The architecture primarily focuses on the endpoint, employing an agent-based approach. The acquisition of Empow has empowered Cybereason to establish a security analytics.

Agent-based functionality is specifically crafted to provide extensive coverage across infrastructure endpoints. In the case of XDR, APIs/ connectors are leveraged to streamline data ingestion and response. However, its usage is confined to the ecosystem and limited to 3rd party technology partnerships only.

While the EDR/ NGAV functionality in Cybereason offers comprehensive visibility and response functions on end points, it falls short in its ability to detect and respond to threats beyond end points in the IT landscape. For instance, it lacks features such as NBAD, Deception, UEBA, SIEM, and others that are crucial. Achieving comprehensive coverage necessitates heavy reliance on third-party products and vendor partnerships, thus making the overall solution a bolt-on function. Additing to it, the platform is extremely hard to tune, resulting in high false positive rates impacting overall efficieny of Security Operations.

Cybereason offers good analytics capabilities and supports third-party log ingestion. However, it lacks long-term storage capabilities, which limits your ability to perform in-depth analytics. This is crucial given the current threat landscape and evolving compliance and regulatory requirements. Also, the analytics engine isn't super responsive as it slows down on exeuting mid level queries - which are quite essential for secuirty analysts for quick traige.

Analysts are typically expected to initiate incident response within 30 minutes of an incident. However, there are limitations on the number of third-party functionalities that can be used for executing response functions. These limitations are dependent on the technology partnership ecosystem or the existing built-in response capabilities available through API integration.Unfortunately, Cybereason lacks the ability to perform Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) functions. This means that it is not possible to design response functions based on the specific business context or alert type and ever changing use cases considering changing threat landscape

EDR-driven XDR capability heavily relies on integrating third-party threat detection functionalities to identify malicious signals across the IT landscape. However, these third-party threat detection systems primarily share "Alert Data" and do not provide access to the raw data they analyze to identify anomalies. Consequently, the ability to triage across the organization becomes limited, creating vulnerabilities in the XDR framework and compromising the overall effectiveness of the system.

Hunts are only performed on ingested log data, which limits the overall scope of the hunt. There is also a risk of overlooking important artifacts if the log data is not completely collected, especially considering that a majority of logs are never stored in the data lake. It's important to note that threat hunts are not real-time and do not rely on behavioral analysis.

Limited functionality to fetch live forensics post Incident Response / remediation compromising on assurance. Heavily dependent on agent being present on the compute device for forensics.

Functionality available. However, a boiler plate offering than customised to your business needs.

Functionality not available.

Contracts are pushing for a Vendor lock-in.

Deployment of Agent is pain taking task, on top of it, from XDR point of view - there are limited intergations only. Volume of false positives are way to high, does take high time to fine tune and make operations effective.

Purely limited to the intergations built.

High, platform offers coverage around End point majorly.

Data unavailable