin. We haven't encountered any security breaches with clients who implemented it, suggesting its efficacy. While antivirus remains a valuable layer of defense, I believe the zero trust framework, particularly in conjunction with ThreatLocker, offers the most robust security posture we've encountered. Thankfully, we haven't experienced any issues with this combination so far.

ThreatLocker Protect provides us with peace of mind. It's a game-changer. With it in place, we can be confident that employees are only using authorized applications, minimizing surprises and freeing up our time for other aspects of our work. We used to spend significant time dealing with malware, but that burden has been greatly reduced. Peace of mind is truly the main benefit.

Allowlisting has significantly reduced the number of tickets we receive from compromised accounts. It's eliminated them. However, we still get tickets from users who are confused about the new process, need things approved, or are feeling impatient. While the volume has decreased, these legitimate tickets related to access limitations are still present. Ultimately, we believe this trade-off is worth it for the sake of enhanced security. This is what we communicated to the team.

Implementing an allowlist has not only freed up our help desk staff for other projects but also aligns with my preference for approved application lists on both mobile devices and computers. This approach ensures smooth operation with minimal complications, and a positive outcome overall.

We utilize allowlisting alongside other security measures, with ThreatLocker as an additional layer. This choice stems from the absence of other comprehensive endpoint protection solutions, ensuring ThreatLocker doesn't overlap with existing safeguards. Therefore, it complements our antivirus for all users.

It initially took a couple of months for us to fully appreciate the benefits of ThreatLocker. While we put our people in learning mode for approximately a week to understand normal system processes, it wasn't until the lack of suspicious activity became evident that we truly recognized the impact. This doesn't diminish the importance of our existing security measures, including sound user guidance, phishing training, and other protocols that discourage risky behavior and minimize software installation needs. In essence, it took some time for the benefits of ThreatLocker to become fully apparent due to the effectiveness of our pre-existing security practices.

When new files arrive and people mention they've been tested twice in the virtual environment, I like to double-check for potential malware by scanning them on VirusTotal and other antivirus platforms. This adds an extra layer of security, which is especially helpful when I'm unsure about approving a file and research doesn't provide clear answers. The sandbox functionality is fantastic. It bolsters my confidence considerably, as it can reveal suspicious behavior like registry modifications even if initial scans are inconclusive. Overall, these features have been game-changers for me.

The current process for viewing software approval requests from end users has room for improvement. While it's generally functional, some users find it confusing. This can be due to either unfamiliarity with the process, unexpected appearance of the request window, or lack of clear instructions. Additionally, the notification box might not be sufficiently noticeable, as some users have reported missing it entirely.

Adding applications to the allowlist can sometimes feel overwhelming. The numerous fields, coupled with navigating the unfamiliar portal, can be daunting, especially on our first attempt. Even with explanations, recalling the necessary information and understanding the required actions for file inclusion can be tricky. I believe the initial learning curve for allowlisting is relatively steep. However, once mastered, it proves to be a valuable tool. My main concern lies with the initial learning hurdle.

I have been using ThreatLocker Protect for around four months.

ThreatLocker Protect has been mostly stable over the past six months. We did experience a single outage that lasted a day, which was disruptive due to pending approvals. However, this has been the only major incident in that timeframe, suggesting overall good stability.

ThreatLocker scales well and has been successfully deployed on all our required devices. We offer it as part of a premium package, but due to its higher cost, adoption among our clients is currently limited. Nevertheless, it meets our scalability needs effectively.

The implementation was relatively straightforward. We developed components or scripts for deployment to devices, avoiding major complications. Furthermore, we have a remote management tool in place for efficient installation.

Installing on everyone's machines is a fairly quick process, typically taking an hour with online devices. While it doesn't require much time, we recently spent two hours on calls with someone to guide us through it. This was because our previous setup, done by someone else in the company, had some errors. We've rectified them now, but it meant changing a few things. Overall, deployment should be smooth and swift, requiring two people and around an hour if all the devices are online.

The implementation was completed internally by our team. Given our extensive experience deploying vulnerability scanners for assessments, this process was relatively straightforward.

I would rate ThreatLocker Protect a seven out of ten. The learning curve is quite steep, especially for those without extensive IT experience. I found it challenging to master and had to rely on my team for guidance on several occasions. Even my manager isn't completely comfortable with it yet. However, once we overcome the initial hurdle, it truly shines.

ThreatLocker requires minimal maintenance, except for one recent instance where we reviewed its configuration. While it's designed to automatically update on user machines, I noticed some devices hadn't yet received the latest version. I manually initiated the update for these devices. The cause of the delay is unclear, though the devices are online, so it might be a network issue.

Ensure all future ThreatLocker users are thoroughly briefed on its functionality. We've encountered surprises among some users regarding the approval requirement for new activities. To avoid such issues, we recommend comprehensive pre-deployment communication, outlining ThreatLocker's purpose, features, and approval process.

We use the solution as a zero-trust application. We put it on all of our customer machines. We're a security operations company that performs, security, and compliance services for different companies. For all of the companies that we support, we put Threat Locker on. As a zero-trust application, we know the only applications that we've approved are going to be able to function in those customer environments and be that much more secure.

The solution has improved the organization by making sure every customer is more secure. It doesn't allow anything we don't know or haven't approved to run on any machine.

Every single feature has been invaluable.

It's very easy for administrators to approve or deny requests using the cloud listing. 

You get good visibility with this product - more than anything else on the market. Threat Locker is amazing for providing that visibility. I know every single thing about a request due to the way they process it and the data they show us. We have the ability to see everything that an application is actually going to do. 

We do use ring-fencing for every customer. It's great at blocking known and unknown threats. It's the only thing that I know, without a doubt, will do the job. I know that if I haven't made a policy for something, it still will not let it run.

It's the best, period, for allowing us to assess allowed listings and establishing trust for every request.

Overall, the solution has helped us consolidate applications and tools. It's definitely helped reduce unnecessary software. 

We've been able to reduce operating costs based on tool consolidation. However, it would be a difficult number to calculate. 

The reporting could be improved. They're already working on some things with that. That said, as far as its functionality, its stability, and my trust level in it, I honestly don't know how it could get better.

We've been using the solution for two years.

We have never had a problem with stability. 

We have 2500 machines. There are different customers using it. Some are government entities and some are public. Organizations range from very small to extremely large. 

The solution is 100% scalable. 

Technical support is the best in the business. 

Positive

While we have used different solutions, nothing compared to what this solution provides. 

We have different deployment models for each customer. It's an application that I install on every machine in my customer's environment. 

The deployment is very straightforward. In a couple of clicks, you are finished. 

The implementation depends on the customer. For some customers, we install to the machine. Others, we push it out. Some also have scripting so that if you have an RMM tool, It's an easy little script that you push out via the RMM tool or even as a PowerShell script. Their deployment is something else that sets them apart since it's so easy to get it on either one machine or a mass deployment of machines.

You only need one person for deployment. 

The product doesn't require maintenance. Everything is handled on the back end. 

We used a third party to deploy the solution. We don't support the machine it's installed on. We only do security. We use multiple third parties. 

We have 100% witnessed an ROI. It sells my service. 

The pricing is correct.

We did evaluate other options. We've tested everything from top to bottom. For example, we looked at Fortigate and Palo Alto as well as some options from Cisco and Microsoft. None offered the same level of detail.

We're a partner. 

We have witnessed an immediate time to value using this solution. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I'd advise others to pull the trigger and get it. They'll love it. The solution provides a level of security that is unmatched. 

We use it over our 31 clients, and twelve hundred devices. We use it over all of our Windows workstations and Mac workstations to prevent unauthorized installs and downloads of applications.

Allow Listing is great. The biggest improvement has been knowing that something unauthorized isn't going to get installed on anyone’s machines. Even if somebody did manage to get into their systems, they wouldn't be able to do anything without us knowing about it.

Definitely, the allowed listing and the Zero Trust platform are the most useful aspects of the solution.

It is very easy for an administrator to approve and deny requests. So easy in fact that I have given it to a majority of our client's main point of contact, where they are able to approve them, whether it's via their mobile cell phone or logging into the portal on their computers.

The overall visibility into software approval requests of end users is very good. We can see everything that we need to see including the application path, the user that requested it, and the computer host name. When it's approved on the workstation endpoint, it pops up with a text box saying, “Hey, this has been approved. Click here to install your application.”

We allow listing with the ring-fencing. We do implement that when needed. For example, for Word and Excel, there's no need for those to talk out to PowerShell and command prompt, so we do have those ring-fenced where they cannot speak to that.

Their combination for blocking unknown threats on attacks is good. If it's not something we've previously approved, it does get locked every time. Sometimes it even gets in the way of our day-to-day, which is good. It's what we wanted it to do. It does its job a little too well.

It is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from. Whether the user is an admin or not, they all still have to get their software approved. Once it has been approved, it makes it easy for everyone as they're able to install it on their own without approval again.

It helped reduce our organization's help desk tickets. We haven't had nearly as many clients submitting tickets, say, for example, McAfee installing when they're trying to install Adobe. We approve Adobe and we don't install the McAfee install. That will get in the way a lot, and we have seen a major reduction in tickets such as those.

Being able to not have to worry about what everyone's installing all the time has definitely improved our ability to focus our attention on other projects.

The new portal that they just released took care of a whole lot of improvements. 

There are some times when applications get submitted, and the hashes don't really line up. It would be excellent if there was a way for the hashes to point to a known application. The biggest example I have is probably web browser plug-ins. Those come up and they look very gross and don't give you very much information at all so you have to go to Google and look up what they are.

I've used the solution since February of 2022. It's been about a year and eight months. 

The stability is very good. I have not seen any outages.

It is deployed to every single endpoint that we currently manage Windows-wise and then a majority that we manage Mac-wise. We currently have 712 computers being monitored.

They continue to grow. They produce Mac releases, Windows updates, and patches. 

Technical support is great, they get to the requests before we can go through them. 

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward to the point where the documentation was good enough that I could have a level one brand new green tech to handle it and be confident.

Deploying it through DATTO RMM is probably the biggest way we deploy and then we might have a manual agent deployment if necessary.

We utilized two people for the deployment. 

It does require maintenance. We'll do monthly check-ins with Threat Locker and an account manager to go over just to see what we can improve. 

The deployment was handled in-house. 

We have seen an ROI via the amount of hours we save not having to worry about looking at different applications getting installed. We also don't have to worry about clients getting ransomware attacks and things like that, so that has helped us a lot.

Pricing is a little high, however, you get what you pay for.

We did look at other solutions before choosing this solution. 

We have noted time to value. It's easier than ever to approve very quickly rather than having to talk with clients to see what they are trying to install. The virtual deployment allows you to see what's going on super quick. The onboarding was pretty extensive. It took us a solid six to eight months before seeing time to value. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I'd advise others that if they use the product they have lots of peace of mind and sleep better knowing your clients are better protected. 

I work for an architecture firm. We use ThreatLocker Protect to protect the company's systems from unknown malware by blocking unapproved applications. We encounter a lot of malware and ThreatLocker has been able to help with that.

As an architecture firm, we rely on TAISE’s Cybersecurity-as-a-Service (CaaS) to keep our systems safe from malware threats. TAISE introduced us to ThreatLocker, which has become essential in safeguarding our infrastructure by blocking unapproved applications and defending against unknown malware. Given our exposure to frequent malware, ThreatLocker, through TAISE's expert implementation, has proven invaluable

ThreatLocker Protect is very simple and easy to understand. You do not need much technical knowledge to be able to use it. It is very good. Anybody with a bit of IT knowledge is able to handle it.

Ringfencing adds an extra layer of defense. If an application is compromised, you can just exclude the computer and do your troubleshooting and find out what the problem was. It goes hand in hand with application whitelisting. It has been very helpful. It adds an extra security system which is very much needed for our infrastructure.

ThreatLocker Protect has improved my organization greatly. Before using ThreatLocker Protect, we experienced a malware attack that caused significant damage, corrupting many of our files. Since implementing ThreatLocker Protect, we have not faced any such issues, and our operations have been smooth.

We were able to realize its benefits immediately. No user can install any unknown applications or unauthorized applications on their own. I have been able to manage my systems effectively without any malware.

ThreatLocker Protect has reduced our help desk tickets by about 40%, as every software they use is approved by me before use, limiting unauthorized installations.

ThreatLocker Protect has freed up a lot of time. I do not have to do much with the help desk because our systems are protected with ThreatLocker Protect.

The application whitelisting feature allows us to block and manage approved applications effectively. It ensures that no one can install an application on our systems unless it is approved by me, which is very efficient.

It is very easy to use. When a user sends a request, you can go to the dashboard to view the application that the user wants you to approve. If you are okay with the application, you just click the Approve button to approve. It is very easy.

The support could be quicker. There are times when there is a delay in getting a response. This is problematic when immediate attention is needed.

The stability can also be better.

I have been using ThreatLocker Protect for the past three years.

Stability can be improved as there are times it goes down or requires management to adjust policies. I would rate stability a six out of ten.

It is scalable to an extent, depending on where it is used. I would rate scalability a seven out of ten.

We have one location but multiple departments. Overall, we have 25 users.

Our company is small. I know which applications each user is supposed to use and what they need. Once I get a request, I go over to the application they need to install. If it aligns with the work they do, I approve it.

I would rate their support a five out of ten. It could be better, especially with response times.

Neutral

We did not use another solution before.

The initial setup was straightforward. Its deployment took about a week.

Our return on investment with ThreatLocker is about 20%.

Its time to value was immediate.

The pricing is reasonable and normal. I do not have any problems with the cost.

I would recommend ThreatLocker Protect to other users as it is a very important tool for IT administrators like me. It helps manage user access and secures the system efficiently.

I would rate ThreatLocker Protect an eight out of ten.

ThreatLocker is our standard security stack, with very few exceptions. We use it for all of our MSP clients, MSSP clients, and recently for IR response cases. We use ThreatLocker to control application installations and take advantage of its ring-fencing option, which prevents otherwise good applications from interacting maliciously.

Administrators can easily approve or deny requests using the log listings.

The overall visibility into software approval requests of end users is very good.

ThreatLocker and ring-fencing are two of the main ways to prevent applications from interacting with each other, outside of application control. This means that we can take two otherwise non-malicious applications and prevent them from speaking to each other. A good example is Microsoft Word and Microsoft PowerShell. We wouldn't want Word to interact with PowerShell.

From a visibility standpoint, we like Allowlisting's ability to establish trust from every access request, regardless of its origin. However, there is nothing quite like the application control feature, even in an XDR or EDR solution. We are looking for the process path, CERT, and other information to identify the application.

Allowlisting has helped reduce the number of our help desk tickets. There was an initial spike in configuring trusted applications, but it has definitely cut down on supporting applications that should not be part of an organization anyway, such as PDF readers and browsers outside of the standard. Once we add an acceptable group of applications, we no longer support any deviations from that. Allowlisting has cut down on some of the ticketing there.

Allowlisting has helped us consolidate applications and tools. For example, we have standardized on a list of allowed browsers because those are the browsers that are patched regularly. We have also standardized PDF readers and Office suites, such as LibreOffice and Microsoft Office.

We saw the benefits of Allowlisting quickly. We observed that applications, such as PowerShell, were able to run freely within an environment, and that there was a high likelihood that one of these tools could be used maliciously without any effective deterrents. None of the EDR, XDR, logging, and forwarding SOX solutions were able to stop such an attack from proceeding.

Application control, ring-fencing, and storage control are the most important features, followed closely by elevation.

More visibility in the built-ins would be nice.

The learning curve is wide because there are a lot of things to learn. 

I have been using ThreatLocker Allowlisting for two years.

ThreatLocker Allowlisting has had minimal downtime, comparable to, if not exceeding, Microsoft's uptime standards.

ThreatLocker Allowlisting is easily scalable. We doubled our endpoint count in three days, and we know that we can scale.

The support team is the best we've had by far. I don't think I've ever waited more than a minute, They usually answer our call in about 30 seconds.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. We pushed ThreatLocker Allowlisting out from our RMM automation system. We have also pushed it out in other ways, and it is always straightforward.

Two of our people were involved in the deployment.

We used ThreatLocker's onboarding process support for the implementation.

The pricing is fair and there is no hard sell.

I would rate ThreatLocker Allowlisting ten out of ten.

The alert board for maintenance requires monitoring.

Potential users should expect to dedicate resources to ThreatLocker Allowlisting. It is not a set-and-forget solution. There is a learning curve, but Cyber Hero support is available to help users through it. Unlike some other products that onboard users and then leave them to the ticketing system, ThreatLocker provides continued support. It is important to note that ThreatLocker Allowlisting cannot be simply turned on and left alone. It requires in-house resources to properly manage at scale.

I primarily use the solution for access control. We have customers and even though there is an antivirus, sometimes users might open some unapproved files. This solution will flag them for approval or rejection.

The unified alerts are useful. You get all of your alerts and flags in one place. If you approve something, it will send an email. 

It's very easy for admins to approve or deny results.

The visibility is very good. The only downside is you need to be in the portal to see anything. I'm not sure if there is a way to actually know or approve everything off of the portal. 

ThreatLocker does offer ring-fencing, although I do not use it. 

The unified reports make everything go smoother. You can access requests and you can see, for example, if something is repeatedly approved or denied, it makes it faster to make a decision. It helps me trust decisions. 

It's pretty good at detecting programs and does not allow you to run them if necessary.

I'm not sure if I'm using it wrong; however, I find that I have to babysit it too much.

I've found that if a user opens a file from another location, it might trigger an approval process. The same is true if someone has the same file under a different name.

If anything, we get more tickets while using ThreatLocker. It doesn't help us reduce help desk tickets.

It's hard to manage multiple policies for multiple companies. It gets cumbersome.

I've only used the solution minimally. I've used it throughout the year.

I have not dealt with technical support. 

We tend to use Webroot and ThreatLocker, however, I'm working to get rid of ThreatLocker. Webroot is just an antivirus; ThreatLocker is more robust in that it's an antivirus and good at detecting programs and blocking them.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of the process. There isn't much maintenance, however, you are required to mainly look at logs all day. We'd prefer to be more hands-off.

We have witnessed an ROI as we don't get attacks or anything. The protection has pretty much been 100%. The issue is, however, that we have added overhead as there's more time needed to monitor the applications and deal with the tickets related to approvals. 

The pricing is good. 

I'm considering SentinelOne. I'm looking at reviews to see if they are worth it.

We're solution partners. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

I'd advise new users to just make sure they have good policies in place. Otherwise, they'll find themselves babysitting the product all day long. 

We've seen a lot of malicious actors trying to get in and execute stuff and with ThreatLocker, we're able to catch them. We're able to see if it's an admin executing a program or not. If we don't know who's doing what, we're able to block it.

We use ThreatLocker Allowlisting to control inventory and manage software. We want to make sure that we know which software is being used on our client computers and that we are only allowing approved software to run. This is in line with the principle of least privilege, which ensures that users are only allowed to do the things they need to do and not the things they don't. This is especially important for shared-use computers and different environments where users on the same computer may have different access levels.

The visibility into software approval requests of end users is easy. We not only have approval requests pushed directly into the platform, but we also have a ticket opened in our ticketing system. As the manager, I can run reports to see what requests are coming in from client organizations and how my technicians are handling them. This makes my life easier from a managerial perspective.

The combination of ThreatLocker and Ringfencing is excellent for blocking unknown threats and attacks. For example, we can ensure that all software stays within its designated sandbox. This means that I can run the PowerShell scripts from our RMM software, but nothing else can run the PowerShell scripts. With Ringfencing, we can say, "Allow this to run, but not that," or "Allow this website to be accessed to download an installer, but don't allow other websites to be accessed." Other use cases for Ringfencing include selective elevation of a process. For example, if a user needs to run QuickBooks and is elevated to an administrator to do so, then all privileged processes will also be elevated. However, with Ringfencing, we can prevent QuickBooks from opening PowerShell or anything else that it is not supposed to open. This helps to keep us safe and prevents unknown threats from exploiting compromised privileged processes.

In line with the textbook definition of a zero-trust model, every request must be approved. This can create some tension with clients, so it is important to get their buy-in on the process. With ThreatLocker's learning mode, we can make the approval process invisible to clients for the most part. We manually select which requests to approve and which to deny. By the time we set ThreatLocker to enforce everything, we have a good baseline of what is allowed and what is not. We have also communicated everything to the clients and found procedural ways to reduce friction.

ThreatLocker Allowlisting can help to reduce helpdesk tickets. On the one hand, we do receive approval requests with some regularity. However, on the other hand, overall tickets are reduced because we no longer have everyone trying to install iTunes or wondering why they're getting pop-ups in their browser because they have three different browser add-ons for coupon clippers that are laced with malware. After all, with ThreatLocker, users are not allowed to install these programs, to begin with, which reduces the tickets we would get after they've been installed because they're unpublished installations that any standard user could complete. The net result is an overall reduction in tickets, although there are some tickets required to manage the approvals.

ThreatLocker Allowlisting has saved our helpdesk around a 15 percent reduction in overall tickets. With the average handle time for a ticket being 14 minutes, if I have 100 tickets in a month, each one will take 14 minutes, for a total of 1,400 minutes per month.

The most valuable feature is selective elevation, which allows elevating an individual process to admin privilege without granting admin privilege to that user, which has been by far the most useful feature outside of the overall solution itself.

Approving or denying requests using the software can be more difficult to do correctly. Overall, it is easy to use, but it is not the easiest in the world to get right. There are some nuances and things that we need to understand.

ThreatLocker Allowlisting needs to improve its user interface and overall workflow. The UI looks very dated and is challenging to navigate, and we spent more time training technicians on how to interact with ThreatLocker than on what to do with it. The user experience needs a lot of work, but their beta portal is solving a lot of that. If I had to pick any lingering difficulty, it would be the learning curve to grasp how ThreatLocker manages what is allowed and the details around that.

I have been using ThreatLocker Allowlisting for almost two years.

We experienced some delays with our cloud agent. For example, when we changed a policy, it would take five minutes for the agent to receive the change. Or, we would tell the agent to enter a specific mode, and it would take five minutes for the agent to comply. This caused some delays in our ability to deliver services. However, the cloud provider has eliminated this issue. We now typically wait no more than thirty seconds for the agent to respond to our requests. This was a problem when we first started using the cloud agent, but it hasn't been a problem for about six months now.

We have had no scalability issues whatsoever, even though our largest environment is only about 75 endpoints. We are not working at the same scale as much larger companies, but for our size, ThreatLocker has been perfectly scalable. Whether I am deploying to one person or ten people, the same script is pushed out by the RMM and everything loads up in ThreatLocker within a matter of minutes.

The technical support team at ThreatLocker is incredibly experienced and knowledgeable. I especially value two things about interacting with them. I never have to wait long for a response. As chief operating officer, if a problem reaches my desk, it means that everyone below me has already tried and failed to solve it, or they simply didn't want to get ThreatLocker support involved. Since I have the most experience in-house, I'm usually the one who engages with ThreatLocker support. When I do, I never have to wait long to speak to someone who knows what they're doing. I always get escalated to the right level technician, even if I'm initially connected with more junior tech. ThreatLocker doesn't waste time walking me through scripts, procedures, and processes. Instead, they escalate my issue to the right person immediately so that they can help me solve whatever creative problem we're facing.

Positive

We had some experience with Microsoft's AppLocker, but managing it required too much manual effort for our small team that required a dedicated full-time employee. ThreatLocker Allowlisting is much easier to manage.

The initial deployment was straightforward. ThreatLocker provided the script to use in our RMM software. To deploy the software, we made some tweaks to accommodate our environment. We were then able to push out the agent in an entirely automated fashion. We had three people involved on our end, but it could have been done by a single person. We divided responsibilities to bring the product to market faster.

The implementation was completed in-house with the support of the ThreatLocker team.

In addition to the overall time savings, there are also quantifiable costs associated with the number of malware attacks that have been stopped by ThreatLocker. I can think of at least four or five instances where an executable file was blocked by ThreatLocker before it could be detected by SentinelOne or any of the other security solutions on the machine. It is difficult to say definitively whether SentinelOne would have detected these files after execution, but I do know that ThreatLocker has helped to improve our productivity and our clients' productivity by preventing users from installing unauthorized software, such as iTunes on work computers or Spotify on protected machines. By limiting users to only approved software, ThreatLocker has also made our jobs easier as IT service providers, as we no longer have to spend time hunting down unauthorized software, uninstalling things, or remediating malware, bloatware, adware, etc. As a result, we are dealing with far fewer rogue browser extensions, which has led to a reduction in tickets and overall management overhead.

We realized the benefits of ThreatLocker Allowlisting after six months of use. This was because we needed to become familiar with the product, build our baselines, and understand how it worked. We also needed to establish routines, build workflows, train our technicians, and educate our clients on how to interact with the software. By the six-month mark, we began to see a return on investment, and it was fully realized by the one-year mark.

The price of ThreatLocker Allowlisting is reasonable in the market, but it is not fantastic. It is also much less expensive than some other products we use.

We considered Auto Elevate from Cyberfox and Microsoft's AppLocker, but managing Microsoft's AppLocker would have required too much manual effort for our small team which would require a dedicated full-time employee. ThreatLocker Allowlisting is much easier to manage. ThreatLocker Allowlisting is a more comprehensive solution, and we liked the way that ThreatLocker said they would support us better than the other companies. With the other companies, it was more of a traditional support model, but with ThreatLocker, we have an average wait time of 30 seconds on our support chat. In the year and a half, almost two years, that we've been with ThreatLocker, this has always been the case. We've never had to wait more than 30 minutes to get a live human being who is an expert on ThreatLocker. If they can't solve the problem, they'll escalate it to someone who can. Beyond that, they stand behind their product. Because it's such a complicated product, and we're a small company, this was all the difference to us. We knew that if we had problems, we would have their team to lean on for help, and they've stood behind their product.

I would rate ThreatLocker Allowlisting nine out of ten. ThreatLocker Allowlisting is not a perfect product, but they do a fantastic job of continuing to improve it and make it more approachable.

There are management and overhead costs, as well as maintenance costs associated with changing or updating the lists. There is also some limited maintenance required as programs and hashes change. Additionally, we need to make some updates to properly maintain the lists, consolidate policies, and so on.

Try ThreatLocker risk-free and work with their team. They can make their complex product more approachable so that users can see its benefits and capabilities.