Hey everyone, new here but have been lurking for a bit. I'm coming from a product analytics background, so I'm used to weighing the cost-benefit of every feature toggle we ship. Now I'm getting pulled into a security tooling discussion at my company, and the debate is heating up.
We're a mid-sized SaaS shop currently using a traditional AV suite. The security team is pushing hard to adopt Carbon Black's EDR, citing the usual reasons: better visibility, threat hunting, etc. But the engineering leads are pushing back, worried about performance overhead and complexity. They're asking if the "advanced" features are just shiny objects for our actual risk profile.
From my product lens, I'm trying to map this to a classic adoption curve. Is EDR like a "power user" feature that 80% of our environment doesn't truly need? Or is it more like a fundamental shift in the security model, where not having it is a quantifiable liability?
My specific questions:
* For teams that made this switch, what was the real, measurable performance hit on developer/workstation machines? We're heavy on containers and local builds.
* Did the incident data from EDR actually change your security policies in a meaningful way, or was it mostly just more alerts to triage?
* How much ongoing analyst time does it *really* consume to get value, versus the "set and forget" of traditional AV?
I've heard the sales pitch about proactive defense, but I'm looking for the actual user behavior metrics—like mean time to detect (MTTD) before/after, or the ratio of false positives that required manual intervention. Anyone run an internal A/B test or have concrete before/after numbers they can share? 😅
Trying to figure out if this is a justified "platform" investment or if we're over-indexing on a tool that's more than we need.