We performed a comparison between SafeBreach and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Pentera, Cymulate, Picus Security and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)."The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection."
"The most valuable feature is the huge library of hack attacks and breach methods."
"The product has helped improve our organization by being easy to use and integrate. This saves time, trouble and money."
"Over the thirteen years of using the product, we have not experienced a single compromise in our environment. During the COVID period, we faced numerous DDoS attacks, and the tool proved highly effective in mitigating these threats."
"Improved our systems and our customers' by providing better malware protection, defense against zero-day threats, and improved network security."
"It allows us to be more hands off in checking on emails and networking traffic. We can set up a bunch of different alerts and have it alert us."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"The most valuable feature is the view into the application."
"I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support."
"There is room for improvement in the interface. It is not always easy to find the options that you need and not everything is customizable."
"Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier."
"The world is currently shifting to AI, but FIreEye is not following suit."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"It is not a very secure product."
"As far as future inclusions, it would be useful to display more threat intelligence, such as the actual area of the threat and the origin of the web crawling (Tor and Dark Web)."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
"The problem with FireEye is that they don't allow VM or sandbox customization. The user doesn't have control of the VMs that are inside the box. It comes from the vendor as-is. Some users like to have control of it. Like what type of Windows and what type of applications and they have zero control over this."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
SafeBreach is ranked 5th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 14th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 35 reviews. SafeBreach is rated 8.0, while Trellix Network Detection and Response is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of SafeBreach writes "Breach and attach simulation solution used to test security tools with a valuable library of hacking data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". SafeBreach is most compared with Picus Security, Cymulate, Pentera, AttackIQ and XM Cyber, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Fortinet FortiGate, Zscaler Internet Access and Cisco Secure Firewall.
We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) 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.