What needs improvement with Kaspersky Endpoint Security?

I have some PCs with one gigabyte of RAM, and it's not easy to set up Kaspersky on these. Additionally, I want to improve how viruses are isolated and receive better notifications.

The solution could provide more integration.

The threat intelligence features are not up to date.

Kaspersky used to have a feature for data recovery or data backup. Initially, their documentation mentioned this capability, allowing users to recover or back up their data within their systems. However, they have since removed this feature entirely and no longer offer it in any of their products, even as a separate service. This feature was quite helpful during attacks, as it allowed for the recovery of databases and other important data. Kaspersky focuses on improving its security engines and ensuring timely updates. Its products, which used to be heavy and slow-down machines, have become much lighter and now have minimal impact on system performance.

It is not stable. It may not meet all our current requirements. Clients might face issues, which implies that our infrastructure might not be robust enough to handle additional components or tasks. The admin console interface is difficult to navigate. If you don't use it for an extended period, you might encounter issues when looking for specific functions or events. Additionally, the UNC.exe file is still being utilized, which can affect system performance. It's important to periodically reinstall and update the software to ensure everything functions correctly. Managing a large infrastructure with this system may require additional effort and resources. The admin console must be a little bit easier.

The solution could provide more frequent updates.

The solution's management console can be better and more granular than it is now. The solution could add a sandbox in which we could simulate files. The technical support team’s response time could be improved.

It would be beneficial if the price could be reduced, and improved management of the license allocation for adding additional Endpoint users would be advantageous. This would enhance the management capabilities for partitioning additional licenses. It would be beneficial to have more robust cloud management capabilities for Endpoint. This would allow us to easily monitor threats originating from client devices and potentially establish remote connections to address issues. Such enhanced cloud functionality would greatly assist in IT management tasks.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business doesn't have a built-in DLP (data loss prevention) solution.

We would like it so that if a user uses it on-premises, the server should use fewer hardware resources.

The GUI mode in the product is an area with certain shortcomings since it looks old with the graphics provided by Kaspersky. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product. Once you look at the console from the on-premises version, you can see that the GUI mode is very old, meaning you feel like you are dealing with something vintage in nature. The tool's GUI mode is not updated to a new one. Kaspersky should change settings or parameters and make it easy enough for users to create policies since, presently, some difficulties are encountered when creating the policies. The tool needs to change some components in the console to make the product easy to access and configure the policies.

We need a more complete Mobile Device Management (MDM) system.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business’s interface could be easier to understand when displaying the activities during configuration processes.

The product offers support only through mail and not on the phone.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business should improve its reporting. There are also some issues in the cloud portal. The solution's pricing can be cheaper.

The product needs to incorporate training programs or webinars for users. The solution needs to improve its support as well. It also needs to detect ransomware.

The deployment could be better. Recently when I try to deploy it I received a large number of failures. It is very slow as well. As an IT analyst, it's easy to use. However, some users don't want to use it as it is more complicated, and due to the firewall, they cannot connect to some websites or other networks. That said, it's still a very good product.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business could improve the flexibility of use.

The licensing fees could be reduced.

I would like for Kaspersky to generate reports when it detects issues such as malware.

Areas for improvement include signature update management and selecting the respective features on the endpoint side. There are so many features available that it can be difficult to know which to choose, and if you have very low-level endpoint devices, the user experience is slower, especially when updates are running.

Kaspersky could be improved by better malware protection. They have to take advantage of Malwarebytes and integrate the same engine inside Kaspersky. I use Malwarebytes as well because Kaspersky doesn't always detect malware.

We found that, for some reason, some site URLs were being blocked in Kaspersky. However, we have since found a solution. As it stands now, the URL opening issue has been resolved on our end. The solution could be more secure.

This product could be improved by integration with Linux. The one limitation this product has is that it's not compatible with and doesn't offer protection for Linux servers. It could also be easier to configure.

There are times when Microsoft Windows's antivirus called Defender interferes with the functionality of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. There should be better integration with Windows.

When I do a malware scan on my computer it takes a long while. This process could improve in the future. Additionally, the security could improve.

The solution could improve by providing a cloud service that synchronizes with the on-premise console which would give better connectivity in remote areas. In a future release, there should be DLP features added.

It would be ideal with the solution offered more documentation.

It would be better if it were more secure and stable. I would also like to see more powerful features in the next release.

The solution could be more secure. It's an aspect the company needs to be mindful of.

We are dissatisfied with certain functions, such as those for application updates, which are not usable and don't work. The application updates and drive encryption are lacking. The former cannot be used or monitored. We would like to be able to use our domain controller for management purposes. The solution could also be more secure.

We would always like to see even more security features. It's something the solution should continue to improve upon. The UI, user interface, could be improved. They should update it.

When we connect to the solutions' website they block out our VPN connection. This causes us some difficulties. Additionally, when we use the solution on the laptop it uses more memory resources and becomes slower.

The price of the solution is a bit high. It would be nice if it was less expensive. We're using a lot of devices, and therefore the costs add up.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved. We can't monitor outside of the network, so scalability could be improved as well. The ability to control notifications regarding updates and licensing from one main computer would be great. At present, you have to physically go to each computer when a new agreement pops up. We have about 100 licenses, and this can be time consuming. Technical support could be better.

They should continue to put more security measures in place in order to make it more robust.

I would like the solution to be able to allow to have end to end security services from the final user to the server.

The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak. It needs to be improved upon. They could do a better job of making it more robust. There's always room for improvement in everything, however, I can't think of a specific feature that is missing or lacking.

At the moment, the support of XP and Windows Server 2003 is not there. At this moment I need to support of these platforms. However, Kaspersky does not these anymore. It's one reason why I decided to change to a solution that supports XP and our Windows Server, which is 2003. The cloud needs to be more robust. We have 1,500 users and Kaspersky has issues handling them. It's a problem. Other solutions (such as Malwarebytes) will scan the same files or areas and detect problems that this solution seems to miss entirely. It's not as secure as we would like it to be. It misses viruses. Right now, you need to contract another console to integrate EDR. It would be ideal if Kaspersky also offered this instead of having to farm it out to another company. It would be great if everything could be centralized on one console as well.

I had issues with the cloud management of this solution.

I find it to be slow on my end and would like to see that improve. I think the e-learning portal can be updated because it's been disabled due to an upgrade. The data could be updated as well. I also think that pricing could be improved.

Like most of the virus scanning products, it can be better. It should be more secure and detect new malware as it's released.

There are quite a number of areas for improvement. The first area for improvement is that I find this solution to be very resource intensive when you're running a particular task, even a mere scanning task, even though it's running in the background. When you go to inspect the resources you realize it makes the machine very slow. It takes up a lot of resources even though there are no particular scanning tasks scheduled to run. That's one of the issues. The second area for improvement had to do with machines at one point being unable to communicate with the Central Server or the Heartbeat. Another issue is related to installations. There is a feature for remotely deploying the solution on your endpoint machines, but some machines can fail. There was a particular incident where I needed to reinstall the solution again and it wasn't uninstalling. So the uninstallation process was a bit challenging. I had to install the machine again manually. They were Windows machines so I had to go and restore the machine again. Uninstalling it and reinstalling it on some machines can be a bit challenging. Additionally, the way it handles threats is an area for improvement. Suppose there is a particular threat that has been detected, maybe someone inserted their flash drive or something. It does not give me an option to configure. I don't know if I was doing it right so that the threat is neutralized without me having to log on to the Administration Console. Then you go to Active Threats and manually delete that threat. I thought it would be intelligent enough. For instance, if I compare it to the Defend, if the flash drive has a virus it'll delete it automatically or quarantine it and give me a notification. Here, I don't get notifications. There is no feature providing me with real time notifications. I have to manually go to the Administration Console, log on and try to view if there are active threats on the network. There is also the issue of synchronization with the Active Directory particularly if I'm using the Linux server. Sometimes you have a machine you have deleted from the Active Directory or disconnected from the network but that machine is still appearing in the Administration Console and you have to delete it manually. These are some of the challenges we meet with Kaspersky Endpoint Security. In terms of what I would like to see in the next release, I would like it to be a bit lighter. I've used a couple of other solutions and I find them lighter to use than Kaspersky. Kaspersky really has to improve on that aspect of making sure that it's not consuming a lot of resources.

We haven't had any issues so far, and therefore don't have any complaints. It would be preferable if the product were more proactive and more modern in its approach to security and protection.

At first, it did not work well with Windows 10, however, it was time when Windows 10 was released. After that, it has worked well. We deactivated the Windows firewall and antivirus. If they work both together it slows the functionality of the laptop, the notebook. The solution could be a lot lighter. You really feel it when the laptop starts.

The stability could be better. In the next release, I would like to see mobile management and better pricing.

It slows down the system sometimes, and it has the occasional false positive where it deems something a virus when it isn't. That said, it's not bad.

We have had some problems with it comes to uninstalling it, so you have to make sure that you do everything right.

This solution needs to improve and get up to date with some of the new EDR technology anti-virus software available. There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports.

I think improvements could be made around the upgrade. The process for upgrades is very slow. It usually takes about five to 10 minutes to work with the database of the solution. As a cyber security professional, I would love to see more analytic capability in this solution. The ones I do see in solutions such as CrowdStrike or other commercial products, would also be better in more detail.

The performance of our machines tended to slow down under Kaspersky. That definitely needs to be addressed. I remember I had a pretty good Dell Notebook, and this product slowed it down quite a bit. Not all of the features were enabled for my team, so I can't speak to the full usability of the solution. I'm not sure, for example, if it has effective reporting and statistics to help users understand what is happening on their endpoints. I didn't have access to that if it existed at all.

There are times when we see an agent has been disabled on a machine, and we are not able to determine the reason. The next thing that I would like to see in this solution are DLP features. It should be able to scan, track, and provide reporting. Organization-wise, they should have better categorization. For example, they have a social networking category, but it should be subdivided into components such as LinkedIn. Kaspersky would benefit from including an employee monitoring solution.

The solution seems incapable of stopping the proxy connection. The proxy server seems to be bypassing the antivirus. It's an aspect they need to improve. The initial setup is complex. While it's compatible with Windows, it may not work as well with other operating systems. Reporting is not that good for Kaspersky. I want more detailed reporting, I want the details reported in the reporting section, and everything is in one report. That is not possible now on Kaspersky. The reporting consists of the computer name or the IP only. I want complete detailed reporting capabilities in the next update.

From a business point of view, it's not likely applicable to them, however, I've noticed that they have separated out a few features which they used to support as one package. For example, they used to have DLP solutions in the Endpoint Security as well and they had sandboxing capabilities too. Now, they have separated it into a different solution or a separate cost. They are offering the DLP and sandboxing features with the endpoint as an add-on solution. I'm sure it makes them more money, to be honest. That said, if they had all of the features in the same product, it would be both helpful and put them far above any other competitor. The solution needs to lower its pricing.

Kaspersky is lacking in features for DLP and protection against ransomware. I would like to see the inclusion of support for device management and device control.

I would like to see enhancements made with respect to the administration. We have found that when we push the installation from the server to the rest of the clients, some systems pick it up automatically and continuously maintain them, whereas other systems do not. In these cases, we have to manually install, and moreover, we still cannot manage them from the administration end. If this break in the link between the administration and the clients can be fixed then it would be better.

We do high profile work, meaning agent analysis. Sometimes users complain that we can't access a particular website. A big improvement would be allowing us to reconfigure the agents and change what to whitelist for a specific user. If the user is not happy with the configuration and is being blocked from certain sites, we should be able to reconfigure the monitoring mechanics to make it more flexible. In other words, we should be able to monitor what is vulnerable and critical in order to assess access to a particular website. Additionally, it would be helpful if they could provide us with a tech report generation mechanism.

This solution needs improvement in the reporting section. Reporting in Kaspersky Endpoint is good but it's not that great. The platform needs to centralize reporting control. They should include some BMP features, like a BD board or MP board and some D&B company in the near future. That would be good.

There should be some AI involved. We already have machine learning involved in recent releases but machine learning should be more enhanced in the upcoming versions. The logs should be more simplified and more interactive for the end user. These are the areas I feel they need to improve on.

I would like to see an enhanced web platform. The reports and email notifications have room for improvement.

It needs more computer resources. They should have more anti-spam features.

There are some issues that recently happened with this solution. The American government and other countries banned Kaspersky, since it is a Russian product, and customers lost their confidence in it. There is too much deviation from Windows 7 to Windows 10. Kaspersky could provide more training for the local support.

I would like to see better reporting.

If someone has the older version of the solution, and wants to install a newer version, they must remove all of the previous applications. Otherwise, there will be issues with the solution in the long run. There should be a remover tool that is embedded on the agent. Then, it could check on incompatible previous versions and remove the same on the background. This needs improvement. There have been cases where one installs newer versions on top of existing version e.g 10.2 on top of 10.1 going onto 11.0 the upgrades will refuse to install requiring one to clean the machine of any trace of Kaspersky using the removal tool. In settings where centralised management is used the requirement that you handle an single computer is time consuming. I just want to be pushing the patches and upgrades without a hustle. I think that there are issues of agents and the upgrades.

I would like to have more forensic features. For example, if we are hit by an attack, I would like to have tools to investigate what kind of attack, who has attacked, how it was attacked, and what we could do to stop this kind of attack in the future. I would like to have more forensics capability built into Kaspersky.

We have experienced problems with downloads and integration in the past. I think it would be good for them to consider cloud integration capabilities.

* I would like to see machine learning and AI as added features. * It would be nice if they had a separate email security solution (instead of only their cloud edition), similar to what Forcepoint and Trend Micro have. * I would rate their encryption as a one out of 10. It needs a lot of improvement. * There are some features built into Kaspersky that do not work at all, so we have to use other products instead.

* We would like to know where attacks are coming from. * It is hard to maintain the software and upgrade. * Sometimes, there are issues with filtering. E.g., I want to take out the message for an exclusion. Sometimes, this exclusion might become hard, because I use a lot of internal software, or the software is post positive.

Web Control and vulnerability need work.

The need to re-engineer the source code to reduce CPU and memory usage. Other areas for improvement include a data-loss prevention solution, enhanced application control, enhanced device control, an endpoint security encryption solution, an advanced persistent threats (APT) solution, and an all-in-one solution with one pricing scheme for corporate and enterprise business needs.

I would like to see improvements in the device control features, which are limited. I can block devices by the policy in the device control such as usb and cd but i can block devices like sound that not supported by Kaspersky I would see update in the device control policy that let me add devices by its id To control them by block or allow it That will help the administrator for full control and will rate the kaspersky to be the number one in the field