Forcepoint DLP promises to address human-centric risk by providing visibility and control everywhere your people work and everywhere
your data resides. Security teams apply user-risk scoring to focus on the events that matter most and to accelerate
compliance with global data regulations. The vendor promises these benefits: Accelerate compliance Empower people to protect data Advanced detection and controls that follow the data RESPOND…
N/A
Rapid7 InsightVM
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
InsightVM is presented as the next evolution of Nexpose, by Rapid7. This Insight cloud-based solution features everything included in Nexpose, such as Adaptive Security and the proprietary Real Risk score, and extends visibility into cloud and containerized infrastructure. InsightVM also offers advanced remediation, tracking, and reporting capabilities not included in Nexpose.
-Where companies need to secure their attachment, which goes outside, means from their company to outside -Where companies need to ensure their client's personal information -Where companies need DLP. They need to look for Forcepoint only, as they have the upper hand over the rest of their competitors.
InsightVM is great for finding all devices on your network and where the misconfigurations exist. We all have to patch our systems and applications, but it can be difficult to keep track of which systems are up to date. This tool is very helpful in filling in this gap and helping you organize that information. It is easy to get a big picture view of how your organization is doing from a vulnerability perspective, and it is equally as easy to drill down and get specific details that you need. Prioritization is crucial when it comes to this space, because you can never address every vulnerability, so you need to make sure the highest priority items are being remediated. R7's tool excels in this area and highlights items you weren't even aware of.
It has predominantly protected us from unauthorized parties and has provided us with better visibility and control over our data.
This software has also successfully prevented us from both malicious and accidental tasks, which are quite flexible actions when it comes to the violation of data loss prevention policies.
This product has been successful in improving compliance and even mitigating compliance violations, which further facilitated IT security.
I think there is room for improvement, as the user interface is slightly rough and difficult to adopt in the beginning. The software also hangs up at a few instances, which leads to some wasting of time and annoyance, but other than that, this software is good. The technical staff should work on the complexities for a better user experience.
Forcepoint technical support--specially for users who go with essential support--is challenging to get support on time. You need the ticket to be raised long beforehand to get support from TAC. However, in the case of enterprise support, its is not like this technical person will come on a priority basis.
However it comes with higher prices, especially for SMB, it is allowed to pay that amount for support only.
From my experience of using this tool, sometimes it gives more false positives. A few times I had performed the scan on the same IP address using QualysGuard and Nexpose, but after comparing the scan results I had found that QualysGuard had provided more accurate vulnerability information.
We have been fairly happy with the product and how it has worked. We have looked at other vendors for url filter and such and have not found one that meets our needs or does what we have been doing with Websense. The product has been fairly stable and we have only had a few issues in the past. We have all seen that it was one of the highest leaders from the Gartner Group Magic Quadrant for Web Gateways.
For us, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention was difficult to administer, did not work well when it did work, was incredibly expensive for the feature set you get, and was difficult to uninstall when we moved on from the software. Once it was fully set up, it worked occasionally for us.
While I think it is a great tool and platform, I believe it (like all tools and solutions) is always evolving and the needs for clients are changing as the industry evolves and threats are upgraded. Cost is good, and support is helpful. Some things could be more granular and others could be easier to understand
Support from Forcepoint has been lacking. When calling in with a high priority issue we rarely are able to work with a technician immediately. The queue waits are very long and when you get through there are no support engineers available and we need to wait for a call back for hours it seems.
I gave it a seven due to the functionality and general ease of use after the initial setup headaches, but compared to Qualys, Rapid7 Nexpose falls short on features and ease of use. Their support drags this rating down a point as well. I have gone weeks with no update on semi-critical issues and typically have to make call after call to get a semi-coherent response.
User friendly solution that makes it easy to deploy and manage. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention very effective to protecting our valuable data on endpoints and where data lives like in the Cloud, server and on-premises disk drives and its valuable to just set policies once and start utilizing Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention solution.
Rapid7 InsightVM is a more professional tool than Nessus because historically, it was based on metasploit which is a powerful pentesting and exploiting tool. InsightVM covers more attacking scenarios and vulnerabilities than competitors and still a leader in this domain.cloud capability is also not available forNesuus and some other products. Rapid7 InsightVM is a way better as a pentesting tool in my opinion
The exchange of financial documents with customers creates extreme risk as data loss could result in financial and reputation damage to the customer. The cost of deploying Forcepoint is fractions of pennies compared to the potential financial impact of data loss.
There is some administrative overhead associated as false positives are inevitable, requiring a manual review and a potential loss of productivity.
After spending 2 years configuring, tuning, troubleshooting, and ultimately having nothing but regrets, we migrated away from the tool and accepted the loss.
Support had a variety of opinions, none of them consistent. No best practices. Lots of secret tricks known by support, none documented or shared until after problems are found.
Consulting services are available to come out and do a health check of your deployment, for a fee.
