VMware Carbon Black Endpoint Reviews

CB Defense could be more compatible with Linux, and its cloud provision could be improved.

I've been using CB Defense for two years.

CB Defense is scalable so long as the deployment has been done correctly.

Carbon Black's support team are very slow to answer questions.

The initial setup was fairly easy. Deployment will take one to two weeks, depending on how many endpoints there are.

CB Defense is available on a yearly subscription and is priced by the number of endpoints.

I would recommend CB Defense for users who want an on-prem solution that lets them see the whole process of any event. I would give CB Defense a rating of six out of ten.

It is used for protecting our file servers. Its version is kept up to date, so it should be fairly current.

We found that Trend Micro was producing a little bit more load on our servers than what we wanted. So, we went to Carbon Black because it was integrated with VMware. It is great on the servers. It puts very little load, and it does an excellent job.

I found it very valuable as a whole. It is good at detecting anything and has kept us very safe. It is also very easy to use. 

I haven't run into anything that needs improvement. The website interface can be a little bit better, but it's still good as compared to most others.

I have been using it for close to a year.

It is stable.

I believe it is very scalable. In terms of its users, for the most part, there are only two of us using it. I am the IT administrator and primary user, and we have an IT support person who handles PCs and backs me up on servers. We are taking care of its deployment and maintenance.

We are looking at the possibility of expanding its usage in the future to include desktops.

I've never had to call technical support.

We were using Trend Micro Apex One on our servers, and we found that Trend Micro tended to load the servers up a little bit. That's why we switched to Carbon Black.

It was very straightforward. It was very easy to set up. 

Its deployment didn't take that long at all. We purchased it and then just installed it on different servers, one at a time.

We did it ourselves.

I've never calculated an ROI on it.

Its pricing was very good, which is one of the reasons I went to it as an alternative. It is on a yearly basis. There are no additional fees.

We did not evaluate other options.

If you're running a VMware environment, you can definitely go ahead and use it. 

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

Our primary use case for this solution involves addressing incidents related to malware outbreaks and malicious signatures.

Sandboxing is one of the features I found to be the most valuable in Carbon Black CB Defense.

It would be good if Splunk integration or something similar to Splunk integration is available for this solution.

I have been using the latest version of Carbon Black CB Defense for the past year.

I am not sure whether Carbon Black CB Defense can be considered to be a stable solution or not.

I feel that this is a scalable solution. There are around 80 to 90 employees at our organization who are using Carbon Black CB Defense.

I have never contacted the tech support team of Carbon Black CB Defense.

In our organization, we have used CTF365 and iZOOlogic in the past. We didn't switch from those since we have a multiple-client setup. One client uses one EDR, while the other one uses the other EDR. So, the intention of having a multiple-client setup at our end is to help our clients, and it is not for the benefit of our company.

I feel that the initial setup was straightforward and not complex. The deployment of the tool is carried out by our engineering team, consisting of 10 members. With the addition of the manager and the other management team members, the total number of individuals involved in the deployment comes to around 25. The engineering team, who are responsible for this activity, ensures the successful deployment of the solution with their expertise.

I would like to see more integration with other platforms. I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Basically we use the solution for protecting and detecting misuse of end-users while using their end-points to access the internet, especially for browsing websites, or suspicious activity as far as misusing their web browser. It protects them from web-based attacks such as DDos (Denial of Service) or ransomware. 

What I find most interesting is the performance of the end-point client, as well as the capability of detecting any activity on the end-user while using their browsers to navigate the internet. 

To monitor that activity from a security standpoint, detecting cross-site scripting or SQL injection activities that might be coming out from the browser. That's a very needed feature that allows it to distribute the security across the company and not centralizing it only on the firewalls or in the intrusion detection systems. 

The solution is quite customizable.

It's easy to set up the solution.

There's lots of very useful documentation online to help troubleshoot and learn about the product.

I can't think of any feature that needs to be enhanced or reviewed at this time.

Some of the features that I see as an end-user, unfortunately, I haven't been able to see from a project management standpoint. I'm not sure if we're actually taking advantage of all the available features. I don't know if it's because we haven't configured it yet, or we are not using it. 

I'm not sure as to the logic of how we've decided to customize it. We've only really used it since February and therefore there may be more to do on that front. That's why it's hard to say if something is missing or if we just aren't utilizing it.

I've been using the solution for about a year and a half.

It's pretty stable. We haven't heard of any issues and we don't know yet about usage and security issues outside of the performance or any stabilities in the product itself. So far I would say that I consider it stable - very stable in fact.

Given the number of people that are using it, I would consider it as scalable without having specific details on the performance, on the central management, or the management points. I would say that, due to the behavior of the solution with the end-users, it's a good solution. It is scalable.

I haven't used technical support myself just yet. I've only really gone as far as looking at their documentation on their website, including the blog, user support page, and other related documentation. I would say that is good. It's enough. 

There is more than enough information for tech-savvy people, and knowledgeable people that are looking for specific things. There are details telling them how to fix certain issues related to the product, or how to manage some of the product software. I would say that the documentation and the support are okay. It's what I would use personally. I prefer either looking at the documentation myself and then calling the call center after that if it's still necessary.

We found the initial setup to be relatively straightforward. It's easy. It's not complex at all.

The time it takes to deploy depends upon the number of end-points that you are deploying. That said, as far as I know, it took us probably six to nine months. This is due to the fact that there were some other technical issues not related to the service. That was my understanding at the time.

We're just customers and end-users. We don't implement this solution for clients or anything like that.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. It might be the latest, however, I can't say for sure. We use it at a bank for our endpoints. Therefore, it's likely the latest.

There are between 20,000-30,000 people using the solution within our organization. It's definitely 20,000 at least.

I would advise others to basically set the expectations as far as the features they expect or need from a security solution. This solution can't solve problems related to security practices within the company. Internal policies must be in place. Then, figure out how to integrate this solution and its available features into your internal security protocols. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with the product so far.

We used it for EDR, as well as endpoint protection, the whitelisting feature.

The EDR and reports were helpful in improving our organization.

The EDR was amazing. It was very responsive. It did an excellent job of providing us the information we needed in a timely fashion, as long as the latest agent was up-to-date on the client.

The whitelisting system, and the concept of it, overall, is pretty decent. The problem with the whitelisting capability is that it's pretty archaic. Based on all the security roles and the release privilege, it could take time for an application to be whitelisted and approved for use.

The Mac support needs improvement, as it had next to none.

The biggest problem we had was the Mac support. It had very little, and my C-suite is almost exclusively Mac, as is my marketing and development department.

We had used the Carbon Black CB Defense for two years. We changed to another solution approximately nine months ago.

We were using the latest version at the time.

The stability of the on-premises servers had no issues but the resource allocation on the clients was a bit high, especially with having to run two agents. The detection agent, the Whitelist, and the control agent.

We didn't have any problems scaling this solution.

It did the job. It was great for Windows, but it had no Mac support and had nothing for Linux, which makes it hard.

We had 150 users in our organization. Their roles varied from CSF departments through to my C-suite.

Technical support seemed pretty good and I didn't have any problems with it. 

If we had a problem or a question, and they would get back to us in a reasonable amount of time. 

The only place that we ran into trouble was with Macs. That's my general theme here with Carbon Black, unfortunately.

I would rate them an eight or a nine. They were good for the most part.

Previously, we were on the Kaspersky Enterprise Solution for a couple of years. It was a signature-based system. Signature-based systems are getting easier to get around by the attackers these days, so we swapped over to something that is a little closer to attack vectors, which says, don't run anything that we don't approve.

The initial setup was moderate.

For others who are interested in using Carbon Black, I would recommend checking your use case. If your use case is Linux and Mac, then it will be problematic, based on my experience.

These days, with VMware taking them over, I'm willing to bet that that's going to change.

I see some redemption in their future, with VMware owning them. VMware is a very strong player in the workspace, and especially with their workspace tool that VMware's building to work with Windows, Mac, and Linux clients, in order to do VDI.

For the Windows endpoints, it was incredibly useful, nothing got through it, which is a bad thing in some cases because we hadn't tagged the certificate platform appropriately. So, it's a bit of an improvement needed there, but the biggest complaint is around the operating systems not being available.

I would rate Carbon Black CB Defense a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as endpoint security.

The security, specifically the endpoint security that the solution provides, is its most valuable aspect.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution needs better overall compatibility with other products.

I've been using the solution for less than a year. I've only really been using it for the last one or two quarters of this fiscal year. It hasn't been a very long time yet.

The solution is quite stable. We find it to be a reliable product. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale if you need it to. That's not a problem at all.

We have more than 10,000 people using the solution currently.

When it comes to technical support, so far it's been good. We've been pretty satisfied with their level of support. They are responsive and knowledgeable and we know we can get help when we need it.

We were not using any other product before we started using this solution. That said, we registered for other products too and finally decided to go with Carbon Black after trying out other options.

The initial setup isn't really complex. It's pretty straightforward. Those implementing the solution shouldn't have a problem getting it up and running.

The deployment only really took a few months. It was an okay process.

You need very little maintenance on the product. We have about two people here who manage it without any issues.

We're just a customer. We don't have any business affiliation with Carbon Black.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution.

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

We use this solution for endpoint security and protection.

The most valuable feature is that it detects and stops malicious executables.

Admins can use the portal to obtain a command shell on an endpoint to perform further investigation.

This solution works well but needs lots of tuning and optimization.

We primarily use the solution for operations and also security. On the security front, we have a specific project that's ongoing right now. We are moving away from the on-prem Carbon Black to the cloud one. 

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection.

The protection of the user machines has been great. For example, if a laptop gets stolen, or let's say, an employee gets let go, the product provides us with the ability to actually lock people out of the network and handle remote wipes and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The on-prem one was very problematic, especially version 7.2, which did not play nice with Symantec at all. The last upgrade of the client actually triggered a block to the networking, to our active directory domain controllers.

There was a bug that we found was in Macs. It was triggering false positives as it wasn't able to figure out the right parent upon login. With the Carbon Black Cloud, we just got it two to three weeks ago. So far, I haven't seen any false positives. The cloud seems to be a much better product. 

With the on-prem one, the bug has been reported by the community in early January or February, something like that, at the beginning of the year, and it's still not addressed. They have released two versions since then, and yet neither of them addresses this specific issue.

I need more time to explore the cloud deployment, as we've only had it for three weeks at this point. 

It's been at least four years since we started using the solution. Four or five years.

We started with the on-prem one and now we're in yet another project with a cloud deployment.

While the on-prem has some bugs we have been dealing with, so far, after using the could for three weeks, it's like night and day. It's been very stable. There are no bugs or glitches.

I'm not aware of the scalability capabilities yet, as I don't have the entire company on it yet. We are still in testing mode. We just got the cloud deployment three weeks ago. So I can't really answer that truthfully.

Right now, we have seven people on the solution currently.

We haven't yet used the technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

That said, we did use technical support when we were on the on-premises version, and they were terrible. We would ask for bug fixes and new versions would come and yet they would not actually fix the problems that were highlighted.

We also use Red Cloak, which is a completely different prody=uct and something that we still use. 

The initial setup is very simple. The cloud version in particular is very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult.

I'm not dealing with the pricing. I can't speak to the costs involved.

There are two versions of Carbon Black that VMware has, one of them is the on-prem one and the endpoint clients are in the user machines and servers, so AWS and data center and VSS.

I'd advise those interested in the solution to go with the cloud deployment model. We've had a lot of issues with the on-premises version.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. There seems to be quite a disparity between the cloud and on-premises versions.