Kaspersky Endpoint Security Review

Initially, it did greatly improve the security, however, signature-based malware prevention is not very useful anymore


What is our primary use case?

Since introduced years ago, it has been used to prevent various types of malware infections. It has also introduced additional features for firewalling to better control applications regarding network activities.

How has it helped my organization?

Initially, it did greatly improve the security. However, as many of us know, signature-based malware prevention is not very useful anymore. Aside from not stopping all threats, it is not very good for the performance of the system, and especially with older devices, it has a noticeable impact. But in regard to other legacy solutions, I do believe Kaspersky is one of the better ones.

What is most valuable?

Especially the firewalling, I found useful, as you can control the applications and services on a granular level to tell them where they have access to or not. 

The policies are easy to make and controlled by the Kaspersky Administrative Security Center, which comes at no additional costs.

What needs improvement?

Malware protection for Kaspersky should be revolutionized, where they no longer work with signatures, but with more advanced ways of detecting malware, such as Cylance or Traps from Palo Alto.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest