We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and GitGuardian Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Regardless of the size of your company, this solution can be scaled accurately."
"The most useful features of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention are the transfer through Bluetooth can be blocked and the transfer to the cloud-based storage can be blocked. The features are wonderful."
"The feature I found most valuable is the DLP. We are using it to do encryptions."
"Our organization's intellectual property is not misused or extracted without permission."
"We like the ability to customize our requirements and rules, as well as its ease of use and management. It also has a cloud feature and proxy functionality."
"The GUI is very intuitive. That is the way I would explain its ease of use. It is straightforward."
"Forcepoint has been the leader in the space for many years and they, are very well established, and mature."
"The scalability is fantastic. One of the things that I like about Forcepoint is that I can customize the solution to suit my objectives."
"It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up."
"It enables us to identify leaks that happened in the past and remediate current leaks as they happen in near real-time. When I say "near real-time," I mean within minutes. These are industry-leading remediation timelines for credential leaks. Previously, it might have taken companies years to get credentials detected or remediated. We can do it in minutes."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"GitGuardian has many features that fit our use cases. We have our internal policies on secret exposure, and our code is hosted on GitLab, so we need to prevent secrets from reaching GitLab because our customers worry that GitLab is exposed. One of the great features is the pre-receive hook. It prevents commits from being pushed to the repository by activating the hook on the remotes, which stops the developers from pushing to the remote. The secrets don't reach GitLab, and it isn't exposed."
"The most valuable feature is the general incident reporting system."
"You can also assign tasks to specific teams or people to complete, such as assigning something to the "blue team" or saying that this person needs to do this, and that person needs to do that. That is a great feature because you can actually manage your team internally in GitGuardian."
"Presently, we find the pre-commit hooks more useful."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to automate both downloading the repository and generating a Software Bill of Materials directly from it."
"It would be wonderful if the solution could develop more AI and machine learning capabilities. It would also be good if the solution was able to integrate with other ML and AI solutions. Right now, this is lacking."
"An area for improvement for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is its price. It would be good if they could offer better pricing."
"An area for improvement in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is the complex UI and policy deployment. You have to find the policies, and then designing the policies is also tricky."
"The policy update size and agent size could be improved. We would also like to have a proper solution for Linux OS which Forcepoint does not offer."
"If you are a macOS user, there are issues in the area of USB control."
"There is room for improvement regarding OCR. I would like to see it enhanced to handle multiple languages and it should be easier to manage."
"You have to monitor the solution all the time."
"Everything can be improved and maybe there is a way to improve the user experience through the interface."
"GitGuardian could have more detailed information on what software engineers can do. It only provides some highly generic feedback when a secret is detected. They should have outside documentation. We send this to our software engineers, who are still doing the commits. It's the wrong way to work, but they are accustomed to doing it this way. When they go into that ticket, they see a few instructions that might be confusing. If I see a leaked secret committed two years ago, it's not enough to undo that commit. I need to go in there, change all my code to utilize GitHub secrets, and go on AWS to validate my key."
"One improvement that I'd like to see is a cleaner for Splunk logs. It would be nice to have a middle man for anything we send or receive from Splunk forwarders. I'd love to see it get cleaned by GitGuardian or caught to make sure we don't have any secrets getting committed to Splunk logs."
"Right now, we are waiting for improvement in the RBAC support for GitGuardian."
"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."
"Automated Jira tickets would be fantastic. At the moment, I believe we have to go in and click to create a Jira ticket. It would be nice to automate."
"They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers."
"I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing."
"GitGuardian's hook and dashboard scanners are the two entities. They should work together as one. We've seen several discrepancies where the hook is not being flagged on the dashboard. I still think they need to do some fine-tuning around that. We don't want to waste time."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 2nd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 52 reviews while GitGuardian Platform is ranked 6th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 24 reviews. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0, while GitGuardian Platform is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "DLP great for encryptions; tech support is quite helpful". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitGuardian Platform writes "It dramatically improved our ability to detect secrets, saved us time, and reduced our mean time to remediation". Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Digital Guardian, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector and Zscaler DLP, whereas GitGuardian Platform is most compared with SonarQube, GitHub Advanced Security, Cycode, Snyk and Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention. See our Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs. GitGuardian Platform report.
See our list of best Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vendors.
We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
