I feel that this product is more to bolster their marketing, rather than its use for actual synchronization. This solution is not able to deliver interprocess visibility when it comes to the endpoint, and this is something that needs to be done. Other solutions, such as Carbon Black, are able to do this. The memory check needs to be improved, giving better visibility into the run-time memory. The anti-exploitation engine needs enhancement. When it comes to Windows processes and protocols, they need to be included in a more effective way. As it is now, they simply have a checkmark beside it. They have visibility of the protocol, for Windows and the operating system communication, but they are not offering the same level as other solutions, such as Sophos, when it comes to the endpoint. The level of data protection provided by this system is inconsistent.
Network Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2019-09-24T05:43:00Z
Sep 24, 2019
My customers say they need a consultation to fully integrate services. This needs improvement. I would like to see better integration. The price could also use improvement. In the next release, some of our clients said that while they can select different customers, they get confused and they would like to also see the logo of the company. The name is written but they want to see the logo as well.
I would like to see an improvement in the web filter, because I think it can be more user-friendly. For instance, if I want to authorize a user to access a certain website, it should be easy for that user to edit those websites on the exempted list. But sometimes I find that my users can't do that when I am not at the office. Due to the fact that some of our users operate remotely, it sometimes happen that they can't access a specific website. Then I have to go through all the websites, or dive into the users machine just so that I can change the configuration. I therefore think it should be a little bit easier for a user to add a certain website to the exempted list. Something else that should be worked on, is the compatibility issues between versions 6.2 and 6.0, because it is not easy to upgrade your firewall to the latest version with admin. If you want to upgrade, you need a hardware change.
ICT Officer at a non-profit with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2019-08-20T05:12:00Z
Aug 20, 2019
Initially, the support was very poor. It is getting better, but they should continue to improve this. Currently, we are having issues where the antivirus is blocking an item, but it is almost impossible to disable the antivirus. If the user wants to lift these priveledges they can't. Some options are not changeable. You cannot switch off a blockage even temporarily. I understand why it is like that, but I would like to give less control to these important processes because right now it is very complicated to turn off the protection even for testing purposes.
We had some issues using IPsec as a remote tunnel protocol and we had to change those configurations from IPsec to SSL. That was the only issue we had with FortiClient during the four years we used it. Everybody else is doing AI, machine learning, self-healing, next-generation features. They should incorporate more next-generation features.
FortiClient is a fabric agent that delivers endpoint protection, endpoint compliance, and secure access in a single, lightweight, lightweight client, providing visibility, information, and control to your endpoints. In addition, it enables secure, remote connectivity to the security fabric. It also integrates network and endpoint with segmentation and automation. FortiClient enables unified endpoint awareness by sharing endpoint telemetry with the security fabric. It is compatible with...
FortiClient is not communicating with the new version of the firewall.
The pricing of the solution should be less expensive. It would be nice if you could connect to three or four sites at a time.
I feel that this product is more to bolster their marketing, rather than its use for actual synchronization. This solution is not able to deliver interprocess visibility when it comes to the endpoint, and this is something that needs to be done. Other solutions, such as Carbon Black, are able to do this. The memory check needs to be improved, giving better visibility into the run-time memory. The anti-exploitation engine needs enhancement. When it comes to Windows processes and protocols, they need to be included in a more effective way. As it is now, they simply have a checkmark beside it. They have visibility of the protocol, for Windows and the operating system communication, but they are not offering the same level as other solutions, such as Sophos, when it comes to the endpoint. The level of data protection provided by this system is inconsistent.
My customers say they need a consultation to fully integrate services. This needs improvement. I would like to see better integration. The price could also use improvement. In the next release, some of our clients said that while they can select different customers, they get confused and they would like to also see the logo of the company. The name is written but they want to see the logo as well.
The pricing could use improvement. It should be cheaper. The reporting can also always be better.
I would like to see an improvement in the web filter, because I think it can be more user-friendly. For instance, if I want to authorize a user to access a certain website, it should be easy for that user to edit those websites on the exempted list. But sometimes I find that my users can't do that when I am not at the office. Due to the fact that some of our users operate remotely, it sometimes happen that they can't access a specific website. Then I have to go through all the websites, or dive into the users machine just so that I can change the configuration. I therefore think it should be a little bit easier for a user to add a certain website to the exempted list. Something else that should be worked on, is the compatibility issues between versions 6.2 and 6.0, because it is not easy to upgrade your firewall to the latest version with admin. If you want to upgrade, you need a hardware change.
Initially, the support was very poor. It is getting better, but they should continue to improve this. Currently, we are having issues where the antivirus is blocking an item, but it is almost impossible to disable the antivirus. If the user wants to lift these priveledges they can't. Some options are not changeable. You cannot switch off a blockage even temporarily. I understand why it is like that, but I would like to give less control to these important processes because right now it is very complicated to turn off the protection even for testing purposes.
I haven't found that that solution does anything amazing. There is nothing special about it. It works trouble free just like any other client.
We had some issues using IPsec as a remote tunnel protocol and we had to change those configurations from IPsec to SSL. That was the only issue we had with FortiClient during the four years we used it. Everybody else is doing AI, machine learning, self-healing, next-generation features. They should incorporate more next-generation features.
I would like simplicity in the being able to configure the software to use it without a lot of effort.
I'm hoping they change the management system. The management is no longer applicable for us, so I want that to go back to the way it was.