Jamf Protect vs. OpenText EnCase Endpoint Security

The main reason we went with Jamf Protect was because we wanted a dedicated macOS security endpoint. Is was easy to implement and migrate over from our previous endpoint provider. As a university we have lab macOS devices that multiple users use. So we have Jamf Protect profiles that block the use of external drives and other other profiles that allow it. We different user accounts requiring different access this can get a bit messy when deploying the config profiles at login for each user that signs in.

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

• Low resource use Protected Agent - stops tampering with agent and is not a resource hog
• Managed and custom Analytics - along with the out of the box Analytics provided by JAMF, admins can also set up their own to focus on areas of concern eg NISTcompliance items
• Vendor support - support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• The integration with Jamf Pro has come a long way but could still be a bit more "one stop" vs two tools and two dashboards.

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

In some aspects, Jamf Protect was far superior to the others mentioned above. The only downside I can see is that it is only macOS which could be a problem for hybrid environments.

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

• Better detection of malware reducing downtime and risk to network
• Easy to implement
• Can be a bit of a steep learning curve in general

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