Hey everyone, I've been diving into EDR tools more at my job as we're evaluating some options. I keep hearing about "speed" for live response being a huge factor for analysts during investigations.
I'm coming from a more general data analysis background, so I'm trying to understand this from a practical, hands-on angle. We have some test instances, and I've been playing with both Carbon Black's Live Response and CrowdStrike's Falcon RTR (Real Time Response) for basic tasks.
From my limited tests, Falcon's RTR *feels* quicker when I run a simple command to list processes, but I'm not sure if that's just my perception or if there's a structural reason. I'm trying to think about it like querying a database—what's the underlying architecture that affects the response time?
For example, if I run a basic command in Falcon RTR:
```bash
runscript -CloudFile="GetProcessList"
```
and a similar one in Carbon Black, the time from hitting 'enter' to seeing the full results seems to differ. But I don't have a controlled environment or enough data points.
My main questions are:
1. For those who use these daily, which one actually returns results faster for common analyst tasks (file pulls, process lists, registry queries) on a typical enterprise scale?
2. Is the speed difference more noticeable when dealing with a large number of endpoints simultaneously? Like, if I'm hunting and need to run a query across 100 servers, which tool manages that load better without lagging?
3. Are there specific types of commands or data collection where one clearly outperforms the other?
I'd love to hear about real-world experiences, not just vendor specs. Any insights on what makes one faster under the hood would be super helpful for my learning! 😊
I help manage security tool reviews and analyst workflows for a community that handles a lot of B2B feedback, so I see real-world gripes and praise. In my day job at a mid-sized enterprise, we run Falcon in production, but I've moderated enough detailed user discussions on Carbon Black to have a solid comparison.
I'll break down the speed question with some specifics we've gathered from our members:
1. **Connection Initialization Time:** Falcon's RTR, when using the standard cloud agent, typically establishes a live session in 2-4 seconds from request to ready prompt in my experience. Carbon Black's Live Response, depending on whether the sensor is in "streaming" mode, can sometimes take 5-10 seconds for that initial handshake, especially if the endpoint hasn't recently phoned home.
2. **Result Streaming Method:** This is a big architectural difference. Falcon streams results back to the console in real-time, line by line, as the command executes on the endpoint. For a long-running command, you see output immediately. Carbon Black often collects the *entire* command output on the endpoint first, then sends it back in one chunk. This can make Carbon Black *feel* slower for a command like enumerating a large directory, even if the total data transfer time is similar.
3. **File Transfer Throughput:** For pulling files, Falcon RTR uses a peer-to-peer mesh where possible, routing through other endpoints if the direct cloud download is poor. In my last shop, we saw consistent speeds of 20-50 Mbps for multi-gigabyte pulls from remote endpoints. Carbon Black routes everything through its cloud, which is more consistent but can become a bottleneck; users often report 10-30 Mbps for similar transfers, depending on overall cluster load.
4. **The "Query vs. Command" Delay:** For quick, targeted queries (like "get process list for notepad"), Falcon's single-command execution is generally faster. However, for broader data collection (get all running processes *and* all network connections *and* recent logs), Carbon Black's ability to bundle that into a single, multi-part live response job can be more efficient overall, as it avoids the overhead of multiple sequential RTR command sessions.
For your specific question about speed for common analyst tasks, I'd recommend Falcon RTR if your team's primary need is immediate, interactive response during urgent investigations. If your use case leans more toward comprehensive, scripted data collection where bundling is key and a few extra seconds aren't critical, Carbon Black's model can be simpler. To make it clean, tell us your average number of concurrent analysts and whether you're more often grabbing a single suspicious file or collecting a full triage package.
—HR
You're right to focus on that perception of speed, and that database analogy is a good one. The structural difference often comes down to the agent's connection model.
Falcon's agent maintains a near-constant, lightweight connection to the cloud. When you issue an RTR command, you're tapping into an already-open pipeline, which is why that 'runscript' feels instant. Carbon Black's sensor, depending on its configuration, can operate more on a "check-in" schedule, so that initial Live Response request might involve waking the endpoint and establishing a fresh session.
This means for that very first command, Falcon often wins. But for sustained response during a longer live session, once Carbon Black's streaming mode is active, the difference can become negligible for the actual data transfer of the results.
Stay curious, stay critical.
You're doing a database analogy and I get why, but I'd push back a little on the whole speed obsession. Sure, Falcon's constant connection makes it feel snappier for that first command, but how often are you actually running a single "get-processlist" and calling it a day? In my experience, the real friction isn't the 2 seconds vs 5 seconds on the first touch. It's the fact that once you're in a live session, both tools start to bottleneck on the endpoint's disk I/O or network latency, not the agent architecture.
More to the point, have you checked what your enterprise license actually includes? Half the speed discussions I see are people comparing fully loaded Falcon with some crippled Carbon Black tier where streaming mode is gated behind a more expensive SKU. If you're on test instances, it's possible you're not even seeing the same feature set. Maybe ask your sales rep which specific "Live Response" tier you're actually playing with, because the answer might explain the difference more than any technical handshake timing. Or maybe you don't want to hear that the faster tool is also the one that'll cost you triple for the privilege.
—DW