D3 Security vs. OpenText EnCase Endpoint Security

D3 is clearly tailoring their approach to large organizations with a significant geographical footprint who are largely in need of a tool that provides robust analytics and activity graphing to analyze productivity and supervisory efficiency at the executive level. However, small to medium-sized organizations and those with narrow geographical footprints may find the investment vastly more expensive than the return. The implementation of minimum purchasing guidelines means that smaller departments will be forced into purchasing tools they have little to no use for, and medium-size departments will be paying a high price for features they do find helpful but could get elsewhere for a substantially lower price. Additionally, small to medium-sized users may find that D3's focus on large organizational level tools is less helpful than some smaller competitor's software which provides a number of capabilities with more operational relevance for environments like office buildings, college campuses, university police departments, and housing associations. Overall, I would recommend D3 to large organizations who have need of the advanced tools included in their more expensive modules. The lack of some smaller levels of customization, 1st line operational features, and the high-end user interface is less important at that level of implementation.

Incentivized

It is more suited to environments that have a large internal user base since there will be more incidents that require forensic analysis. It will be less suited for environments that have a small internal user base due to the fact that there would be fewer incidents that require forensic analysis, but it really depends on the industry that a small internal user base is a part of.

Incentivized

• Great Automation in incident response.
• Reduce complexity and security threats.
• Best SOAR security platform.

Incentivized

• Functionality meets minimal requirements, since it performs forensic investigations as advertised.

Incentivized

• A lack of documentation of the administrative interface.
• Additional training is needed to take advantage of all of the features.
• Remediation and post-incident activities are not supported.

Incentivized

• Their UI definitely needs to be more user-friendly, right now it is very cumbersome to run and view investigations.
• Authentication mechanism should be a simple username/password, not certificate-based which is difficult to manage.
• Needs better support documentation for the product, it is difficult to find solutions to issues that we run into.

Incentivized

Because support is non-existent whenever you have a functionality issue using the product. Also since the UI is so cumbersome to use we could use as much support as possible. Whenever we ask for support we are told to take the training which costs us more money. I believe that support should be easily accessible and affordable for the client

Incentivized

The other forensic tool that is a direct competitor to EnCase and wasn't listed above is the Forensic Toolkit or FTK. I believe that FTK is a better tool overall simply because it is easier to manage and use when it comes to investigations. Unfortunately, I wasn't part of the decision process and EnCase was the tool selected, otherwise, I would have recommended FTK.

Incentivized

• More stability in aggrieved systems.
• Drops in cyberattacks from early reports to 34%.
• Cost savings of 12% per year.

Incentivized

• One negative impact would be that since the UI is cumbersome to use we would need to spend more money on training which is not always feasible.
• Another negative impact would be that since there is not much support available this slows down investigations due to finding out how to troubleshoot and fix functionality issues.
• One positive impact would be that since it meets minimal requirements when it comes to forensic analysis it gives us visibility on any malicious activity occurring on a user's endpoint.

Incentivized