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

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 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. 

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.

The product must improve its price to suit small and mid-size enterprises. The cloud is free for large enterprises with a large number of users. However, for small deployments, the cloud is costly.

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

We are having some troubles because some American companies we work with don't want to work with Kaspersky.

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

Most companies aren't familiar with Kaspersky's MDR offering. Everyone's talking about XDR and MDR solutions now, and Kaspersky mainly offers EDR. I believe they should consider more advanced solutions, especially for ransomware protection and similar critical threats. They might have these solutions, but our provider might not be giving us proper insights. Again, it's possible these features exist, but our reseller isn't making us aware. 

In future releases, I would like to see a few things. First, I'd like a centralized view for managing security across a large organization with multiple offices. 

Second, some built-in solutions can alert IT about suspicious behavior before any damage occurs, like applications sending unusual emails or data alerts.

I want to add that performance needs to be considered. Security doesn't require ongoing configuration. My crucial point is whether the solution, with my configuration from six months ago, still provides adequate security. In terms of support,  I was thinking of a managed security service provider because security isn't our primary business, and we lack the necessary skills to manage it ourselves. We rely on others to do it.

We lack the skills and need a third-party provider with expertise. So, we have a third party that can provide managed security services and keep me updated on the latest products and practices. I just need to be confident we're using the best available solution.

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.

If something critical happens, Kaspersky will alert the admin or SOC team about it. I think Kaspersky's reporting, monitoring, and notifications should be more detailed.  

In my case, different admins are responsible because we have various departments. There is one admin per department. We don't need to receive all the notifications. We can receive only the critical alerts, but the other admins need to get all of them. That's one area where Kaspersky needs improvement.

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

This solution would be improved if it were more compatible with Windows Server. There is not a client for Windows Server, like for Windows Workstation, so there are a lot of things you cannot control from the local system, or from the desktop directly. You have to control everything from the policy server, not from the client's side. The interface is kind of light, and it's not good—it could be more user-friendly. 

There were some issues with reporting which seem to have been resolved. I'd like to see them go to the next level by adding more products because they're restricted to endpoint protection for now.  

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.

We find that the solution uses up too much RAM and can slow down machines. We've noticed that after it is installed the server or computer begins to slow down significantly. It would be very helpful if they could make computers work faster, or, at least, not slow them down. In Indonesia, specifically many computers here do not have high specifications which is why it's such a problem for us.

The pricing could always be even more competitive.

I'd like to see them improve encryption and remote management in the future. Kaspersky could also improve its scanning technology. Other solutions have adopted machine learning and deep learning, but Kaspersky still uses signature-based scanning. They need to take advantage of new technology to revamp their scanning. Kaspersky could add more interactive features to their interface because it has been the same for six years. 

The product is hard to use on a cloud server. From an improvement perspective, the use of the product on a cloud server should be made better. The GUI of the product is too basic, making it an area where improvements are required.

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

I've had some problems with the web interface. For example, when I was running a trace, it's difficult to find this function, but I can see it when I go on the server. So, if I want to implement the EDR functions on the web interface, it's very difficult because the command button or the link doesn't appear. 

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.

Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business needs an easier mechanism for updates. 

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

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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 performance is not very good. It's acceptable with the security. That said, the issue is that, when I opened the browser without Kaspersky antivirus, it's open in a few seconds, however, when I installed the antivirus on the laptop or computer and we try to open it, just open the browser, it takes double the amount of time. Without the antivirus, it's opening in four seconds and with the antivirus it's opening in 20 seconds. It's making everything hang.

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 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

It is a heavy solution and it's not for small networks.

The solution is pretty expensive. 

The installation is technical. You need to be certified. 

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.

The support must provide quick responses.

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.

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

Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth.  

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. 

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.

When it comes to handling the expiration of licenses, the solution should give a company more time to set up a renewal. It happens too abruptly right now.

The solution could use better reporting. We'd like to have a bit more than just a dashboard and a few pie charts. 

We're looking at EDRs, and MDRs, and SLRs and stuff like that. If they had integrations with something like a Dark Trace or more native integrations, either through an open API or something, that would probably be ideal for us in terms of the direction we're taking. 

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.

In terms of improvement, we do not use the solution for the servers in most cases because the solution protects us against some software. Hence we have problems installing such software on the server; however, we do some fine-tuning to use this type of software.

The application running speed consumes that of RAM, so performance speed is an issue. The data, VST, and EST sizes can all be reduced. 

Previously, some of the Windows Seven PCs took up more space and ran slowly all the time. 

Some of the remote antivirus desktop sharing is not working in version 13, which is still in use. 

When we upgrade to network agent version 13, the machine makes a duplicate copy of itself. It is created in another group. Under the same name, we will see two devices, one the original and the other the duplicate. Afterward, we move to the client's PC.

Occasionally troubleshooting is required because the solution does not work after being configured. As an example of this, the running time may be longer when it involves cloud-based SaaS remote installation. At other times, the process cannot be completed and I must remove the task, switch to manual mode or begin a new task. 

The company needs to keep developing more security measures to help keep its customers safe. If they could keep adding to security features, it would be ideal.

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

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 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.

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 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.

The price is a bit expensive. Since 2018, we were moved from Kaspersky South Africa to Kaspersky France. They began increasing the price. In the beginning, they gave us rebates. We began with 25% and now we're down to 12%.

It's more and more difficult for our customers. It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it.  

The encryption feature could improve.

We have zero-day detection of malware but it cannot detect other types of unknown intrusions.

In an upcoming release, they could improve by providing features, such as EDR and better tracing of intrusion.

The performance level could be better.

I would like to see integration to many different systems easier.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

I would like to see better reporting. 

• 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. 

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.

We've found that sometimes the solution is not doing its job in detecting some malware. They need to make sure that they are advancing their technology to catch more malicious events. There needs to be more security in place specifically on the malware side of things.

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. 

It would be ideal with the solution offered more documentation.

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.

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

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.

Over the years, I have learned that we always need to keep updating our OS — especially Windows. Any application that sits on Windows needs to be updated. This allows us to better detect and remove any infections. Sometimes, there are a few infections that we can't get rid of. In this case, we have to find another way to clean up the registry; otherwise, we have to reinstall everything again.

In terms of the interface, I prefer something that is simple without so much color. 

I would like to see better-enhanced features, such as protection against ransomware and different types of malicious malware.

In an upcoming release, I would like to see DLP, encryption, and a VPN feature. There are a lot of other solutions coming out which claim they have all these features together.

As far as improvements, maybe the licensing could be cheaper, but I think this solution is pretty okay. 

The performance could be better.

We would like to see improved performance and faster deployment in the next release.

This solution used a lot of memory and GPU; it would be nice if this could be reduced. 

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 licensing fees could be reduced.

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

It would be great if, as an additional feature, you could download updates without deploying updates to end users. 

The solution sometimes slows down the computers of our clients, the performance needs to improve.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

• 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.

From time to time, some users loose connection via the Network Agent. This gives us a tough time, since they are in different localities, so we have to run tasks and sometimes manually re-establish the NetAgent connection.

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.

They can improve the zero-day exploit to be more effective.

Data loss prevention (DLP) in email security.

The solution could improve by having some integration with other vendors.

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.

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

Currently, it doesn't have a cloud option. This is something that they should look into going forward.

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.

The stability could be better.

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

The solution is very draining on the computers at certain moments in its operation, excluding the scanning periods that make the computer unusable until finished. It is a balance between economic protection and client machine performance to our users. Most of the time, it is an excellent solution.

Utilizing the CPU usages during the scan process needs to be improved.

Web Control and vulnerability need work.

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.

I'd like Kaspersky to be more stable and secure.

It's very heavy and it affects the computer's performance. 

We need better performance. A lightweight solution without affecting the performance of the computer would be better.

I would like to see an enhanced web platform. 

The reports and email notifications have room for improvement. 

 I had issues with the cloud management of this solution. 

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