The credential part of the product needs to be improved so that the tool can improve our company's security posture.

The session monitoring and recording features in the product are okay.

I recommend the product for huge organizations.

The product's ability to offer supportive scalability features for our organization is good.

The value of using the tool stems from the fact that it is useful in areas like remote control and password encryption.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The most effective features of ARCON PAM for securing privileged access are password rotation and password vaulting. Password vaulting ensures secure storage and monitoring of privileged passwords. Additionally, the solution offers an arch and light environment tailored specifically to client requirements, which enhances security without unnecessary complexity.

The session management and monitoring capabilities of ARCON PAM greatly impact security posture. For instance, in banking environments in India, session monitoring helps provide detailed logs and even video recordings of user sessions. This ensures transparency and accountability and allows organizations to detect any unexpected activities or unauthorized access.

The user interface of ARCON PAM is generally user-friendly, but it requires some training for users to get accustomed to it. Basic instructions are provided for logging in and using features like multi-factor authentication. However, additional guidance may be needed for users who are not familiar with the system, as they might encounter simple issues that require clarification.

I would recommend ARCON PAM primarily for small to medium-sized organizations across various industries such as banking, insurance, finance, and healthcare. While it can also scale for larger organizations, it is particularly well-suited for medium-sized companies. Compared to other solutions like CyberArk, ARCON PAM offers similar capabilities at a more affordable price point which makes it a cost-effective choice for organizations with limited budgets or specific deployment requirements.

Overall, I would rate ARCON PAM as an eight out of ten. To make it a ten out of ten, they should focus on enhancing the user interface to make it more intuitive and user-friendly. Additionally, reducing dependency on specific browsers and versions would improve flexibility and ease of deployment for clients.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

It is a good product. So most of these new features in the solution are based on the customers' needs, and they develop it in a month. So, it is usually there in the next release.

In short, they first understand the customers' requirements. If ARCON meets the requirements to develop the new feature, it will develop them.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My recommendation is to onboard all the devices that we currently manage in our organization so that they can be accessed via PAM. I definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate ARCON Privileged Access Management a seven out of ten. 

I would recommend and rate ARCON Privileged Access Management a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I am using the latest version of ARCON Privileged Access Management.

Since ARCON Privileged Access Management is very complex and not that user-friendly, I'll tell people to check it carefully before purchasing it.

Overall, I rate ARCON Privileged Access Management a five out of ten.

Based on my experience with ARCON PAM, I would give it a solid seven out of ten. In my six months of selling the product, I haven't received many complaints.

Some of our customers who use the solution are satisfied while some are not. We have also received some negative feedback from some of our customers. So, I recommend BeyondTrust over ACRON Privileged Access Management owing to its additional features and easier deployment process. BeyondTrust is also available on a hybrid cloud. However, if you compare the costs of both solutions, BeyondTrust is on the higher side. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I would rate it a ten out of ten overall. It's scalable and easy to deploy. However, I have some concerns. I noticed there are no instructional videos or guides on the network portal for initial configurations. There is limited information available, and this is a concern for me. I would like to see more resources and guides to address these issues.

Regrettably, this product remains incomplete, and the interim phase is still pending. It is challenging to determine its effectiveness due to some significant initial license issues.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

This is a very good enterprise solution and I would say that all enterprise companies should be using products like this. We're satisfied with the features and availability of this product.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

Have your access management process is in line. If you have complex processes, or you have not defined it, it will be rather difficult to implement any such product.

I give ARCON a nine out of 10. The missing point is for not quickly adapting, as per the example I mentioned above, regarding integrations. I don't know whether it's a deficiency at their end, maybe that proactiveness is not there. Or maybe there are too many changes happening in the market, they might not be able to cope with all the changes that are happening.

Lately, in the last year or so, all technical products in the IT world have come up with their own access management portfolio. These kinds of products require integration with this portfolio. I have received 15 to 20 items which require integration, 75% were already available and 25% had to be built. So that minus one is because of that 25% they could have integrated even before I asked them. They could have done a workflow just by surveying market.

Arcon fits the requirements, at a small cost.

In terms of advice, I would first check with you what your requirements are and what budget you're looking at. Budget varies but requirements are the most important. If your requirements match this product... Whenever any customer comes to us, we first check if ARCON meets their requirements. If ARCON doesn't meet their requirements then we recommend another product.

I would rate this product at eight out of 10. There are still a lot of improvements which we have suggested to them, they will probably be available within the next three or four months.

I rate ARCON Privileged Access Management an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

I would advise, during the implementation itself, in the beginning, to start with the 20 servers only. Then test it thoroughly, not as a product but, rather, the implementation methodology. What happened with us, during implementation, was that some users caused some problems. Actually, they weren't problems, rather they were more a user culture change, and how integration would happen with the SIM.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10. It's a good product to have but it's not a 10 because most of the features don't get implemented. It would be helpful if they could arrange it so that the customer can implement features. They should conduct meetings and tell the users, as a group, about the features that should be implemented. Also, the customer's information should be available immediately to the support team so that support can be deployed immediately.

The first time, we manually updated the password. Afterwards, it changed on its own automatically.

For our requirements, this is the best product out there.

Definitely go for user training before full deployment.

It has really helped us a lot. It's a wonderful platform.

My advice would depend on how your administrators are placed, because it depends a lot on the desktop that they're using. It has dependencies on the .NET framework the ActiveX version. So, if you have a uniform environment, and it's very easy to upgrade the endpoints, then ARCON could be considered. Because, for any upgrade of the ARCON solution, an upgrade of the endpoints is required, for the desktops. It's from there that the administrator will be accessing the ARCON solution. It is a little complex. But if you have a uniform environment, you should consider ARCON.

It has all the capabilities and the customization is easy, but there are the problems with tech support and upgrading the solution which has a lot of dependencies. Because of those dependencies, we cannot consider deploying the upgrade quickly.

It has positive and negative points.

The product is really a good product and a good value for the money, in terms of costs, user convenience, and functionality that they offer. It is a comprehensive, apart from a few things. The dashboarding and analytics are not very good, so they have to work on these two parts. Apart from those, they should have an anti-bridging functionality too. They are lacking only with these few things. I am sure they will be working on these points very soon, and they will be add to the roadmap to bridge the gap.

If any customer is looking for this product, and comparing it with another product in the market, I would suggest that they do a proper PoC. Do not go with marketing and branding terms. They should do proper business cases and give it to their administrators, then ask them to use it for at least a week or 10 days time. Afterwards, they should decide whether they want to ahead with this product or another product in the market.

I am satisfied with the application. The scope and specs that we had are met by this product. It is a very good product which is scalable. 

Obviously your administrators should participate in the decision to buy this product, because they will have to go through the solution to access any server or any device on which they wish to do administration. At times, initially, it may seem to people who are doing administration that their flexibility is removed. You have to make them aware that the solution brings them flexibility in terms of not remembering the passwords of many servers; when they have a number of servers to be administered, they write down the passwords. Those issues are taken away.

It also provides a lot of security to the administrator himself. He can also review what commands fired, what commands did not fire.

The solution was suited for the purpose when we evaluated it, and it has also evolved to meet the different needs, additional needs. I think it's continuing to evolve.

We have suggested to other operations that they test this product. We have always spoken well about this product.

We're customers; we don't have any relationship with the business. We're not a reseller or anything like that. We just use the product.

Currently, we're using the solution. However, it's our intention to migrate to BeyondTrust in the near future.

Currently, we are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd like new users to know that the deployment really is quite straightforward, and it's easy to manage and troubleshoot. It's simple to restore the database within minutes if necessary as well. There are some great features that are available on the solution that makes it a worthwhile addition to a business. For us, security remains a concern, and password management is lacking. If an organization shares those concerns, this may not be the perfect solution for them.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Every organization has a different environment, so do a thorough evaluation for different connection channels it supports like RDP, SSH, Telnet, web browsers, etc.

No.

It's a go-ahead for any organization that is looking to meet their compliance and audit requirements. This is a very good product to go with for getting your work done.

It meets most of the requirements we have. I did not give it a nine out of 10 because there are still more requests that I am looking to have fulfilled, changes to be implemented in a new version. These would make the product more stable, as well as a better product on the market.

ARCOS is a powerful, stable, and reasonable product for anyone looking for a PAM solution.

Product is very efficient. Thorough testing needs to be done prior to implementation to test the solution in your specific architecture.

I give it a seven out of 10 because, as I said, it does not support all browsers.