ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform Reviews

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. 

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.

Our clients require a zero-trust solution for their servers. They need to ensure that nothing happens to the server without authorization — nothing comes in, goes out, or gets corrupted. We put ThreatLocker on the server to block anything that attempts to run without permission. We use ThreatLocker across our whole platform. We continue to pound the table on how great it is and tell our customers that they need it. It is currently deployed for multiple MSP and MSSP clients on their servers and workstations. 

I don't know if ThreatLocker has improved the organization itself, but it has prevented a few clients from doing the dumbest things possible. Our clients are sleeping better at night. I was at dinner with a rep from ThreatLocker when my client accidentally fell for a scam and contacted a fake number for Apple support. She got a message saying that her IP had been stolen. She tried to let them access the system, but ThreatLocker wouldn't allow anything to load. My phone blew up with alerts. 

Meanwhile, my client called, asking me to give "Apple Support" access. I told her to hang up because her IP couldn't be stolen. She was arguing about fake support, and I told her to Google "Stolen IP address scam." She looked it up and realized it was fake, so she hung up with him. She was mad at me for a bit but apologized the next day. If she didn't have ThreatLocker, they would be holding her files for ransom, or she would be leaking data.

It hasn't reduced our help desk tickets so far, and this is something they warn you about. They told us that it was going to be messy in the beginning. They didn't beat around the bush. They said we should expect some dust when we break ground. There will be dust and dirt everywhere, and we'll track it in many places. However, we will clean it up, put some sod down, and make it look beautiful. Until then, the house will be muddy. We expected some pain initially, which is why they do weekly calls with us until we get it to run correctly.

They provide fast access to Cyber Hero support, so they can help you at the drop of a hat. They also put a secure app on your phone to approve things on the fly if the clients are trying to do an update over the weekend. ThreatLocker provides everything you need to get the plane off the ground, and it flies well. Sometimes, clients get annoyed because they can't access something, but I tell them it's a necessary evil. 

I tell them that their network is like flying on a plane. I say, "I know that you want TSA precheck and to be right at the front of the line, but your network doesn't have that. You didn't pay for it with the government." I point out that their security is more important than speed and access. We don't live in a fast-network world anymore. Everything has to be checked and double-checked.

I think it will free up help desk staff after we get past the initial stage, but the clients need to be trained the same way they do with emails. They need to understand that we won't blindly allow anything to work on their network. We will look at it first and ensure everything is how it should be. Finally, we will let it in, but everything will be ring-fenced or limited once it's in. We won't run that program until we figure out how to do that. If my clients are expecting an update, they can't keep that information to themselves. They need to let me know so we can arrange an upgrade time, and I can provide them with a window. We'll run it with some restrictions to ensure they're okay. 

Allowlisting hasn't enabled us to consolidate tools. It's another tool in the toolbox, and everything has its place. After the Colonial Pipeline cyber attack, the president issued an executive order requiring zero trust. ThreatLocker fills that gap. You still have other blind spots, though. We need an email security solution and network monitoring to identify suspicious devices on our network searching for a vulnerability. You can't have ThreatLocker on everything. You can't have it on a printer or a specific firewall, but you can have it on an operating system. There are other blind spots that require attention.

Using ThreatLocker is effortless because I can access it from an app on my phone, so I can help clients after hours. My client had an issue while I was at dinner, and I didn't have a tech on the problem, but I could deal with it from my phone. I can see what the client is doing and approve or deny it. It helps me deliver better service to my clients when they need it.  

ThreatLocker also has a service where one of their techs can call you on Zoom and go through anything denied for the last week. They will train you until you feel comfortable enough to do it yourself. I've dealt with one of their techs from the UK, who was knowledgeable, friendly, and an excellent teacher.

I only needed about six or seven sessions before I didn't need him anymore, but the training didn't stop. They continue to train until you can handle each client request, see what was blocked, and determine why. You can understand why something was blocked and how to dive deeply into it. You can also click "Chat With a Cyber Hero," and somebody will help. It has been a wonderful experience overall. 

We typically use ThreatLocker with ring-fencing when requested. You only ring-fence applications. For example, Microsoft Office doesn't ever need to open PowerShell. It will get flagged automatically if that happens. We know what programs should and should not have access to. The printer should never open an FTP port. Allowlisting automatically sets those policies and says this device has printing functions but can't access an FTP port. 

Allowlisting establishes trust for every access request regardless of origin. In light of new regulations about zero trust, compliance issues, and litigation risks, we must be careful about what gets out and what doesn't get out. Ring-fencing and zero-trust strategies are two ways to do that. We have to run applications, but we don't want them to do anything except what we want. We get the best of both worlds. An application doesn't run if we don't know what it does, and necessary applications will only run with specific rules.

ThreatLocker could offer more flexible training, like online or offline classes after hours. The fact that they even provide weekly training makes it seem silly to suggest, but some people can't do it during the day, so they want to train after work. They could also start a podcast about issues they see frequently and what requires attention. A podcast would be helpful to keep us all apprised about what's going on and/or offline training for those people who can't train during the week.

I have used ThreatLocker since July 2022.

ThreatLocker is highly stable.

ThreatLocker has been very scalable so far. 

I rate ThreatLocker support ten out of ten.  Everyone else should follow their support model. ThreatLocker has a built-in help desk feature. It's one of the best I've seen. An icon in the bottom right corner says "Chat With a Cyber Hero." When I first clicked on it, someone responded in eight seconds. I was like, "Holy cow, that's fast!" They've solved every issue in under five minutes. 

Positive

We rolled out Allowlisting from their portal and then deployed it on servers and critical workstations. It was straightforward and reassuring. We have Kaseya, and we didn't know if we had been affected by the breach. ThreatLocker was there with boots on the ground on a Saturday to help us get secure. They reassured us everything was okay. 

Using ThreatLocker has made us look like real players in the security space. That's a huge deal. You have a seat at the table when you look like a real player. You see value in everything they do. You understand the program and can see what they're pre-populating it with. You can get training from a Cyber Hero almost immediately. 

Most importantly, you can get weekly training to teach you along the way. You can stop and pick it up whenever you need. They are that good. I'm going to have some of my other techs go through the training so everybody can be trained to do a ThreatLocker assessment.

Others say ThreatLocker is too expensive, and I tell them they're dreaming. It's well-priced for what it does.

Before adopting ThreatLocker, we didn't even know this type of solution existed. We were affected by the Kaseya ransomware attack and forced to shut our server down. We were scared, so we called up ThreatLocker and asked if they could help us. 

They asked to get into our server and see if we were hit. They also looked at the program agent mod to help other people who were impacted. They dropped everything to work with me on a Saturday. Who does that?  

I rate ThreatLocker AllowListing 11.5 out of 10. It's one of the best products on the market, and every MSP needs it because of the zero-trust rules imposed by the executive order. The product does what it says, and the support is fantastic. The training is excellent. They take care of you. You'll know what's happening, and your client will sleep better at night.

In this industry, companies often promise they will help you when you run into trouble. However, they aren't there more often than not. For example, Microsoft tested its software in the beginning and put out a beta version. When they release a new operating system, everyone knows is the beta version, and we're all beta testers. We have to be the ones to tell Microsoft about our issues through the built-in error reporting, and we don't want to report it to Microsoft because we know they won't do anything with it.

We know that they no longer take it seriously. They let us do their work as testers for their beta product. It's refreshing to deal with a product like ThreatLocker where I get support in eight seconds. As soon as I open the chat, they're there typing away. When I start a chat with AT&T, Spectrum, or any of those, I get a message saying, "Support will be with you momentarily." You see the three little dots don't move, and you need to wait five to twenty minutes to get support. ThreatLocker puts out a great product backed up with excellent support and training. What else do you need?

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. 

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.

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 the application for whitelisting, elevation, and ringfencing purposes.

The coolest part is that we do not need local admins anymore. It was a great switch to take away the local admin rights.

The benefits include a little bit more relaxation and peace of mind because we have control over what is going on.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped our organization save on operational costs, but I do not have the metrics.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform is good at blocking access to unauthorized applications. It only allows running applications that are allowed. If there is anything new to the environment, it is not going to run.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped reduce help desk tickets.

ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform has helped free up our IT team’s time for other projects or tasks.

The solution has made knowing and managing what is running on our clients' devices much easier for us. We know they cannot run what they are not supposed to run. We have peace of mind because we are aware of what is happening if anything new tries to come into the workstation. 

It is pretty easy to use. The UI is pretty straightforward, especially after the upgrade. I like it more than what it was previously. There is also a phone app. When a user sends a request, we can see it on our phones. It makes our work a bit easier.

From my point of view, logging could be improved. Logging should be easier. Sometimes, we have noticed that there is too much logging that can apply to different types of software.  

We have been using the solution since the end of 2021.

The customer service is amazing. I would rate it a ten out of ten.

Positive

We did not use a solution of this type before.

The platform is great. I would rate it an eight out of ten.