3 ms·
Gonna tear into the criticism of the product for a moment. >Falcon is a product typically installed on corporate machines so that the security team can detect
by unethical_ban 2y ago
Gonna tear into the criticism of the product for a moment.
>Falcon is a product typically installed on corporate machines so that the security team can detect and mitigate threats in real time (while monitoring the actions of their employees).
Infosec here.
Some of the proposed "real time behavioral analytics" tools I have heard about are creepy and draconian, but this is a malware detection software. "Monitoring actions of employees" is not what I understand the tool to be used for.
Second, the privacy absolutists on HN have yelled at me before for defending MITM devices like web proxies and DNS filters for "degrading the security of TLS". If we don't do security on the network, then the only place to do it is on the host. Which means, in a perfect (security) world, the endpoint has some kind of intercept layer looking at all incoming/outgoing traffic, anyway.
In other words: This product AFAICT isn't human-behavior analytics, and endpoint security is the future of infosec as TLS gets better so it isn't "whether this is good software for companies to have" it's "is this version of the software reliable and functional".
- chris_wot 2y agoI’m not sure why you have been downvoted so severely, this seems like a reasonable take on the issue.
- steveklabnik 2y agoIf I had to guess (I didn’t downvote) it’s because this article isn’t about the product, so it feels off topic. That said HN also tends to dislike meta commentary about voting patterns (it’s discouraged in the site guidelines) so you and I may get downvoted too.
- unethical_ban 2y agoMaybe the term "privacy absolutists" annoyed some people, or Steve's point.
- unethical_ban 2y agoI will entertain any counterpoint to my comment. It's relevant because it's in the article. I left the analysis of the author's takes to those who know the language better.