{"quote":"Their SOC side support, when a threat is detected, is excellent.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Their support for issues related to the portal or feature problems isn't great.","score":"6"}

Cynet usage duration by individuals varies widely, spanning periods from a few months to several years.

Organizations report positive ROI from Cynet, enhancing cybersecurity and preventing viruses, with immediate threat mitigation observed post-deployment.

Cynet excelled in endpoint protection due to CyOps support, integration ease, and comprehensive features, attracting partnerships and confidence.

Cynet is highly reliable and stable, with consistent high ratings for efficiency and minimal resource usage compared to alternatives.

{"quote":"There are many changes happening on their back end as they pivot to a managed service partner channel, which affects the administrator interface.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Cynet is very scalable.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Their onboarding support is another area that needs improvement.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"There should be more options than deploying solely through group policy, as the assumption that GPO is working isn’t always the case.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"They need to provide plugins that integrate with these tools commonly used by most MSPs.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Their deployment needs some work, especially with integration with remote monitoring management systems like Datto AutoTask or ConnectWise Automate.","score":"9"}

Cynet provides centralized security with robust endpoint protection, timely alerts, and seamless integration to enhance threat management.

{"quote":"It's right in the middle compared to other solutions.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"I think the pricing of Cynet is fair and one of the better options in the market.","score":"9"}

We use Cynet to protect our endpoints and value its EDR and XDR components for their reasonable pricing. However, improvements are needed in deployment, integration with RMM systems, and onboarding support. It's too soon to assess ROI.

{"quote":"The valuable aspects of Cynet are its EDR and XDR components, which are available at a reasonable price point.","score":"9"}

<p>Cynet requires less management and is user-friendly with ease of deployment and use. It offers robust threat protection, blocking malware and providing ransomware defense. While its support services are responsive, quicker response times are needed. Advanced detection and monitoring enhance security, but integration with systems like Datto AutoTask needs improvement. Cynet necessitates mobile protection, better app integration, and enhanced reporting customization, lacking URL filtering and mobile technology deployment.</p>

Organizations mentioned previous experiences with McAfee, Symantec, CrowdStrike, Cylance, Microsoft, Trend Micro, and others before transitioning to Cynet. Many appreciated Cynet for its simplicity, comprehensive coverage, lighter resource demand, and better visibility. CrowdStrike was a common choice but lacked some functions Cynet offered. SentinelOne was noted for bugs. Others valued the central dashboard and support offered by Cynet, favoring it over McAfee's older offerings and less intuitive products like Webroot.

Cynet offers competitive pricing with a flexible licensing structure that appeals to enterprise buyers. Users benefit from an affordable yet comprehensive solution that integrates multiple security features into one package, often at a lower cost than competitors like CrowdStrike. Licensing can be tailored to monthly, quarterly, or yearly plans, with many users noting its cost-effectiveness. While implementation involves significant investment, the overall price competitiveness and affordability make Cynet an attractive choice for large organizations.

<p>Cynet surpasses its competitors by offering an all-in-one cybersecurity platform with automated response capabilities, intuitive threat detection, and 24/7 monitoring, ensuring comprehensive protection and streamlined management for businesses seeking top-tier security solutions.</p>

<p>Technical support for Cynet could be improved, with a need for faster response and support centers in more regions like Asia.</p> <p>Cynet's integration with other security applications requires enhancement to better meet diverse business needs.</p> <p>The lack of comprehensive mobile device protection and URL filtering in Cynet limits its effectiveness.</p> <p>The reporting capabilities in Cynet are seen as weak and need more customization and detailed information.</p> <p>Deployment and integration with remote monitoring management systems like Datto AutoTask or ConnectWise Automate need further development.</p>

Cynet's initial setup is praised for its ease and efficiency, with many users noting rapid deployment across thousands of endpoints. Some installations take as little as a few minutes, while others span several hours. Users appreciate its straightforward process, requiring minimal resources for installation and maintenance. A few face occasional issues with unit-by-unit installations and documentation gaps, but once resolved, the setup becomes highly efficient and user-friendly, supported on both cloud and on-premises platforms.

Cynet demonstrates strong and responsive technical support with 24/7 availability, appreciated by many users for their quick responses and expertise. However, some users find specific areas lacking, such as regional presence and support for portal issues. The inclusion of a security operation center significantly enhances their service. Customers value the knowledgeable team and proactive engagement during emergencies. While most rate the support highly, a few mention areas for improvement in communication speed and technical proficiency.

Cynet’s implementation process is described as straightforward and quick, with many users deploying in-house or with minimal assistance. Minimal staff is generally sufficient, often involving IT professionals who are not security experts. Various reports note the ease of deployment across thousands of endpoints, supported by automation and scripting. Support and maintenance services from Cynet receive high praise, characterized as responsive and reliable, ensuring minimal complications during and after implementation.

Clients see an ROI from Cynet, though specific measurements aren't always shared. Many organizations praise Cynet's efficiency in preventing cyber threats, avoiding viruses for nearly two years, and halting attacks shortly after implementation. While evaluations from the first year indicate positive feedback, some believe it's too early to accurately assess ROI. Overall, Cynet quickly establishes its worth by effectively stopping several cyberattacks.

Cynet's customer service and support are rated between 9 and 9.5 out of 10.

Users predominantly choose Public Cloud for Cynet, though a significant number also opt for Hybrid Cloud and On-premises. Private Cloud is less frequently selected. Overall, Public Cloud is the most popular option, followed by Hybrid Cloud, On-premises, and Private Cloud, respectively.

Users advise others to consider Cynet under Cynet's guidance for efficient management without external security teams. They appreciate its efficiency and cost savings, recommending trials and comparisons with other systems. Enhancements for improved threat coverage and mobile support are suggested. Users recognize its strong security features but note the need for a skilled workforce. Positive experiences highlight its deployment ease, support, and updates. Some recommend white labeling for sensitive markets, and others commend Cynet's potential to prevent breaches and facilitate skill transfers.

Cynet is a stable option with minimal errors and reliable performance. Users report no bugs, crashes, or freezes over extended use. Its discreet operation is likened to being lightweight, causing no adverse effects on systems or applications. Generally, stability is rated highly, averaging around nine out of ten. Some initial false positives were resolved through easy blacklisting and whitelisting. Few issues have been noted, but updates tend to address these concerns effectively.

<p>Cynet requires minimal management, is easy to use, and has automated features that block malware threats effectively.</p>
<p>Cynet's customer support is highly responsive, providing immediate assistance and follow-up via calls and emails.</p>
<p>Cynet offers advanced detection and protection against ransomware and monitors internal networks and external firewalls efficiently.</p>
<p>Cynet integrates well with other systems and provides comprehensive coverage by combining endpoint data and network analytics for enhanced threat visibility.</p>
<p>Cynet provides robust stability and scalability, making it a reliable and flexible choice for cybersecurity needs.</p>

Cynet needs improved mobile support including an Android app, stronger technical assistance, and more comprehensive reporting. Customization in reports and dashboard enhancements, such as showing client endpoint counts, are desired. Users seek advanced threat detection and time zone flexibility. Easier management of false positives and better third-party integration are suggested. Enhanced automation, URL filtering, and AI capabilities are also needed. Users want improved network traffic checks, remote features, and quicker support response.

Cynet offers a reality graphical user interface, comprehensive support, autonomous malware threat blocking, user behavior analysis, and effective network monitoring. Their solution includes EDR and XDR, 24/7 SOC service, excellent visibility, and advanced deception tactics. Users praise its ease of use, flexible pricing, stability, and minimal management requirements. Cynet integrates incident response with a strong capability in zero-day exploit defense, rapid policy deployment, and automated threat responses, providing a holistic cybersecurity experience.

Cynet has been in use for periods ranging from a few months to approximately five years.

Organizations primarily use Cynet for endpoint protection and threat detection, utilizing its EPP, EDR, and XDR capabilities. It secures workstations, monitors threats, and maintains user functionality. Users apply it for continuous monitoring, zero-day threat defense, and network visibility. With features like NTA, UBA, NGAV, and SIEM, it adapts to diverse IT landscapes. Customers find it effective for real-time monitoring, endpoint detection, and response, using it in various sectors such as medical, commercial, and retail.

Many express confidence in Cynet's scalability, noting its ability to handle numerous endpoints and a range of organizational sizes from small businesses to large enterprises. Several mention seamless handling of large-scale deployments and various environments without performance issues. Comments indicate it supports rapid expansion needs across global clients, efficiently managing thousands of licenses without difficulties. A few observe no major limitations in scalability, while some suggest adding features for enhanced network visibility.

Users evaluated options like SentinelOne, CarbonBlack, CrowdStrike, Cybereason, VMware, Palo Alto, Cortex, Sophos EDR, Darktrace NDR, McAfee, and Trend Micro. Cynet stood out with a combination of network, host, file, directory, and user monitoring, offering easy management. Its cloud capabilities and proactive threat mitigation were highlighted. Price, deployment, and quality were key factors in decision-making, with consultants deeply involved in the selection process. Integration and ease with existing infrastructures increased its appeal.

Cynet helps organizations minimize concern over evolving threats, enabling effective monitoring and response through enhanced endpoint visibility. Its early alert system and integrated cybersecurity features such as EDR, XDR, and antivirus save recovery time. Users appreciate its ability to revert to previous states and block issues by default. They benefit from centralized cybersecurity systems, improved communication among teams, and streamlined threat management, ensuring robust protection and reducing disruptions.

Users evaluated various tools, choosing VMware for its user-friendliness, infrastructure compatibility, and economic log management over alternatives.

Users considered ELK, Runecast, Microsoft Hyper-V, Splunk, Elastic's X-Pack, Centreon, syslog-ng, and Nutanix Prism before choosing VMware Aria Operations for Logs. Some tested Runecast for additional reporting, found VMware's user-friendliness superior to Hyper-V, and transitioned from Splunk due to cost. Elastic's X-Pack was noted for similar functionality. Others relied on VMware’s existing ecosystem with vRealize Log Insight and syslog-ng for multi-vendor environments. Nutanix Prism was preferred for its user-friendly interface.

Users explored alternatives due to SCSM's limitations, favoring Ivanti for ease, while ServiceNow gained popularity for web-based tools.

Users explored various options including ServiceNow, BMC Helix ITSM, InfraStruXure Central, Ivanti, IBM BigFix, and others. Microsoft’s integration capabilities were a key advantage. Some preferred SCSM for its stability while others highlighted user interface and reporting limitations. Jamf and ManageEngine were noted for their custom features. Companies also considered tools like Tableau and VMware, switching from manual processes to automated solutions with varying degrees of success and preference.

Users preferred Postman for its user-friendly interface and free option despite considering many comprehensive testing tool alternatives.

Users considered options like SoapUI, JMeter, Katalon Studio, Selenium, ReadyAPI, Swagger, ADAPT Test, LoadRunner, Tricentis Tosca, UFT, and Fire something. Many preferred Postman for its user-friendliness and graphical support. Postman's accessibility, integration capabilities, and free tier were notable. Some found it lacking compared to ReadyAPI and struggled with ADAPT Test's stability. Despite alternatives for automating and load testing, Postman remains favored for API testing.

Webroot was preferred for its integration, speed, lightweight footprint, and adaptability over heavier alternatives like McAfee and Norton.

Users evaluated several options including Sophos, Kaspersky, Symantec, Trend Micro, BitDefender, and Norton before deciding on Webroot Business Endpoint Protection. Many alternatives like McAfee, AVG, and Pand were considered heavy on resources. Webroot provided better integration and management capabilities. Some used Komodo but found it resource-intensive. Webroot's lightweight nature, intuitive console, and integration with RMM solutions made it appealing, despite its limitations in mobile endpoint protection after March.

Cynet is preferred for its comprehensive features, ease of use, centralized management, and proactive service compared to competitors.

Users evaluated SentinelOne, CarbonBlack, CrowdStrike, Cybereason, VMware, and others, emphasizing Cynet's comprehensive integration, ease of use, and exceptional endpoint protection. They highlighted Cynet's capabilities in mitigation, transparency, and proactive threat management. Recognition by MITRE and the efficiency compared to solutions like Cortex and Trend Micro were significant factors in their choice. Cynet's minimal resource demand and excellent service and support were appreciated, along with its ability to meet unique client requirements.

Users compared AlienVault OSSIM favorably for usability over QRadar, ArcSight, and Splunk, with challenges noted in LogRhythm and TrueRider.

AlienVault OSSIM deployments varied, from individual efforts to teams of twenty, often requiring certification or external support.

AlienVault OSSIM setup ease varies with user experience, network configurations, documentation, third-party tool integration, and business size.

{"quote":"I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"My advice is to simply use it.","score":"6"}

{"quote":"There are somewhat more false positives with the user behavior analytics, which could benefit from an additional machine learning model to detect user patterns more rapidly.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"3"}

The majority of organizations prefer on-premises deployment for AlienVault OSSIM, with fewer opting for a hybrid cloud approach.

8.0

AlienVault OSSIM support varies, with paid users experiencing mixed resolutions, while many rely on community and self-solving.

{"quote":"The deployment process required four resources.","quality_score":"5","sentiment_score":"5"}

AlienVault OSSIM offers threat detection, log collection, and compliance monitoring for enhanced security across cloud and on-premises environments.

AlienVault OSSIM is free initially but may incur costs for enhancements, support, or transitioning to the paid version.

7.589054

AlienVault OSSIM is suitable for small to mid-sized businesses but faces scale challenges in large enterprise environments.

Consider AlienVault OSSIM for cost-effective, easy deployment in smaller networks; explore features and community resources, upgrade for scalability.

AlienVault OSSIM offers threat detection, asset discovery, and vulnerability assessment with easy integration, centralized dashboard, and network security capabilities.

8.5

AlienVault OSSIM faces challenges in scalability, integration, user interface, reporting, and stability, needing better threat detection and customization.

AlienVault OSSIM has been utilized by users for varying durations ranging from one month to over seven years.

Many users found ArcSight pricey and evaluated alternatives like ManageEngine, while others stuck with OSSIM for comprehensive features.

{"quote":"The integration capabilities, especially concerning log sources, need improvement for more flexibility and simplicity in integrating with nodes.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"There are somewhat more false positives with the user behavior analytics, which could benefit from an additional machine learning model to detect user patterns more rapidly.","score":"8"}

AlienVault OSSIM is stable on proper hardware but may have minor bugs and limitations with large infrastructures.

AlienVault OSSIM detects network threats, analyzes IPs, integrates threat exchange, and is ideal for media sector operations.

<p>AlienVault OSSIM provides a comprehensive suite of security tools with threat alerts and network traffic analysis, supported by a strong community. Its stability compares favorably to Qradar and Splunk, offering cost-effective solutions. However, users report delays in threat alerts and difficulties with configurations. While praised for its price-performance ratio, integration with cyber intelligence systems could improve. AlienVault OSSIM also faces challenges in reducing false positives and enhancing real-time threat detection.</p>

{"quote":"Improving user behavior analytics.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"The vulnerability assessment feature could be enhanced with more AI features.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Network traffic analysis is highly efficient.","score":"9"}

AlienVault OSSIM serves as our primary SIEM system, focusing on internet access and enhancing security monitoring. While network traffic analysis is efficient, user behavior analytics and integration capabilities require improvement. We evaluated Wazuh and TrueRider before selecting AlienVault.

<p>AlienVault OSSIM takes time to provide alerts for malicious traffic and has delays in incident reporting.</p><p>Integration with cyber intelligence systems and other environments is lacking, affecting real-time reporting capabilities.</p><p>AlienVault OSSIM is expensive and the cost is considered high compared to other options.</p><p>Initial setup and configuration are complex, requiring extensive reading and are not intuitive.</p><p>AlienVault OSSIM produces many false positives, particularly in user behavior analytics, indicating a need for improved detection models.</p>

Organizations previously used QRadar, ArcSight, Splunk, LogRhythm, Sentinel, Wazuh, and TrueRider before adopting AlienVault OSSIM. QRadar and ArcSight are praised for their user-friendly interfaces and features. Splunk differs mainly in price, requiring custom queries. LogRhythm presented technical challenges. Sentinel offers pre-configured systems. Wazuh is focused on intrusion detection. TrueRider is less community-based. AlienVault OSSIM's functionality led to broad adoption across different settings.

<p>AlienVault OSSIM surpasses its competitors by integrating essential cybersecurity functions like asset discovery, threat intelligence, intrusion detection, and vulnerability assessment into a single platform, providing comprehensive security management and effective threat prevention solutions for organizations.</p>

AlienVault OSSIM is predominantly free as it is an open-source solution, with the Community Edition available at no cost. However, licensing fees apply for the premium versions, offering additional features. These fees are charged annually and can sometimes be considered high compared to competitors like Microsoft Sentinel or Splunk. While the solution offers a strong price-performance ratio, enterprises often need to pay extra for support, and costs can range significantly depending on the version and additional services required.

Users' experiences with AlienVault OSSIM's initial setup vary. Some find it straightforward and quick, likening it to installing a Windows program. Others report complexities due to integration challenges, outdated documentation, or lack of team expertise. Network size and infrastructure scale affect deployment time, ranging from minutes to months. Integration with third-party tools and custom configurations for certain network devices may also extend implementation time, especially in large environments.

Several users managed the implementation of AlienVault OSSIM independently, often utilizing online resources and personal expertise. Some relied on internal teams, with a mix of infrastructure and security engineers. A few involved external consultants or occasionally consulted AlienVault's team. Typically, setups were handled by certified engineers, with deployment requiring varying degrees of resources.

<p>AlienVault OSSIM's customer service and support receive mixed feedback. Paid support shows prompt but occasionally delayed responses. Users note good technical assistance, although many handle challenges independently due to sufficient skills or community resources. Documentation is considered lacking, often requiring self-research or community support. The community version lacks formal support, while paid versions suggest significant improvement. AT&amp;T's focus on cloud services impacts the on-premise documentation and support experience. Overall, users appreciate responsiveness but identify room for improvement.</p>

<p>AlienVault OSSIM provides useful threat alerts that indicate harmful code and monitor network traffic.</p>
<p>AlienVault OSSIM has a supportive open source community that aids in resolving issues through online resources.</p>
<p>Compared to competitors like Qradar and Splunk, AlienVault OSSIM is noted for its stability.</p>
<p>AlienVault OSSIM offers an all-in-one functionality, integrating various security tools into a single platform.</p>
<p>AlienVault OSSIM offers effective threat detection and helps in identifying suspicious activities such as logins from multiple countries.</p>

Users advise others to use AlienVault OSSIM for small or medium environments that do not require handling more than 1,000 events per second. It is appreciated for its simplicity and ease of installation. People recommend considering the commercial version for better support, especially for business settings. The tool's asset discovery and integration with other tools are notable features, though challenges exist with scalability and compatibility. Overall, it is recommended for those starting in cybersecurity.

Most users find AlienVault OSSIM stable, often comparing its performance favorably to Qradar and Splunk. It operates reliably on Linux, without crashing or bugs, provided infrastructure limits are respected. The newest version shows improved performance, though older versions may experience occasional crashes. Stability ratings vary, ranging from moderate to excellent. Some users highlight stability issues with UMS and older versions but newer iterations are deemed highly reliable with proper server configurations.

Most users implement AlienVault OSSIM in an on-premises environment, with a significant number opting for this model. A smaller segment utilizes a hybrid cloud approach.

AlienVault OSSIM faces challenges with integration, scalability, and user interface complexity. It struggles with handling large deployments and high traffic, has outdated features, and provides insufficient integration with new tools. The system is complex to configure, requires expert knowledge, and offers limited customization options. The threat response time is slow, impacting compliance for sectors like banking. Additionally, improvements are needed in log management, dashboards, and security analytics capabilities. Pricing is also considered high for some users.

AlienVault OSSIM's strengths include threat alerts, asset discovery, logging capabilities, vulnerability assessment, data correlation, and network traffic analysis. Its integration with various tools and ease of use are praised, as are its user-friendly dashboard and advanced threat policies. Free usage is a major benefit. The architecture and reporting capabilities are appreciated, along with self-paced training. Users value the built-in IDS, threat intelligence, and investigation features for enhancing network security and visibility.

AlienVault OSSIM is primarily used for monitoring and threat detection, log collection, incident management, and compliance with industry standards. Users implement OSSIM for securing traffic, analyzing events, vulnerability scanning, and network visibility. It helps identify malicious activities, provides a comprehensive SIEM system, and supports user and network analysis. Businesses use its features such as event correlation, local action, and IDS capabilities in both on-premise and cloud environments for enhancing cybersecurity posture.

Users considered ArcSight but found it too expensive and lacking sales channels in Egypt. Some evaluated ELK Stack, Security Onion, Wazuh, ManageEngine, FortiSIEM, and TrueRider. Several users didn't compare others because AlienVault OSSIM met their needs for modules like vulnerability scanners and IDS systems, and was free. Some explored alternatives for selling to customers, while others were interested in a fully-featured SIEM with UBA.

Users have utilized AlienVault OSSIM for a range between one month and over seven years.

AlienVault OSSIM exhibits varying scalability levels, managing different setups efficiently, from mid-size businesses to small networks. Users highlight its flexible architecture and capability to connect multiple sources, with specific limits noted for enterprise demands. Some experience challenges integrating it with network devices or retaining logs. Others mention its suitability for smaller environments, citing its role as a data collector. While many agree it's scalable, opinions differ on its effectiveness under extensive expansion.

AlienVault OSSIM assists media organizations by identifying critical vulnerabilities such as brute force and web attacks. Users find threats like WannaCry and malicious IPs through integration with Open Threat Exchange, enabling them to block threats via firewalls. Its open-source nature allows deep IP investigation and log analysis, maximizing network security. Organizations benefit from asset discovery based on traffic signatures and cost savings.

Organizations switched to Meraki for its cloud management and integrated dashboard, moving from older solutions or integrating with existing brands.

Meraki MS Switches are user-friendly, enabling quick deployment, though some clients may require integrator support for complex configurations.

Meraki MS Switches offer responsive support, with some challenges in response times; users appreciate their knowledgeable and helpful teams.

Many users prefer on-premises Meraki MS Switches, while public and private cloud usage is evenly split, with fewer hybrid solutions.

Organizations using Meraki MS Switches prefer various cloud providers, including Microsoft Azure, tailored to specific needs.