The problem with signature based solutions is they can be easily defeated. Previously our organization used Trend Micro for our AV solution. Kommentare: Very Positive, I believe this is the future of antivirus/antimalware. I guess that's why the marketing initiatives can seem a little over the top, it's hard to get the idea across when some hater says "doesn't detect EICAR!" That's why my MSP pal doesn't have his SMB clients on this product, they can't comprehend the value proposition of something so different to what they're familiar with. In comparison to traditional signature-based (useless) AV, CylancePROTECT and CylanceOPTICS seems expensive. The endpoint is the focus of the last line of defense, so PROTECT is critical in my security posture. I don't see these attacks in my environment, hence the testing. When I throw attacks against old-build agents, and those attacks are obliterated, it helps me sleep better at night. He has had many clients compromised by ransomware, several more than once, with nuke/pave/restore for the entire organization being the typical response. I have tested the Cylance client against true zero day attacks, not recognized on VirusTotal, shared with me by an MSP friend. In the three years we've been protecting our endpoints with CylancePROTECT, we have had ZERO incidents across ~250 endpoints. With three years experience and NO compromised endpoints, I can focus on other security layers instead of faffing around fixing endpoints. Even with excellent email filtering, which we also have, there are just too many things that can go horribly wrong. With a traditional AV client that includes web filtering, which we also have, I would consider those endpoints EXTREMELY vulnerable. data center servers, point of sale systems, industrial control systems, ATMs, Kiosks, etc.Kommentare: I have a significant number of users out in the field with limited or no edge protection, so a cloud based endpoint solution is an obvious first step. This extra workload can bog them down quickly.Ĭylance suggest that you use AppControl on devices that don’t consume new applications/services regularly (i.e. When they aren’t able to consume the needed application, they ask IT to fix this problem, however IT administrators aren’t malware analysts, so they aren’t in a good position to make decisions on whether or not an application is safe to use. Whitelisting can slow down productivity for users who are constantly consuming new applications. This solution provides all of the benefits of Protect but is paired with App Control, a whitelisting feature. Protect is able to identify malware that is cleverly obfuscated.The solution sits in line, analyzes the executable before it can go into effect, and if the executable is deemed malicious,it’s quarantined. It’s different than sandboxing where the application is sent to a sandbox and detonates….and then FireEye triages the executable after the detonation to see if the software code is trying install malware.Protect analyzes the executable (in less than 100 milliseconds) to determine if the application is trying to infect the endpoint with malware. Uses a mathematical formula and artificial intelligence to determine whether or not the application/service that is being requested to be consumed by the end user is safe or not.Is installed on all endpoints (consumes less than 1% of CPU).Your browser doesn't support the HTML5 video tag.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |