Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms

Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms
Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection
Platforms
Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00208912, Peter Firstbrook, John Girard, Neil MacDonald,
17 December 2010, V2RA812222011
Malware effectiveness continues to accelerate, while vendors are
busy polishing increasingly ineffective solutions and doing little
to fundamentally reduce the attack surface and protect users.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
• This year’s analysis did not show considerable movement of vendors from last year’s
analysis.
• Malware detection accuracy has not improved significantly, while malware is improving in
efficiency and volume.
• The inclusion of basic vulnerability and configuration management in endpoint protection
platform (EPP) suites is still low as vendors continue to focus on signature-based defenses
rather than addressing root causes.
• Application control (also referred to as “default deny” or “whitelisting”) holds significant
promise, but with a few exceptions, most of the vendors in this analysis do not provide
flexible enough solutions for larger enterprises.
MAGIC QUADRANT
Market Overview
The threat environment continues to outpace improvements in malware detection
effectiveness. High-profile attacks, such as Aurora and Stuxnet in 2010, illustrate the
growing sophistication of malware attacks. While the volume and effectiveness of malware
are growing rapidly, there have been few effective improvements in EPP vendors’ defensive
technologies. Gartner clients are increasingly frustrated with having to clean PCs from wellknown consumer infections like “Fake AV” and are concerned about the potential impact of
more stealthy, undetected, targeted attacks.
Signature-based malware detection has been limping along on life support for years, yet
vendors seem unwilling to aggressively invest in more-effective solutions, preferring to “tweak”
the existing paradigm. Dedicated host-based intrusion prevention system (HIPS) has failed
to live up to its promise as a proactive protection method due to the management overhead
required for marginal improvements in detection accuracy. The disillusionment with HIPS was
illustrated by Cisco’s retirement of its CSA product in 2010. Some effective HIPS techniques
are making their way into the core anti-malware engines, and these solutions provide
significant additional value in detecting new threats. However, they are not sufficient to keep
pace with the changing threat landscape.
2
We believe that attention to better software
management and maintenance is the key to
reducing the attack surface and protecting
users from social engineering attacks. “Default
deny” methods of controlling what software
is loaded onto machines (aka application
control), configuration management, and
vulnerability detection and remediation are
the most effective proactive forms of malware
defense. These methods reduce the overall
attack surface and neuter the vast majority of
threats.
Figure 1. Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms
challengers
ability to execute
We are starting to sound like a broken
record. As far back as 2004, we have been
saying that enterprise anti-malware vendors
are falling behind in dealing with the current
security threats. This year, they have fallen
even further behind. Test after test has
illustrated that current solutions are less than
50% effective at detecting new variations of
existing threats and much worse at detecting
targeted or low-volume threats, although
testing methodologies have also not kept
pace with changing EPP suite capabilities.
Kaspersky Lab
Panda Security
Eset
CA Technologies
Microsoft
GFI Software
leaders
Symantec
McAfee
Trend Micro
Sophos
Check Point Software Technologies
LANDesk
BigFix-IBM
Lumension Security
eEye Digital Security
SkyRecon Systems
However, we continue to see very slow
progress toward integrating these solutions
into current EPP suites. LANDesk, BigFixniche players
visionaries
IBM, Lumension Security, CA Technologies,
Check Point Software Technologies and
completeness of vision
McAfee have begun to address application
control needs, but fall short of point solutions
As of December 2010
Source: Gartner (December 2010)
that address this market. Symantec has
invested in a unique file reputation system
(From "Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx," XX Xxxxxxx 2010)
for its consumer products, but it is still
unavailable in its enterprise engine. McAfee,
Symantec, Lumension, BigFix, LANDesk and
eEye Digital Security are similarly addressing vulnerability and/or
Lumension, SkyRecon Systems, Check Point, CA, LANDesk,
configuration compliance checking. However, these tools need to
McAfee, Sophos and Symantec all offer port/device solutions, but
be better integrated into the base EPP suite, and make it easier
there is significant variation in the level of sophistication of these
to acquire, understand and manage this information from the EPP
tools.
management consoles. Because most malware is Web-borne, it is
not surprising that a few vendors are starting to beef up protection
Data protection tools, such as full disk and file/folder encryption
from malicious websites. Check Point, Trend Micro, GFI Software,
and data loss prevention (DLP), are becoming standard
Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Sophos and Symantec have integrated
components of endpoint security toolkits, as companies attempt to
some level of Web protection, but there is significant room for
address insider theft, government compliance and data protection.
improvement in protecting devices from the Web infection vector.
While it is not entirely necessary that the data protection capability
be included with malware defense in an EPP suite, it can be
Port/device control is another topic that is rising to the top of
significantly less expensive and easier to manage if it is. McAfee,
RFP requirements. More and more organizations want to be
Symantec, Trend Micro, Sophos and CA are providers that offer
able to control which USB peripheral devices are used and how.
data protection tools, although the level of integration of these tools
© 2010 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This publication may not be
reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner’s prior written permission. The information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources
believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information and shall have no liability for errors,
omissions or inadequacies in such information. This publication consists of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as
statements of fact. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Although Gartner research may include a discussion of related legal
issues, Gartner does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company, and its
shareholders may include firms and funds that have financial interests in entities covered in Gartner research. Gartner’s Board of Directors may include senior
managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced independently by its research organization without input or influence from these firms, funds or
their managers. For further information on the independence and integrity of Gartner research, see “Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity” on its
website, http://www.gartner.com/technology/about/ombudsman/omb_guide2.jsp
3
is still a critical differentiator. Data protection that is well integrated
with the EPP capabilities can offer correlated policy options that
address complex business use cases and are more flexible.
Prompted by the rapid growth of employee-owned devices, such
as laptops and iPads, and significantly more capable smartphones,
such as iPhones, Windows Phone 7 and Androids, organizations
are becoming increasingly concerned about the potential for data
loss and malware introduction from these devices. So far, the
threat environment remains very low on these platforms, so antimalware is not yet an essential on these platforms. However, the
abilities to manage these devices, enforce native security functions
(for example, passwords, encryption and remote wipe), and simplify
ActiveSync integration are moving up the requirements list. McAfee,
LANDesk and Check Point are vendors that are beginning to
directly address this issue. Mobile device management and security
is another domain that sits at the intersection between PC life cycle
management (PCLM) tools and EPP suites and is another benefit of
these solutions becoming more tightly integrated.
Other improvements we detected in this year’s analysis were
focused around improvements in management consoles and
reporting and improvements in the breadth of platform coverage
(for example, 64-bit Windows 7, SharePoint and Macintosh). Only a
few vendors (McAfee and Trend Micro) have addressed the specific
needs of virtualization; however, we see this capability increasing in
importance to buyers.
Market Definition/Description
The enterprise endpoint protection platform market is a composite
market primarily made up of suites of products — which include
anti-malware; anti-spyware; personal firewall; host-based intrusion
prevention; port and device control; encryption of full disks, files
and folders; and endpoint DLP.
Despite the introduction of new players, the displacement of
incumbents is still a significant challenge in the large-enterprise
market. The biggest impact of the Challengers and Visionaries
is to push the dominant market players into investing in new
features and functionality, and to keep pricing rational. This market
continues to be very competitive in the sub-thousand-seat level.
Current prices for comparable offerings are down from our last
analysis; however, vendors are often substituting more-complete
suite offerings with little or no increase in annual costs.
In 2009 (the last year for which we have full-year numbers), the
enterprise market was still dominated by McAfee (24%), Symantec
(27%) and Trend Micro (17%), which represent approximately
68% of the total enterprise market. However, the share of these
dominant players is down considerably from 85% in 2007. These
market leaders are losing market share to increased competition
in the lower end of the market with less than 1,000 seats. Sophos
(9%) and Kaspersky (4%) are the primary beneficiaries of this trend
and are improving mind share and market share in the enterprise
market.
The market size at the end of 2009 was around 2.7 billion, flat
from 2008, due to increasingly competitive pricing, slow growth
of enterprise PC inventory and cannibalization of point product
revenue by suites. We anticipate growth rates of approximately 5%
in 2010 and 2011.
Despite our previous optimistic predictions, Microsoft’s impact
on the enterprise market has been minimal as it has repeatedly
delayed its next-generation offering until the end of 2010, and our
expectations for future growth are tempered by Microsoft’s glacially
slow development pace.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion in this Magic Quadrant was limited to vendors that met
the following minimum criteria:
• Detection and cleaning of malware (that is, malware, spyware,
rootkits, trojans and worms), a personal firewall, and HIPS for
servers and PCs.
• Centralized management, configuration and reporting
capabilities for all products listed above, which are sufficient to
support companies of at least 5,000 geographically dispersed
endpoints.
• Global service and support organizations to support products.
Added
• We added GFI Software and Lumension Security to this year’s
analysis.
Dropped
• Prevx was recently acquired by Webroot. Webroot does not
have a significant enterprise presence in the EPP market.
• F-Secure appeared in our last analysis but did not respond to
our request for information for this year’s analysis.
4
Evaluation Criteria
Completeness of Vision
Ability to Execute
The most important vision criteria in this analysis were market
understanding and the sum of the weighted offering/product
strategy score:
The key Ability to Execute criteria used to evaluate vendors in 2010
were overall viability and market responsiveness and track record.
The following criteria were evaluated for their contribution to the
vertical dimension of the Magic Quadrant:
• Overall Viability: This included an assessment of financial
resources (such as the ability to make necessary investments
in new products or channels) and the experience and focus of
the executive team. We also looked at the business strategy of
each vendor’s endpoint protection division and how strategic it
is to the overall company.
• Market Responsiveness and Track Record: We evaluated
each vendor’s track record in bringing new, high-quality
products and features to customers in a timely manner.
• Sales Execution/Pricing: We evaluated the vendor’s market
share and growth rate. We also looked at the strength of
channel programs, geographic presence, and the track records
of success with technology or business partnerships.
• Marketing Execution: We evaluated the frequency of vendors’
appearances on shortlists and RFPs, according to Gartner client
inquiries, as well as reference and channel checks. We also
looked at brand presence and market visibility.
• Customer Experience: We primarily used reference customers’
satisfaction scoring of the vendor in an online survey and data
received from Gartner clients during our inquiry process to
score vendors on customer satisfaction with the company and
the product.
• Operations: We evaluated companies’ resources that were
dedicated to malware research and product R&D.
• Market Understanding: This describes vendors that
understand customer requirements for proactive and integrated
defenses across all malware threat types, consider the need for
better management and data security, and have an innovative
and timely road map to provide this functionality.
• Offering (Product) Strategy: When evaluating vendors’
product offerings, we looked at the following product
differentiators:
• Anti-malware detection and prevention capabilities: This
is the speed, accuracy, transparency and completeness of
signature-based defenses, as well as the quality, quantity,
accuracy and ease of administration of non-signature-based
defenses and removal capabilities for installed malware.
We looked at test results from various independent testing
organizations and used Gartner inquiries as guides to the
effectiveness of these techniques on modern malware.
• Personal firewall capabilities: This is advanced personal
firewall capabilities that exceed the built-in capabilities
of Microsoft Windows. We looked at features such as
dynamic policy enforcement (for example, location-based
policy, specific virtual private network [VPN] policy and
wireless policy capability), the breadth of firewall log
capture information, anti-firewall-tampering capabilities and
application-specific firewall policy.
• Management and reporting capabilities: This is
comprehensive centralized reporting that enhances the realtime visibility of end-node security state and administration
capabilities, which eases the management burden of
Table 2. Completeness of Vision Evaluation Criteria
Table 1. Ability to Execute Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Weighting
Evaluation Criteria
Weighting
Product/Service
No rating
Market Understanding
High
Overall Viability (Business Unit, Financial,
Strategy, Organization)
High
Marketing Strategy
No rating
Sales Strategy
No rating
Sales Execution/Pricing
Standard
Offering (Product) Strategy
High
Market Responsiveness and Track Record
High
Business Model
No rating
Marketing Execution
Standard
Vertical/Industry Strategy
No rating
Customer Experience
Standard
Innovation
Standard
Operations
Standard
Geographic Strategy
Low
Source: Gartner (December 2010)
Source: Gartner (December 2010)
5
policy and configuration development. Vendors that have
embarked on PCLM-style operation integration showed
considerable leadership and were given extra credit for
showing up positive on this criterion.
• Data and information protection: This is the quantity
and quality of integrated technology to protect data that
resides on endpoints, such as full-disk encryption, data
leak prevention, and port and device controls. Although we
argued above that these technologies aren’t mandatory
requirements of every buyer, they do demonstrate vendor
vision and leadership in this market.
• Device and port control capabilities: We explored the
granularity and integration of policy-based controls for
a broad range of ports and peripheral devices, such as
USB and printer ports. We looked for granular control of a
range of device types, interaction with encryption and DLP
policy, and convenience elements, such as end-user selfauthorization options.
• Application control capability: We looked for the ability to
apply a flexible default deny-application policy that allows
for trusted sources of change and can handle requirements
ranging from full lockdown to allowing any trusted
application to run. We focused on ease of administration
and exception management.
• Supported platforms: Several vendors focused solely on
Windows endpoints, but the leading vendors are able to
support the broad range of endpoint and server platforms
typically found in a large-enterprise environment. In
particular, we looked for support for specialized servers,
such as e-mail, collaboration portals (such as SharePoint,
storage area networks and network-attached storage), the
ability to optimize security for virtualized environments, and
support for Mac and mobile devices.
The other criteria evaluated were:
• Sales Strategy: We evaluated each vendor’s licensing and
pricing programs and practices.
• Innovation: We evaluated vendors’ responses to the changing
nature of customer demands. We accounted for how vendors
reacted to malicious code threats, such as spyware and
targeted attacks, how they invested in R&D, or how they
pursued a targeted acquisition strategy.
• Geographic Strategy: We evaluated each vendor’s ability to
support global customers, as well as the number of languages
supported.
Leaders
Leaders demonstrate balanced progress and effort in all execution
and vision categories. Their capabilities in advanced malware
protection, data protection and/or management features raise
the competitive bar for all products in the market, and they can
change the course of the industry. A leading vendor isn’t a default
choice for every buyer, and clients should not assume that they
must buy only from vendors in the Leaders quadrant. Some clients
believe that Leaders are spreading their efforts too thinly and aren’t
pursuing clients’ special needs.
Challengers
Challengers have solid anti-malware products that address the
basic security needs of the mass market, and they have stronger
sales, visibility and/or security lab clout, which add up to a higher
execution than Niche Players offer. Challengers are good at
competing on basic functions rather than on advanced features.
Challengers are efficient and expedient choices for narrowly defined
problems.
Visionaries
Visionaries invest in the leading-edge (aka “bleeding-edge”)
features — such as advanced malware protection, data protection
and/or management capabilities — that will be significant in the
next generation of products, and will give buyers early access to
improved security and management. Visionaries can affect the
course of technological developments in the market, but they
haven’t yet demonstrated execution. Clients pick Visionaries for
best-of-breed features, and in the case of small vendors, clients
may enjoy more personal attention.
Niche Players
Niche Players offer viable, uncomplicated anti-malware solutions
that meet the basic needs of buyers. Niche Players are less
likely to appear on shortlists, but fare well when given a chance.
Niche Players may address the advanced security needs of highly
attacked organizations or low-overhead, basic anti-malware for the
broader market. Clients tend to pick Niche Players when the focus
is on a few specific functions and features that are important to
them.
Vendor Strengths and Cautions
CA Technologies
CA’s EPP products have undergone a complete redesign since our
last analysis. Release 12 of its Web-based management console for
both anti-malware and HIPS capabilities improved role-based access
control, unmanaged endpoint discovery and client installation,
reporting, and auditing. It also converged its two clients into a single
anti-malware and HIPS client. However, in 2010, CA has moved
down in its ability to execute due to slow market responsiveness,
stagnant market share and low visibility among non-CA customers.
CA customers and global organizations seeking uncomplicated EPP
capabilities should consider CA Threat Manager r12.
Strengths
• The new r12 console based on an Adobe Flex user interface
offers significantly improved management and reporting, as
compared with prior versions, and includes the capability
to stream alerts about critical external events directly to the
console from CA.
6
• With the converged anti-malware engine, CA Threat Manager
Total Defense solution is on par in terms of the basic functional
specifications for an EPP solution.
• CA’s DLP (acquired from Orchestria in 2008) is still a separate
product managed from a separate division and has not yet
been fully integrated.
• The CA firewall can enforce policies by network context, and it
provides excellent capabilities to set policies to defend or deny
the operation of a new network interface, including restricting
which ports and services are active.
• There is no integration between CA EPP and its PCLM
offerings.
• CA’s HIPS capability includes numerous system checks, as
well as vulnerability shielding, sandbox execution and behavioral
anomaly detection. Its learning mode capability eases setup and
policy creation.
• CA offers unified network control (UNC) in its r12 suite,
which provides Microsoft Network Access Protection (NAP)
capabilities, including inventory, patch, vulnerability and
configuration assessment.
• CA has made significant investments in enterprise data
protection and has strong endpoint data protection options.
It is among a small number of ranked vendors with the ability
to block certain data leakage operations on a per-application
basis, such as using the clipboard.
• r12 provides port and device controls, including control over
USB, Bluetooth, CD, infrared device, DVD and floppy disk drives.
• CA offers very broad platform support, including several
varieties of Unix/Linux, Mac, Palm, Windows Mobile, VMware,
Microsoft Hyper-V and Citrix presentation servers, as well as
specialized servers, such as Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes/
Domino, Novell NetWare, NetApp and EMC storage servers.
• CA offers solid application control capabilities, with one of the
largest databases of applications grouped into categories (for
example, games).
Cautions
• CA’s long-awaited r12 console is much improved, but brings it
only to parity with what other EPP leaders already offer and is
not yet well field-tested. Some features are still lagging, such as
extensive control over scheduled scans, flexible administrator
role creation and custom dashboard widgets.
• Reference customers were lukewarm in their endorsement of
CA.
Check Point Software Technologies
Well-known in the enterprise network firewall and VPN market,
Check Point continues to improve its EPP product suite with an
emphasis on addressing the increasing proliferation of unmanaged
devices. Despite its laudable enterprise network presence, brand
and channel, the company has failed to significantly improve its
market share or mind share in this market. Organizations that
value strong integration between remote-access solutions and the
EPP suite, full-disk and media encryption, and application control
solutions should include Check Point on their shortlists.
Strengths
• Check Point Endpoint Security suite includes personal firewall,
anti-malware/anti-spyware (licensed from Kaspersky Lab), fulldisk encryption, network access control (NAC) and integrated
VPN in a single client deployment.
• Check Point’s management console was recently improved
and integrates malware protection and data encryption suite
offerings. It offers a clean interface with easy navigation
and quick access to summary data (overview/dashboard,
organization, policies, reports and deployment) that is very
similar to a network firewall interface. Reporting is significantly
improved. The dashboard can be customized for each
administrator. It provides good hierarchical and object-oriented
policy and can exploit network firewall policy objects, such as
network zones, in client firewall policy and can leverage installed
gateway appliances as relays for client updates. Check Point
offers a unique user-based management capability that allows
administrators to develop and view user-specific policies across
multiple devices.
• The personal firewall is comprehensive and includes extensive
prepopulated program profiles, excellent location-based policies
and very good VPN client integration.
• CA’s lack of participation in independent anti-malware testing
makes it difficult to validate malware detection effectiveness. CA
releases only two signature updates per day.
• Check Point has some basic HIPS techniques in its firewall and
as part of the Kaspersky engine.
• CA’s firewall technology is powerful, but policies can be
complex to configure.
• Check Point’s Program Advisor service allows administrators to
enable application control of acceptable applications based on
an existing inventory of applications, certificates and/or Check
Point’s database of known good applications.
• CA lacks integrated full-disk/file encryption products, and CA
lacks the ability to enforce encryption on data written to external
storage devices.
• Check Point has very strong full-disk and file/media encryption,
as well as extensive port control, including very granular device
and file identification.
7
• NAC is extensive for remote access via Check Point’s VPN
and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) VPN products, and it includes
an on-demand scanner for unmanaged machines. LAN NAC
is limited to personal or network firewall enforcement, or
participation in an infrastructure NAC solution (that is, 802.1X).
• Check Point added browser protection technology from
ZoneAlarm, which helps clients avoid malicious Web-based
malware.
Cautions
• Check Point is challenged in sufficiently differentiating itself from
its core malware detection engine partner, Kaspersky, for clients
seeking basic protection, or from market leaders for clients
seeking data protection solutions.
• Although the management console provides a good summary
view of the EPP agent status, it does not include any
vulnerability or configuration assessments, nor does it have any
integration with operations tools.
• Check Point is dependent on Kaspersky for anti-malware
signatures to review suspicious code samples and to prepare
custom signatures for targeted malware. Although signatures
are becoming a replaceable commodity, business disruptions in
Kaspersky could impact Check Point customers.
• The Check Point management console is a Windows client/
server application rather than browser-based. Check Point is
dependent on software distribution tools to install the initial
client, and lacks the ability to remove other anti-malware
products. The solution doesn’t include many options to
minimize the impact of scheduled scans, such as the impact on
CPU use, or to avoid conflicts with critical programs.
• Check Point’s program control solution can’t prevent
programs from installing. It only blocks network access via
firewall permissions and terminates the process. Program
control doesn’t clearly pinpoint machines with particular rogue
applications, thereby making remediation more difficult than
necessary. Program control is not flexible enough for larger
enterprises. It doesn’t have a good centralized way of allowing
trusted sources of change.
• The SmartDefense HIPS policy isn’t tunable and doesn’t allow
administrators to whitelist applications that incur false positives.
• The NAC solution doesn’t support guest NAC enforcement.
• Port control device management is included in the media
encryption solution rather than in the firewall.
• Check Point’s data protection strategy is still missing clientbased content-aware DLP.
• Check Point protection is limited to Windows endpoint PCs. It
doesn’t offer protection for Macs or specialized servers, such as
Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes or Microsoft SharePoint.
eEye Digital Security
eEye’s historical strength has been in vulnerability analysis. As
the EPP market has evolved to broader platform capabilities,
eEye has remained focused on its traditional strength of malware
and intrusion prevention capabilities, backed by its own malware
research labs and augmented by a licensed signature database.
Since our last review, eEye has redesigned and unified the
management consoles of its various offerings, including vulnerability
analysis, providing a much more holistic security state assessment.
This improvement moved eEye over the line into the Visionaries
quadrant. Existing eEye Retina customers should shortlist Blink.
Other buyers, such as enterprises seeking a tactical HIPS solution
to supplement signature-based protection and native firewalls on
Windows clients and servers, and enterprises that value integrated
vulnerability analysis, should consider eEye Blink.
Strengths
• The Retina CS management console has been redesigned with
a modern, Flash-based user interface and has been unified
across the various eEye offerings.
• Blink uses an embedded version of eEye’s Retina Network
Security Scanner to perform local vulnerability assessments and
report the findings to the Retina CS console. eEye has launched
the Retina Protection Agent (RPA), which is a subset of Blink
(minus antivirus and firewall), designed to work alongside
other EPP and antivirus solutions, and to provide agent-based
vulnerability assessment and intrusion prevention services.
• All functions are packaged in a single agent, including the
Norman signature engine. Layers of function are easily enabled
or disabled by the administrator without making changes to the
installed image or drivers. Security policies can be monitored
and updated from outside the firewall without requiring a VPN.
Change management details are held in XML files for revision
monitoring and control. The actual installed footprint stored and
in RAM is relatively small.
• Since our last analysis, eEye has added a new generic heapspraying detection and vulnerable ActiveX protection for Internet
Explorer. It has also added an on-access scanning throttle to
allow deeper scanning for user-accessed files and improved
buffer overflow protection.
• eEye is the only company in this analysis to offer a service-level
agreement (within 48 hours) on new critical exploits, meaning
that it will protect against these exploits within 48 hours even if
the system is unpatched.
• eEye uniquely offers physical management appliances for rapid
deployment and management, and offers a software as a
service (SaaS) product for vulnerability assessment.
8
• Anti-malware performance is enhanced by not rescanning files that
were previously marked “good” if the file hash hasn’t changed.
• eEye has a small but very skilled team of malware experts that
provides excellent technical support and malware information.
Cautions
• eEye is one of the smallest companies in this market, and it has
a limited presence outside North America and in organizations
with more than 500 employees. Its total staff size, including
research and engineering groups, is small compared with the
EPP industry average.
• The management console is improving but still may be limiting
for larger enterprises. Policy is based on physical hosts, not
directory groups. Although directory information can be imported,
it is a one-time association. Some client configuration options
must be done on an endpoint, using the registry, and exported
to the management console and applied to other groups.
The addition of vulnerability information in the management
console is a significant benefit of eEye; however, the solution
lacks actionable guidance. There is a reporting linkage between
vulnerabilities and HIPS-based vulnerability shields, but it is not in
the dashboard. It does not offer an ad hoc reporting capability or
custom dashboards. The solution has the capability to blacklist
applications, but it is a manual process with no trusted sources
of change. It offers limited NAC integration.
• Although eEye develops its own spyware signature database
and cleanup routines, the solution relies on Norman for antimalware signatures. Although signature feeds from reputable
labs are becoming a replaceable commodity, business
disruptions in Norman could impact eEye customers. Although
the Norman anti-malware engine is tested regularly, eEye
does not participate in many industry tests to demonstrate the
effectiveness of its collection of technologies. It offers only one
signature update per day, while other vendors have gone to
real-time cloud-based signature updates. Automated malware
damage cleanup capabilities are limited.
• eEye has limited application and device control capabilities, but
no encryption or DLP capabilities. It lacks the ability to enforce
encryption on data that’s written to external storage devices,
but it does have a number of policies to limit access and writing
to external devices.
• It supports only Windows OS platforms (including 64-bit
Windows, which has been added), so companies with other
devices and servers will need to buy other or additional EPPs.
• Although the storage and RAM footprints look relatively low,
eEye’s real-time evaluations and quarantine IPS techniques
consume a significant amount of resources and can be an issue
on older systems.
• There’s no enhanced protection for wireless interfaces or direct
support for wireless LAN (WLAN) security supplicants.
Eset
Eset has built a substantial installed base in EMEA, particularly
in Eastern Europe, and it has a rapidly growing small or midsize
business (SMB) presence in North America. Its Completeness
of Vision score benefits from good malware effectiveness in
a lightweight client, but it still suffers from weak enterprise
management capabilities and lack of investments in market-leading
features, such as data protection or more-holistic security state
assessments. Eset is a good shortlist option for organizations
seeking effective, lightweight anti-malware scan engines and
personal firewalls that do not have extensive management
requirements.
Strengths
• The flagship enterprise product, Eset Smart Security, includes
integrated anti-malware, anti-spam and personal firewall in a
single-agent footprint. The low performance impact of the Eset
product has been noted by many customers. Recently, Eset
introduced a new core engine with improved performance
and client self-defense, as well as new HTTPS and POP3S
scanning, firewall profiles, and support for Cisco NAC.
• The management console is a native Windows application
with a spreadsheet-style interface. It has the look and feel of
a Microsoft Management Console. We like its capability to
highlight machines in the log table and then, with a left-click, to
install the EPP agent or perform other remediation activities.
• The Eset anti-malware engine is a consistently respectable
performer in test results (that is, VB100 and AV-Comparatives
tests) and performs very well in tests of heuristic detection
techniques. The Eset engine has a strong reliance on heuristics
and generic signatures, including sandbox heuristics, which run
all executable files in a virtual emulator and provide client-based
malicious URL filtering.
• Eset supports a broad range of Windows clients and servers,
including Exchange, Lotus Notes/Domino, Linux Solaris, and
Novell NetWare and Dell storage servers. The company recently
added endpoint products for mobile devices (Windows Mobile
and Symbian), as well as an anti-malware solution for Mac OS X
and Linux desktop platforms.
• To further reduce the performance impact of scanning, Eset
recently introduced more control over scanning of archives and
a feature that automatically determines which files need deeper
scanning.
Cautions
• Eset is lacking in management features for larger, morecomplex organizations. The management console is long
overdue for an update; it’s very complex and lacks a
clear, actionable dashboard view to enable more-rapid or
automated problem identification and remediation. It also lacks
many common enterprise capabilities, such as role-based
administration, information and policy elements that can be
9
delegated (or restricted) to end users, automatic location-based
policies — especially enforcing and monitoring policies for offLAN clients — and automatic rogue machine detection.
• It has very poor reporting. A lot of information is captured, but
it is hard to get at, and there is no ad hoc reporting, just filtered
log views. Real-time updates are impossible.
• The management server never pushes updates to clients —
clients have to pull jobs at configurable intervals.
• There is no significant security state assessment beyond
EPP agents (that is, application vulnerability and configuration
assessments) and no significant integration with operations
tools.
• Clients can be distributed by the management console;
however, deinstallation of competitive solutions is an additional
service cost that isn’t included in the solution.
• The HIPS capability can only be activated or deactivated; it
can’t be selectively deactivated to allow specific false-positive
files to execute.
• Eset doesn’t yet offer many of the additional EPP components,
such as application control, advanced port/device control,
encryption, and DLP or VPN integration.
• Eset offers only rudimentary device control, which enables
blocking and/or immediate scanning of removable media.
• GFI offers Windows and Mac client support, as well as
Exchange server versions.
• Vipre’s net per-year list pricing is one of the lowest in this
analysis.
Cautions
• GFI is a relative newcomer to the enterprise market. We do not
have a lot of reference customers in the Gartner installed base,
and GFI is not evaluated in most of the malware effectiveness
testing, so performance in the wild is not well-documented.
Reference clients were unenthusiastic and commented that
signature data would benefit from improved quality control.
• The Vipre management capability will be limiting for larger
enterprises. It relies on Windows network browser or Active
Directory information to find unmanaged machines. It does
not have any ad hoc reporting capability, only filtered views
of historical data. Role-based administration is limited to read
or write options only. HIPS policy control is limited to creating
exceptions for specific programs by name.
• The firewall does not offer extensive policy options, such as
Wi-Fi or location-based policy.
• The solution does not offer any advanced capabilities, such as
port/device control, application control capability, encryption
or DLP. There is no significant security state assessment
beyond EPP agent status (that is, application vulnerability and
configuration assessments) and no significant integration with
operations tools.
GFI Software
GFI Software is a new entrant in this year’s analysis. U.S.-based
Sunbelt Software was recently acquired by GFI Software, which
offers a wide range of security solutions (notably, secure e-mail
Web gateways, archiving and backup) primarily aimed at SMB
organizations. GFI is a reasonable shortlist candidate for small to
midsize organizations looking for a simple and lightweight antimalware engine.
Strengths
• GFI’s Vipre management interface is very efficient and clean.
It provides a large range of preinstalled movable dashboard
widgets and provides good ability to view and drill into log data
and assign policy to groups and users.
• Malware detection is augmented with MX-Virtualization, which
analyzes malware in real time in a virtual environment on the
PC, and offers client-based malicious URL blocking, rootkit
scanning and automatic scanning of USB drives.
• The client is relatively lightweight and efficient, providing fast
scanning.
• The solution does not offer Linux, Unix or Lotus Domino
support.
BigFix-IBM
When we last evaluated IBM’s offering, it had two separate
offerings — Proventia Desktop with BitDefender anti-malware and
Proventia Endpoint Secure Control offering, which was a combined
offering with BigFix, Proventia for HIPS and firewall, and Trend
Micro for anti-malware. In 2010, IBM implemented several changes
to better align its overall security and endpoint product businesses.
Ownership of IBM Internet Security Systems (ISS) Proventia
technology moved from the IBM Global Services division to the
IBM Tivoli software division, and IBM will now go to market with a
cross-IBM security brand — IBM Security Solutions.
The Tivoli division acquired BigFix to bolster its PCLM capability
and serve as a platform for its EPP offering. The relationship with
BitDefender has been phased out. A new, more rationalized,
combined offering will be based on BigFix, with Trend Micro for
antivirus signatures, and Proventia for HIPS and firewall. While
potentially positive in the long run, these extensive changes reflect
negatively on IBM’s Ability to Execute score in this analysis. Large
organizations that have a close relationship with BigFix-IBM or
Trend Micro should include IBM on their shortlists, once this
offering becomes available and the organization settles.
10
Strengths
• IBM’s acquisition of BigFix into its Tivoli organization will provide
a strong anti-malware (from Trend Micro and supported by the
IBM X-Force research team) and PCLM combined offering,
with a unified console and a single agent for system life cycle
management, endpoint protection, and security configuration
and vulnerability management.
• A future release will offer the choice of the Trend Micro basic
firewall or the more advanced ISS Proventia firewall.
• Proventia Server and Server Sensor are expected to continue
providing deep packet inspection and HIPS capabilities,
sharing the same under the Protocol Analysis Module of ISS
network-based appliances, and backed by the reputation and
capabilities of X-Force labs.
• The ISS SiteProtector management console used to manage
Proventia Server can be used to manage multiple ISS products
and consolidate high-level security information.
• The IBM Global Services group offers managed security
services and provides mature managed security services
centralized around the ISS Proventia platform.
• Proventia server boasts very broad server support with
Windows, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris and AIX, including 64-bit
support for Windows and Linux, new AIX 6.1 support, and
planned HP-UX Itanium support.
• For mobile laptop users, the BigFix Relay provides real-time
visibility and control for endpoints, regardless of network
location, and allows for updating malware definitions, engines
and EPP.
Cautions
• IBM’s current plans are promising, but the company has not
executed well in the EPP market in the past. It remains to be
seen if the current level of commitment is sustainable, and if
IBM is agile enough to compete in this market.
• IBM has indicated its intent to deliver a single solution with
Proventia Desktop and Trend Micro built on BigFix for clients in
2011. However, similar integration of those technologies on the
server side may not occur until after 2011.
• Proventia Desktop as a stand-alone offering will likely be phased
out, although IBM has indicated that existing customers will be
entitled to an updated solution.
• Proventia Server is expected to continue as a separate offering
controlled with the SiteProtector management console.
However, Trend Micro antivirus signatures to server platforms
will be delivered via the BigFix platform.
• Version 8.0 of BigFix introduced an overhauled user interface
with domain-specific views to enable functional administrators
to easily focus on their specific tasks, but BigFix’s console is
more complex than others in this market and more oriented to
the operations domain.
• Security state assessments are still disjointed, lack prioritization
and are missing from the dashboard.
• No support beyond Windows and Macintosh clients is offered,
and there is even no ISS firewall planned for Macs. Also,
no support is offered for Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes,
SharePoint and other specialized servers, or for mobile devices.
• IBM has no encryption solution of its own, and its previous
partner, PGP, was acquired by its competitor Symantec. IBM
has no DLP solution of its own and relies on a relationship with
Verdasys to provide this capability on endpoints (and Fidelis
Security Systems for network-based DLP).
• Although IBM has its X-Force security analysis team, it has
no signature-based anti-malware capabilities of its own and is
dependent on Trend Micro. Disruptions in these critical partners
could have an impact on customers.
• IBM provides limited device control capabilities, and the
application control capabilities of Proventia are expected to be
phased out.
Kaspersky Lab
Kaspersky continues to increase its brand awareness for its antimalware labs and enterprise offerings outside of its large Eastern
European installed base. Since our last analysis, Kaspersky has
launched a new anti-malware engine with increased scanning
speed, lower system resources impact and a redesigned
administrative console. Kaspersky remains focused almost
exclusively on malware protection, affecting its Completeness of
Vision score, which reflects the increasing weight in our analysis
on a data security strategy and/or a PCLM integration story that
Gartner clients are requesting. Organizations that prefer to focus on
core malware defenses only should evaluate Kaspersky. Moreover,
Kaspersky should be considered a strong anti-malware engine
when offered in other vendors’ e-mail and Web gateways.
Strengths
• The malware research team has a well-earned reputation for
rapid and comprehensive malware detection, as well as small,
frequent signature updates.
• The redesigned Kaspersky console is comprehensive and offers
very granular control of its agent, improving manageability for
large enterprises. It also offers improved support for Active
Directory, a security status dashboard, improved reporting
capabilities and native client distribution capabilities.
11
• Kaspersky historically has a small disk and memory footprint for
a comprehensive suite platform and has further improved this in
its latest release.
• Kaspersky offers advanced HIPS features, including an isolated
virtual environment for behavior detection, application and
Windows registry integrity control, and integrated malicious URL
filtering.
• The company has a strong OEM business with EPP, e-mail and
secure Web gateway vendors.
• For on-demand malware scanning, Kaspersky offers the AntiVirus Second Opinion Solution, which can be used along with
competitive EPP clients.
• Kaspersky offers broad endpoint platform support, including
Windows Server 2008, Citrix, Linux, Novell NetWare,
Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes/Domino, Windows Mobile,
BlackBerry and Symbian, as well as Microsoft Forefront Threat
Management Gateway and EMC Celerra.
Cautions
• The redesigned Win32 console, while comprehensive, may be
viewed as overly complex for SMB usage, as compared with
competitors’ offerings. In addition, it surfaces only malwarerelated events and not other types of security state information
beyond its own EPP agent, such as application vulnerability
and configuration assessments. It does not have any significant
integration with PCLM or other operational tools.
• The dashboard is not highly customizable by the user, nor is a
browser-based console available.
• The policy management paradigm is flat and lacks the objectoriented inheritance of competitive offerings, increasing the
amount of work necessary to fully program policies.
• With its anti-malware focus, Kaspersky doesn’t yet offer any
endpoint encryption capability or DLP.
• The firewall offers no Wi-Fi-specific protection or policy support,
and it has limited VPN policy options. Kaspersky’s locationbased policy is limited to three manually selected zones.
• Basic device control capability is coarse and is limited to device
groups. It can only block or allow certain ports without providing
for exceptions.
• It offers only limited application control capabilities that are not
flexible enough for a large enterprise.
• Native NAC capability is missing.
• There is no SharePoint support, nor an offering uniquely
targeted to address hosted virtual desktops.
LANDesk
LANDesk, established leader in the PCLM market, was recently
acquired by venture investment company Thoma Bravo. The
departure from Avocent will reinvigorate the company’s commitment
to managing and protecting diverse endpoints, including virtual
and non-Windows client devices. LANDesk continues to benefit
from our increased weight on more-holistic security state
assessment and whitelisting, which is countered by a continued
lack of a security management orientation in the product set. The
company’s movement in its Ability to Execute was weighted down
by a restrictive pricing policy that appeals only to existing PCLM
customers and a lack of market or mind share growth. LANDesk is
an excellent choice for existing PCLM customers or those seeking
integrated solutions for security and operations.
Strengths
• LANDesk has been a pioneer in the integration of operations
and security, targeting organizations that want to leverage
endpoint management infrastructures and extend this to
managing desktop security capabilities.
• The LANDesk console is comprehensive and includes all
security management capabilities within the same console,
alerting and a new reporting framework. Likewise, the LANDesk
agent has a single, modular architecture so that security
functionality (like anti-malware) may be activated as needed.
Policy is very object-oriented, and reuse is common. We
particularly like the concept of pilot groups that get advanced
copies of changes, with a set delay for subsequent rolling
updates, and the ease with which it can find, assess and
update any aspect of a PC, even when it’s off LAN.
• LANDesk recently introduced mobile device management
and security into its integrated suite to enable management of
security functions of new platforms, such as iPads and mobile
device platforms.
• The base LANDesk Security Suite includes an anti-spyware
signature engine (Lavasoft), personal firewall, HIPS, device
control and file/folder encryption, vulnerability and configuration
management, patch management, and limited NAC capabilities.
Customers may use LANDesk to manage McAfee, Symantec,
Sophos, CA and Trend Micro, or they may choose to pay extra
for LANDesk Antivirus, which is built around the Kaspersky
malware scan engine.
• LANDesk HIPS and firewall technology capabilities include
location-aware policies, buffer overflow protection, application
whitelisting and blacklisting, and more-granular control of
applications once they’re executing. Whitelist administration is
eased by a learning mode for the development of policies.
• LANDesk Configuration Manager provides extensive port and
device control, including encryption capabilities for removable
media.
12
• LANDesk provides NAC (LANDesk Trusted Access), which
leverages four different technologies based on 802.1X, Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and IP security, which is
included in the base Security Suite. LANDesk also has its own
DHCP server capability to enforce quarantines on noncompliant
machines.
• For mobile users, the LANDesk Management Gateway provides
real-time visibility and control for endpoints, regardless of
network location, improving visibility and control over mobile
devices.
• LANDesk offers endpoint protection for Windows endpoints,
and anti-malware for Microsoft Exchange.
Cautions
• LANDesk’s list pricing is expensive, because it charges for the
basic management capability as a prerequisite to the Security
Suite. This makes it almost impossible for security practitioners
to acquire this technology without operations groups’ approval
and budget for the base PCLM patch components.
• LANDesk doesn’t perform its own malware research, although
it does have 30 engineers validating content from its partners.
Still, the solution relies on LANDesk’s OEM partners to review
suspicious code samples and prepare custom signatures for
targeted malware samples. Although signatures are becoming
a replaceable commodity, business disruptions to important
partners could have an impact on customers. However, this is
offset by LANDesk’s ability to readily manage other solutions.
Encryption capabilities are also provided by partners.
• Not all LANDesk Security Suite features are available on
all managed platforms. LANDesk HIPS and the LANDesk
Antivirus add-on support only the Windows platform and aren’t
supported for Linux. There’s no malware support for Microsoft
SharePoint, Lotus Notes or Windows Mobile clients. Macintosh
platforms benefit from PCLM tools, but antivirus is supplied by a
Kaspersky-branded solution. Some mobile devices (iPhone and
iPad) can be remotely restored to factory defaults, but LANDesk
can’t enforce native security functions.
• LANDesk should expand its application control capabilities to
close the gap with dedicated application control solutions.
• In addition to its own offering, LANDesk should integrate with
Microsoft NAP.
• LANDesk doesn’t offer DLP or full-drive encryption.
• Customer feedback indicates that the LANDesk console is
designed from an operational perspective, and that dedicated
security professionals may have difficulty getting the securityspecific views and reports they want. For example, security state
assessment is still disjointed, unprioritized and missing from the
primary dashboard. It is also not very task-oriented, and the
learning curve for security operations administrators who are
used to working with competitive solutions will be steep.
Lumension Security
Lumension is a new entrant in this year’s analysis, after it added
a licensed anti-malware engine (Norman) to its PCLM suite. The
Lumension Endpoint Management and Security Suite includes
anti-malware, application control, patch and remediation, power
management (with wake on LAN), scan, and security configuration
management modules. Lumension also offers an IT governance,
risk and compliance management (GRCM) capability. Existing
Lumension customers or those seeking integrated solutions for
security, operations and compliance should add Lumension to their
shortlist.
Strengths
• The Web-based management interface includes all PCLM
products, with similar task-based orientation and consistent
navigation. Dashboards can be changed for a number of
widgets, allowing administrators to have their own somewhat
customizable dashboards. The step-through policy workflow is
similar for PCLM and anti-malware policy. The solution offers
a single unified client agent for antivirus, application control,
patch and remediation for a broad range of client platforms.
Lumension recently added new encryption capabilities and
power management. The management interface provides
rich role-based restrictions, including the ability to restrict log
visibility to managed groups only.
• Lumension Application Control module provides good
software restriction capabilities for this class of solutions, with
flexible trusted sources of change and application inventory
discovery. It also offers a quick lockdown capability, which
instantly authorizes all installed applications, but blocks all new
applications unless they are from predefined trusted sources.
• Lumension Device Control provides a simple-to-use port and
device control capability, which can limit the types of removable
devices and media that may be used, the type of files that users
are allowed to read/write, and specific device types. It can
capture files that are written to or read from those devices and
media, can limit the volume of data uploaded and downloaded,
and can force encryption using a native encryption module.
• Malware prevention includes sandbox capability that intercepts
and prevents changes to host files, registry settings and so on
that are typically made by malware.
• A separate Risk Manager GRC tool provides security state
information gathered from Lumension, and third-party tools
illustrate compliance with corporate or regulatory standards
over time.
13
Cautions
Strengths
• While there is still market opportunity, Lumension has limited
resources to assemble such an extensive suite. It needs to
accelerate execution and raise its profile quickly to gain market
and mind share before the Leaders execute on their PCLM
integration strategies and eliminate Lumension’s differentiation.
• McAfee’s ePolicy Orchestrator remains one of the better
management capabilities in this market. Architectural benefits
include a multitier architecture (agent handlers), workflow
improvements (filtering by tags), support for user-based policy
development (virtual groups), improved user interface design
(drag and drop, search functions, customizable shortcuts, and
so on), and IPv6 support. It includes trouble-ticketing system
integration, such as integration with HP PC Helpdesk and BMC
Remedy. Microsoft integration improvements have been made
to Active Directory and System Center Configuration Manager
(SCCM), especially for asset reconciliation, software deployment
and root cause event visibility.
• Lumension still feels like a collection of technologies rather
than a cohesive EPP suite. The Device Control agent is not
in the Lumension Endpoint Management and Security Suite
agent. GRCM is in a different interface. Lumension is reliant
on its anti-malware partner Norman to review suspicious code
samples and prepare custom signatures for targeted malware r
samples. There is no personal firewall component; Lumension
relies on the Windows firewall. Full-disk encryption is provided
via partners (PGP and Symantec). Business disruptions to this
important partner could have an impact on customers.
• The company does not offer DLP.
• The management interface could be improved with continuous
discovery scanning to discover new rogue clients on the
network, user-defined dashboard widgets, improved ad hoc
and hyperlinked drill-down reporting, and more actionable and
prioritized vulnerability and compliance information, as well as
improved workflow between problem discovery and resolution.
• The Application Control function does not include a library of
known good applications.
• Endpoint protection does not extend beyond Windows
endpoints and servers. It does not provide protection for
Macintoshes or specialized servers, such as Microsoft
Exchange, and signatures are updated only a maximum of
twice daily.
McAfee
McAfee offers a powerful, mature, complete and attractive suite
of features in its Total Protection for Endpoint — Enterprise
Edition Suite. It holds the second-largest market share in the
endpoint protection market. The company has a broad portfolio
of products, including network security components, data
protection, risk and compliance, significant marketing resources,
a solid operations capability, and a strong malware research and
management team. In 2010, its well-executed early investment
in SafeBoot firmly established McAfee as a leader in mobile data
protection (encryption). It also acquired Trust Digital to extend its
mobile device management and encryption capabilities into the
mainstream of smartphones. The pending acquisition of McAfee
by Intel brings financial resources as well as future tight integration
with Intel platforms, but it also increases execution risk. McAfee
continues to be a Leader, based primarily on long-term leadership
in cross-product management functionality, and it should be
considered a strong vendor that’s suitable for any enterprise.
• McAfee’s integration of mobile data protection (MDP) solutions
was well executed in terms of time to maturity, bundling options
and pricing.
• McAfee’s ePolicy Orchestrator policies are customizable for each
user, and all reporting requirements can be viewed and edited
in a single interface. Users can select from queries and custom
elements like McAfee feeds. Data that is shown in a dashboard is
specific to the administrator rights or subgroup managed.
• Technology acquired from Solidcore provides a solid application
control mechanism, with some trusted sources of change.
• McAfee Global Threat Intelligence (formerly referred to as Artemis),
a cloud-based signature look-up system, provides a real-time lookup for the latest signature information, using lightweight queries
(using the DNS protocol) to a McAfee data center.
• McAfee SiteAdvisor, along with the McAfee host Web filtering
add-on module, provides decorated search results to educate
end users about risky sites. It also provides host-based URL
and content filtering that features integrated gateway-aware
capability to enforce the appropriate policy, whether the user is
on the corporate network, behind the Web gateway or outside
the network. Endpoint protection is available with a SaaS-based
management console.
• A new product, McAfee Management for Optimized Virtual
Environments (MOVE) is one of the few solutions to centrally
manage anti-malware security controls for virtual environments.
• The combination of McAfee Risk Advisor, Vulnerability Manager,
remediation module, and integration with Microsoft System
Center and McAfee Security Innovation Alliance partners
provides improved capabilities for security state reporting.
• McAfee offers a very broad range of supported platforms,
including EMC and NetApp file servers and Macintoshes.
• McAfee has a very strong endpoint DLP solution that can
integrate with its more comprehensive enterprise DLP solution.
14
Cautions
• While Intel can help McAfee improve in the core enterprise
and consumer EPP markets in the near term (that is, 12 to
24 months), longer-term investments in Intel priorities may
distract McAfee from customer priorities, especially in the
network security market. McAfee customers should evaluate
the progress of the acquisition by monitoring McAfee’s
achievements in its core markets very closely.
• McAfee Risk Advisor could be better at prioritizing alerts and
resulting activities to reduce the attack surface of PCs. McAfee
has minimal current integration with PCLM tools, and its
partnership approach will not result in tight integration. McAfee
ePO is a leading solution for management, but its architecture
is being tested by the demands of both network and endpoint
security requirements. Integration of solutions into ePO is at
various levels. ePO is not as robust and reliable as most PCLM
tools, and critical reports should be validated periodically by
alternative tools.
• Clients have expressed dissatisfaction with service and support
overall. In 2010, McAfee experienced a significant false-positive
signature, which caused significant global interruptions. While
the company responded appropriately, and it has since
improved its quality control considerably, it was disappointing
that it was in a state that enabled such an easily avoidable
event.
• Device control and DLP are not integrated in the McAfee
firewall, nor with EPP policies, which may require companies to
create duplicate policies for different subsystems.
• Solidcore does not have flexible trusted sources of change;
it doesn’t allow end users to self-authorize, request software
or use a whitelist catalog. Despite integration with ePO, it is a
separate product, with a distinct look and feel and separate
policy development.
• The firewall’s defense against dual homing (that is, two active
network connections) needs to be improved. Today, the
protocol stacks are not fully protected.
• The McAfee client agent is not as efficient as peers, according
to industry test results (that is, PassMark Software and
AV-Comparatives), and clients complain about agent footprint
and scan performance.
• McAfee continues to lag other leaders and other vendors on
anti-malware test results (that is, AV-Comparatives, NSS Labs
and AV-Test).
• McAfee’s HIPS solution is not gaining wide acceptance due to
administrative overhead. It is still difficult to granularly disable
rules (that is, per application) to address false positives and can
be noisy partly due to uncorrelated alarms.
Microsoft
Very little has changed in Forefront Client Security (FCS) since it
was originally introduced in 2007. In 2H09, based on feedback
about performance and reliability during the beta testing of its Beta
1 release, Microsoft made the decision to halt the beta and perform
an architectural overhaul to shift Forefront to the SCCM architecture
from the embedded version of the Microsoft Operations Manager
console. This shift delayed the release of Forefront Endpoint
Protection (FEP) to year-end 2010, so Microsoft has once again
moved down in execution, because FEP has remained frozen
in time, while the rest of the EPP market has moved on. On
the positive side, Microsoft is adding heuristics-based malware
detection and HIPS capabilities and the ability to manage the
Windows firewall in the FEP release (due at the time of this writing).
Forefront has gained only single-digit market penetration, and it is
primarily adopted among budget-constrained organizations that
subscribe to Microsoft’s Enterprise Client Access License (ECAL)
program. Forefront Protection 2010 for Exchange Server and
Forefront Protection 2010 for SharePoint (under the same brand
name but now in a different business unit — Microsoft Business
Systems Division) remain excellent choices due to Microsoft’s
signature engine diversity and compatibility with these platforms.
Despite difficulties with the management and console framework
around its engine, the engine itself performs well, and Microsoft’s
labs are steadily improving in independent tests, because of the
wide visibility into malware from FCS, Microsoft Security Essentials,
Windows Defender and the Microsoft Malicious Software
Removal Tool, as well as malware submitted by its opt-in SpyNet
community.
Strengths
• In the current version, signatures and engine updates are
distributed using Microsoft Software Update Services,
leveraging infrastructure and knowledge that many enterprises
are already using. In the year-end 2010 FEP release, this shifts
to SCCM, which most organizations are also using. For these
organizations, deployment of the new release of FEP will require
only the purchase and deployment of the agent. No additional
management servers or consoles should be required for SCCM
organizations.
• Organizations that are licensed under Microsoft’s Volume
Licensing programs receive FCS at a discount. Organizations
that are licensed under Microsoft’s ECAL program receive FCS
at no perceived additional cost, leading many organizations to
consider Microsoft’s FCS as a “good enough” way to reduce
costs.
• FCS is part of a broader Forefront-branded family that includes
products addressing endpoint security, server platforms (such
as Exchange and SharePoint) and the network edge (for
example, Unified Access Gateway and Threat Management
Gateway). Plans to integrate these management consoles were
scrapped, and the Forefront Protection 2010 for Exchange and
Forefront Protection 2010 for SharePoint offerings were moved
back into the platform teams they protect.
15
• Microsoft’s anti-malware engine creates generic signatures that
can be applied to malware families. It also creates P-codebased signatures that enable the engine to target specific
behaviors, or specific event sequences for known malware,
regardless of file variations. Dynamic translation capabilities
enable the FEP anti-malware engine to generically decrypt
malware that has tried to scramble the engine’s contents. Test
results such as AV-Comparatives show low false positives. The
year-end 2010 release will provide additional heuristics and
protocol malformation protection capabilities.
• Rather than duplicate functionality provided in the Windows OS
and other platforms, FCS focuses on the anti-malware engine
and, in the year-end 2010 release, will manage the Microsoft
firewall.
• Forefront Protection 2010 for Exchange Server and Forefront
Protection 2010 for SharePoint benefit from tight integration
with these platforms and with multiple scan engines.
• FCS doesn’t include a NAC/NAP product (this is handled by
the Windows OS). However, FCS does include a security state
assessment engine that can report on the client’s current
security status, vulnerabilities and relative risk levels, including
FEP and non-FCS settings (like the Windows firewall).
Cautions
• Microsoft’s FEP is in the middle of an architectural overhaul.
Deployment of the current version is not recommended until the
new version based on SCCM is available and field-tested (by
the second quarter of 2011).
• If an organization is not using SCCM, the year-end 2010
release will require organizations to install SCCM to support the
centralized deployment and management of the next-generation
FEP agent. It is not a good fit for organizations using Altiris,
LANDesk or other PCLM frameworks.
• Microsoft’s FCS addresses endpoint security needs only
for Windows client and server OS platforms. Non-Windows
platforms aren’t addressed, nor is Windows Mobile. Microsoft
has announced its intent to provide Macintosh or Linux support,
but no partners have been announced.
• The current agent is relatively heavy on memory usage,
compared with peers.
• FCS includes a system health agent (SHA) that integrates with
Microsoft’s NAP framework. However, the FCS agent doesn’t
provide self-enforcement, and access control enforcement
requires other components of the NAP framework.
• The Windows firewall provides only basic firewall services (for
example, inbound only on Windows XP), and the locationsensing policy was added in Windows 7. The firewall is owned
and managed by the Windows OS team.
• Removable-device control comes from Microsoft’s Windows OS
group and is available only with Windows Vista and Windows 7
(which provides administrators with the ability to centrally restrict
devices from being installed). Administrators can create policy
settings to control access to devices, such as USB drives,
CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives and other removable media.
These capabilities aren’t managed by the FCS, nor are they
planned for the year-end 2010 release.
• Scalability beyond 10,000 nodes with the current architecture
requires the use of FCS Enterprise Manager — a tool that
enables customers with more than 10,000 seats to provide
centralized management and reporting across multiple logging
and reporting servers and, potentially, multiple distributed FCS
deployments in a large enterprise.
• Large enterprises are wary of Microsoft as an OS platform
vendor selling EPP threat protection, because of the potential
for a conflict of interest.
• Microsoft is continuously challenged to choose between
embedding security into Windows, which benefits all customers,
or providing competitive security products. Ownership of
security technologies is split between the various Microsoft
business units — for example, the Windows division owns the
firewall and the majority of HIPS techniques; the SCCM team
owns Forefront Client Security; and the Business Systems
Division owns the Exchange and SharePoint offerings. These
groups are managed separately and have independent goals
and revenue targets.
Panda Security
• Microsoft first released FCS in 2007, and there have been only
minor updates since then. The next major release is targeted at
year-end 2010. FCS’s glacially slow releases aren’t competitive
with those provided by dedicated security vendors.
• FCS doesn’t manage other built-in Microsoft client security
capabilities, such as the OS firewall, User Account Control
options, BitLocker encryption or AppLocker policies. The yearend 2010 release will manage only the Windows firewall.
• The current version of FCS lacks HIPS capabilities; these are
planned for delivery in the year-end 2010 release.
Panda Security is slowly expanding from its EMEA presence,
radiating outward from its Spanish headquarters. However, Panda’s
desire to expand its installed base in North America has not
materialized, and it has lost mind share. We have reflected this in its
Ability to Execute score, lowering it into the Niche Players quadrant.
Panda’s overall Completeness of Vision score remains impacted
by the increasing weight in our analysis on a data security strategy
and/or PCLM integration story, but it has shown innovation in its
Cloud Office Protection solution. SMBs seeking a comprehensive,
more-customer-intimate alternative should consider Panda as a
good shortlist entry in the geographies it supports.
16
Strengths
• The Windows-based management interface provides
very granular role-based management and group-level
configurations. The dashboard provides a quick view to see
PCs that don’t have agents installed and to push new agents
via .msi files. The solution provides an easy-to-use report
scheduler that delivers reports in a PDF format.
• Panda malware detection includes integrated anti-malware
and anti-spyware, as well as several proactive HIPS detection
techniques.
• Panda offers very good rootkit inspection that bypasses a
potentially rootkitted OS to read raw data directly from the hard
drive to look for hidden processes.
• The product also enables the blocking of known-malicious
URLs.
• Panda’s HIPS capability includes policy-based rules,
vulnerability shielding and behavior-based detections, and
administrators have very granular control to modify policies or
add exclusions.
• The application control module, TruPrevent Technologies, uses
application profiles to enforce runtime behavior and permissions
for well-known applications. Administrators can opt in or opt
out of TruPrevent, and they can modify rules or create their own
rules to override Panda’s rules.
• The server-based management console (not Panda Cloud
Office Protection) is still a Windows fat client, rather than a
more-flexible, browser-based management console. It also
lacks advanced features, such as adaptable dashboards,
consolidated compliance status indicators, hyperlink drill-downs
to log data and custom reporting.
• Panda distributes only one signature update per day for clients
not using the cloud look-up mechanism.
• Panda’s HIPS capabilities are powerful. However, in many
cases, they are ahead of the market demand for these
capabilities and, in other cases, lack features to make HIPS
more manageable — for example, Panda’s HIPS policy doesn’t
provide a monitor-only mode to enable testing and tuning
before deployment. Moreover, TruPrevent identifies files only by
name and can be thwarted by changing file names.
• Panda still lacks advanced firewall features, such as locationbased policies, wireless-specific firewall options and VPN
integration options.
• There’s only one option to minimize the impact of scheduled
scanning (CPU load limitation), although end users can delay
scanning if they’re authorized.
• The end-user GUI is minimal, and end-user controls are limited
to performing on-demand scanning, as well as to changing the
signature update mechanism and proxy settings.
• Cloud Office Protection is not feature-rich for large enterprises.
• Panda Security for Desktops and Panda Security for File
Servers use a cloud database look-up to detect new threats.
• Malware Radar is Panda’s network-crawling malware and
vulnerability audit tool. It can be a good utility for doublechecking incumbent anti-malware accuracy. Malware Radar
uses a different scanning engine, with more-advanced detection
techniques activated (which takes longer to scan and potentially
produces more false positives) than the base Panda product.
• Panda pricing is very competitive, and there are no upfront
license costs, only an annual subscription.
• Panda offers a SaaS-based management solution for endpoint
protection, which is fully hosted by Panda, called Panda Cloud
Office Protection. References cite it as being extremely valuable
for managing remote installations.
Cautions
• Despite Panda’s globalization plans, the installed base is still
mostly EMEA SMBs. Panda lacks brand recognition in North
America or Asia/Pacific, and its efforts to grow its North
American installed base have stalled.
• The agent managed by Cloud Office Protection is a subset of
the full Panda client — for example, it lacks HIPS capabilities
and provides no application control capabilities.
• Malware Radar uses a separate console for reporting its
information (for example, critical vulnerability information
surfaced by Malware Radar isn’t visible in the main console).
• Panda is focused on traditional Windows and Linux support
and doesn’t support any mobile clients. Panda is offering a
stand-alone Antivirus for Mac product, and a corporate version
is expected to be launched by the end of 2010. Panda doesn’t
support Microsoft SharePoint, nor does it offer a solution that
addresses the needs of terminal services or hosted virtual
desktop environments.
• Panda doesn’t yet offer many additional EPP components, such
as port and device control, encryption, or DLP.
• Panda provides no significant state assessments beyond the
EPP agent (that is, application vulnerability and configuration
assessments) and outside of its separate Malware Radar tool.
Panda also provides no significant integration with PCLM and
operational tools.
17
SkyRecon Systems
In November 2009, Arkoon Network Security, a European
unified threat management vendor, announced the acquisition
of SkyRecon. Although this acquisition will provide SkyRecon
with greater technical resources and investment capabilities,
linking network security and endpoint security has not been a
successful strategy in the past. SkyRecon’s Ability to Execute
score is hampered by its relatively small market share and limited
geographic presence, lack of a native malware detection engine,
and its still-maturing management capabilities. SkyRecon is a
reasonable shortlist vendor for organizations that are in supported
geographies seeking data protection solutions and willing to invest
extra effort to bolster the administration.
Strengths
• The company’s flagship product, StormShield Security Suite,
is designed to address system and data protection via an
extensible EPP capability that integrates multiple layers of
security. These include HIPS; a personal firewall; Device Control
System (DCS); encryption; and an optional, signature-based, antimalware engine licensed from Panda Security, Avira or Microsoft.
• We particularly like the company’s primary focus on techniques
to block unknown threats, using a combination of configuration
policies, such as application control, very fine-grained device
control and a flexible firewall policy, as well as proactive HIPS
capabilities, such as features for blocking keyloggers and
targeted attacks. SkyRecon effectively uses policy-based
restrictions to minimize the attack surface with object-oriented
policies and configurations that are easy to set up. Policy-based
application control is improved by a “challenge response”
mechanism, which allows users to add software if they type in
the justification for the installation in a pop-up window.
• Other defenses include rootkit detection, honey pots, privilege
escalation and reboot protection.
• The firewall provides good Wi-Fi policy options, as well as
options to force VPN connections.
• The company recently added Flexible Data Encryption (FDE) for
files and folders on fixed hard drives and removable devices.
FDE is integrated with the DCS service to provide device
encryption and to audit device file activities.
• SkyRecon has a single management interface and a single
lightweight agent (10MB) to support its multiple functions.
• Full-disk encryption has been added in the latest version.
• The product features granular device control policies, including
controlling access to optical drives and blocking print-screen
printing for a specific application.
• Increased compliance auditing and reporting capabilities have
been added.
Cautions
• Although it continues to grow rapidly, SkyRecon is still one of
the smaller vendors in this analysis. It has a limited enterprise
client base and lacks significant brand recognition outside
of France. Arkoon also does not have a significant business
presence outside of French markets.
• It supports only 32-bit Windows clients (64-bit is due in the first
quarter of 2011) and provides no Mac, Linux, Unix, mobile or
e-mail server support.
• The company has a very small malware research team and is
dependent on Panda Security, Avira or Microsoft for signaturebased protections.
• The management interface was very complete, but it looks like
it requires a steep learning curve, and it lacks context-sensitive
help. Help file documentation is available only in a PDF format.
• Ad hoc reporting is not supported. Reports can be filtered but
not changed, and it is not possible to drill down into details. No
dashboard function is present.
• There is no significant native security state assessment beyond
the EPP agent, and no significant integration with operations
tools.
• It does not yet offer any DLP solution.
Sophos
Sophos is a veteran anti-malware company that is dedicated to
the enterprise market. More-ambitious management has resulted
in excellent growth and geographic expansion from its European
base to the North American and global enterprise markets. Sophos’
Completeness of Vision score continues to benefit from its data
and port protection. The Sophos EPP suite offers a good balance
of integrated malware, personal firewall, HIPS defenses and data
protection capabilities that are deterministic and easy to deploy and
manage. Organizations that prefer a broad EPP suite with simplified
management capabilities should consider Sophos.
Strengths
• Sophos continues to have a strong reputation for support and
service from customers and its channel.
• The management interface was upgraded with improved ease
of use and better role-based administration and reporting
since our last analysis. The dashboard is complete with
actionable information and offers right-click remediation options
via integration with third-party patch management tools.
Windows, Mac, Linux and Unix clients are all supported in the
management console.
18
• Microsoft vulnerability and patch assessment information is
available with Sophos NAC Advanced (available at extra cost),
which provides excellent client security status information.
• Malware detection improved in 2010 with the introduction of
Sophos Live Protection, a cloud-based real-time protection
update mechanism and improved client tamper protection.
• Sophos also provides integrated client-based malicious website
blocking and URL reputation, as well as a JavaScript emulation
to identify and block potentially malicious Web code.
• Sophos offers full disk and file encryption, encryption key
management, endpoint DLP, and very granular device control in
its suite.
• Sophos provides basic application control capabilities that
enable administrators to define and update a whitelist of
authorized applications, and enable the blocking of potentially
unwanted applications, such as instant messaging products or
media players, by name or category.
• Sophos offers a limited NAC enforcement capability embedded
in the EPP agent and an advanced NAC solution at extra cost.
Cautions
• Sophos is continuously challenged in differentiating itself
from the “big three” players in the Leaders quadrant. Lack of
consumer products has resulted in low brand recognition. The
company must continue to focus on expanding its international
channel to overcome its limited presence in Asia/Pacific, the
Middle East and South America.
• Although it does have a growing number of very large enterprise
customers, and the management console is designed for ease
of use, it lacks the depth found in the large-enterprise features
of other Leaders. Policy development is eased with pop-up
windows, check boxes or prepopulated menu lists, which can
be limiting for more-experienced administrators.
• The application control list of categorized applications is limited
to what Sophos sees as potentially malicious. In addition, there
is no way to lock down to a specific set of applications, nor is
there an ability to allow trusted sources of change.
• It offers only binary configuration of two HIPS rules —
suspicious behavior and buffer overflows — although it can
exempt specific applications from HIPS policies.
• Security state detection is done via Sophos NAC Advanced and
Sophos Compliance Manager, which have a different look and
feel, and state information is limited to Microsoft applications.
• Sophos Enterprise Console does not yet manage encryption
deployment, policy management or reporting (which is due
in the second half of 2011), and it does not offer centralized
management for its gateway and EPP solutions.
• Endpoint DLP (other than encryption) is weaker than vendors
that specialize in this market. Sophos is not a major vendor in
the more comprehensive enterprise DLP market.
• Sophos’ support for mobile clients is limited to Microsoft, and it
does not yet address the specific needs of virtualized clients or
servers.
Symantec
Symantec continues to have the largest EPP market share, but its
lead is gradually eroding. With the acquisitions of GuardianEdge
and PGP, Symantec will be able to offer a more complete suite,
including data protection. Symantec provides a very comprehensive
and effective malware protection solution and is an excellent and
safe shortlist candidate for any large global enterprise, particularly
those that appreciate PCLM and EPP integration.
Strengths
• Symantec continues to perform well in numerous tests
of malware effectiveness (for example, AV-Comparatives,
AV-Test, NSS Labs and PassMark) compared with peers. The
enterprise version will benefit from file reputation and prevalence
technology, now called Ubiquity, in its enterprise solution in
2010, which should improve detection rates.
• Symantec recently launched the Symantec Protection
Center (SPC), which provides a central management point
and dashboard viewer for a number of Symantec protection
products (Web Gateway, Critical System Protection and
Endpoint Protection). SPC also provides consolidated
dashboard and reporting and a unique process manager to
automate repetitive IT processes. Reports are composed via
Microsoft Report Builder, which makes it easy to transparently
add reports as new dashboard elements with Microsoft
management tools. This makes it easy to create performance
indicators, which display as gauges and graphs. A workflow
process designer includes predefined templates and the ability
to create custom templates.
• Many helpful common tasks are automated, including finding
unmanaged PCs, installing Symantec Endpoint Protection
(SEP), implementing endpoint recovery and ensuring
configuration compliance.
• Symantec provides good port and device controls, mobile
device synchronization, and the best firewall of any ranked
vendor. A Snort format may be used to create HIPS rules for
firewalls capable of deep packet inspection.
19
• The client has a large disk footprint but is very fast and light
on memory usage in several tests (that is, PassMark and
AV-Comparatives). Administrators can delegate most controls
to the end-user GUI very simply. The client also boasts the
most policy controls to limit the performance impact of the
scheduled scan.
• Symantec also offers data backup and remote-access
technology and imaging technology in the Symantec Protection
Suite Enterprise Edition, but these technologies haven’t yet
made their way into the EPP management console.
• Symantec’s acquisition of Altiris, a leader in the PCLM
market, will be a significant asset as the PCLM integration
trend continues. Symantec will be able to leverage PCLM
functionalities, such as asset discovery and inventory,
configuration management, vulnerability assessment, and
software management and distribution capabilities.
• Symantec has also made significant investments in DLP, and
it offers a client DLP agent as a component of the Vontu DLP
suite.
• Symantec covers a broad range of endpoints, including
Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm, Linux and Mac.
• Symantec can monitor other anti-malware engines (but it can’t
manage them).
Cautions
• Symantec has made a number of visionary investments for
its EPP solution; however, it is continuously challenged with
ensuring fast integration of its various acquisitions. SPC is
a good start but still operates more like a portal and log
consolidation and reporting engine than a true integration of
disparate products. Despite significant improvements and
product management focus since Symantec AntiVirus 10, the
company still gets low marks on overall customer satisfaction
from reference customers.
• Altiris is a significant asset for Symantec as these two
disciplines integrate, but it is notably absent from SPC, and
SEP cannot exploit any Altiris functions. However, presently,
the Symantec Protection Suite Enterprise Edition for Endpoints
includes Altiris Inventory, and Altiris IT Analytics can merge
SEP and Altiris data in the SPC console. More work is needed
to deliver detailed state assessments, beyond the basic
information reported by the SEP agent so that reports are
prioritized, correlated and actionable. For example, there is
currently no relationship between severity indicators and the list
of active prevention measures.
• Symantec has limited capability on smartphones and essentially
is starting over with an investment in Mocana, as its distribution
arrangement with Trust Digital is terminated.
• Symantec does not offer optimization or deployment
architectures for virtual machines. However, existing SEP
features, such as randomization and lightweight clients, make it
reasonably efficient in these deployments.
• List pricing is expensive, on average, compared with other
EPP vendors, but negotiated pricing is typically on par with its
closest competitors.
• Symantec’s Ubiquity solution will need to be more flexible and
implement the concept of trusted sources to work effectively
in the enterprise market. Ideally, it should exploit the Altiris
application catalog to provide an application control capability
rather than a simple file reputation score.
• HIPS rules in the anti-malware engine do not allow for rulebased exceptions.
• Port Control capability is spread over multiple products (SEP,
Encryption and DLP), which may create enforcement gaps and
complicate management.
• Symantec’s HIPS solution for servers, Symantec Critical System
Protection, is a separate product from SEP 11, with a different
agent and management console (although it can be managed
from SPC).
Trend Micro
Trend Micro is the third-largest anti-malware vendor, with a
significant market presence in Asia/Pacific and EMEA, and one of
the larger worldwide networks of labs and monitoring capabilities.
Trend Micro slipped slightly again this year in its Ability to Execute
and Completeness of Vision due to its continued narrow focus on
signature-based malware prevention versus other Leaders. Trend
Micro should be considered by organizations seeking a solid,
signature-based anti-malware solution.
Strengths
• OfficeScan provides anti-malware, anti-spyware, and basic
firewall and Web threat protection in a single product. It also
offers an optional advanced deep-packet-inspection-based
HIPS firewall (Intrusion Defense Firewall) in a single agent
and management interface. It also provides DLP for endpoint
capabilities in a separate management console and agent.
• Trend Micro recently acquired Mobile Armor to provide full disk,
file and folder encryption and will begin integrating this solution
into the native management console.
• Trend Micro was the first vendor to introduce a cloud-based
signature capability called the Smart Protection Network. This
network of cloud-based data centers allows clients to perform
a real-time query of global signature and Web reputation
databases to get the very latest reputation information. This
lightens the client footprint and eliminates the signature
distribution time lag. Larger clients can benefit from a local
Smart Protection Network server.
20
• With the release of OfficeScan 10.5, Trend Micro delivered
a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI)-aware solution (Citrix
and VMware). This improves performance and security by
preventing resource contention, and by leveraging base image
prescanning to avoid duplicate scanning among multiple virtual
desktop images, which has a significant impact on VDI density.
It also offers a deep security platform and agentless virtual
machine solution that provides agentless security for multiple
virtual machine environments.
• OfficeScan protection is bolstered by the capability to block
malicious URLs at the client level, critical system resources
and process protection, which blocks malicious changes and
behavioral monitoring.
• Client performance in version 10.5 is improved.
• Trend Micro offers a SaaS-based management console.
• Trend Micro offers a unique threat management service, which
combines out-of-band VMware servers that monitor networks
for malicious traffic with a service-assisted remediation
and incident management service, to its premium support
customers. It also offers it as a stand-alone solution to monitor
incumbent EPP solution effectiveness.
• Trend Micro offers broad platform coverage for endpoints and
servers, including native Mac support, mobile device protection,
Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft Exchange and networkattached storage, in a single management console.
• The BigFix partnership improves manageability in environments
with distributed management servers connected over lowbandwidth connections. However, it failed to gain significant
installed-base traction, and the recent acquisition of BigFix by
IBM has clouded the future of this partnership.
• Trend Micro product management has not embraced PCLM
integration, nor appreciated the value of more-holistic security
state assessments or application control.
• Control Manager doesn’t yet have the richness of reporting or
dashboards that other solutions do. Rogue client detection is a
manual process.
• OfficeScan provides few application control capabilities.
However, the Intrusion Defense Firewall plug-in (available at an
additional charge) can control applications at the network level,
but can’t block specific controls from running in a browser.
However, execution and firewall behavior rules are in different
policy settings, complicating management.
• Trend Micro port and device control capabilities are very limited,
granting just read-only or executing control on storage devices.
• Its endpoint DLP is weaker than vendors that specialize in
this market. Trend Micro is not a major vendor in the more
comprehensive enterprise DLP market.
• Trend Micro’s global market share distribution is somewhat
skewed to the Asia/Pacific region, and the North American
enterprise business is skewed to the gateway market.
• The company has made investments in endpoint DLP.
Cautions
• Trend Micro’s tendency to rely on in-house development,
combined with very conservative development investments
and an over-reliance on partnerships versus acquisitions, has
resulted in slight declines in both Completeness of Vision and
Ability to Execute scores in this analysis. Recent acquisitions
(Provilla, Third Brigade and Mobile Armor) are welcome
changes, but most came well after the competition had made
similar moves.
Vendors Added or Dropped
We review and adjust our inclusion criteria for Magic Quadrants
and MarketScopes as markets change. As a result of these
adjustments, the mix of vendors in any Magic Quadrant or
MarketScope may change over time. A vendor appearing in a
Magic Quadrant or MarketScope one year and not the next does
not necessarily indicate that we have changed our opinion of that
vendor. This may be a reflection of a change in the market and,
therefore, changed evaluation criteria, or a change of focus by a
vendor.
21
Evaluation Criteria Definitions
Ability to Execute
Product/Service: Core goods and services offered by the vendor that compete in/serve the defined market. This includes current
product/service capabilities, quality, feature sets and skills, whether offered natively or through OEM agreements/partnerships as
defined in the market definition and detailed in the subcriteria.
Overall Viability (Business Unit, Financial, Strategy, Organization): Viability includes an assessment of the overall organization’s
financial health, the financial and practical success of the business unit, and the likelihood that the individual business unit will
continue investing in the product, will continue offering the product and will advance the state of the art within the organization’s
portfolio of products.
Sales Execution/Pricing: The vendor’s capabilities in all pre-sales activities and the structure that supports them. This includes
deal management, pricing and negotiation, pre-sales support and the overall effectiveness of the sales channel.
Market Responsiveness and Track Record: Ability to respond, change direction, be flexible and achieve competitive success
as opportunities develop, competitors act, customer needs evolve and market dynamics change. This criterion also considers the
vendor’s history of responsiveness.
Marketing Execution: The clarity, quality, creativity and efficacy of programs designed to deliver the organization’s message to
influence the market, promote the brand and business, increase awareness of the products, and establish a positive identification
with the product/brand and organization in the minds of buyers. This “mind share” can be driven by a combination of publicity,
promotional initiatives, thought leadership, word-of-mouth and sales activities.
Customer Experience: Relationships, products and services/programs that enable clients to be successful with the products
evaluated. Specifically, this includes the ways customers receive technical support or account support. This can also include
ancillary tools, customer support programs (and the quality thereof), availability of user groups, service-level agreements and so on.
Operations: The ability of the organization to meet its goals and commitments. Factors include the quality of the organizational
structure, including skills, experiences, programs, systems and other vehicles that enable the organization to operate effectively
and efficiently on an ongoing basis.
Completeness of Vision
Market Understanding: Ability of the vendor to understand buyers’ wants and needs and to translate those into products and
services. Vendors that show the highest degree of vision listen to and understand buyers’ wants and needs, and can shape or
enhance those with their added vision.
Marketing Strategy: A clear, differentiated set of messages consistently communicated throughout the organization and
externalized through the website, advertising, customer programs and positioning statements.
Sales Strategy: The strategy for selling products that uses the appropriate network of direct and indirect sales, marketing, service
and communication affiliates that extend the scope and depth of market reach, skills, expertise, technologies, services and the
customer base.
Offering (Product) Strategy: The vendor’s approach to product development and delivery that emphasizes differentiation,
functionality, methodology and feature sets as they map to current and future requirements.
Business Model: The soundness and logic of the vendor’s underlying business proposition.
Vertical/Industry Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of individual
market segments, including vertical markets.
Innovation: Direct, related, complementary and synergistic layouts of resources, expertise or capital for investment, consolidation,
defensive or pre-emptive purposes.
Geographic Strategy: The vendor’s strategy to direct resources, skills and offerings to meet the specific needs of geographies
outside the “home” or native geography, either directly or through partners, channels and subsidiaries as appropriate for that
geography and market.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement