McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention Reviews

We are a consulting firm and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our clients.

Our customers primarily use it to protect local files that they are saving to external devices.

The most valuable feature is the ability to control access to USB drives and other external devices.

The interface is very complicated to use and it is easy to forget how it works.

There needs to be support for blocking the sending of files by email because even if you block or remove an external disk, the files are not protected. As long as the files can still be sent via email, it is useless to protect them from being copied to an external drive.

I have been working with this McAfee data protection product for more than two years.

Scalability is not really applicable because it is only dealing with an endpoint device. There is no impact on scalability.

I have not been in contact with McAfee's technical support.

Symantec has a similar solution available.

The initial setup is complex. The configuration requires that many points have to be considered before it can be done properly.

The price is high for this type of product.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We use the solution for data.

The solution is simple with simple settings. It provides good protection for our data.

The product’s pricing could be cheaper.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for five years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is easy to scale.

Around 3000 users are using the solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is simple and quick, but the configuration is complex. We have to put documents and other pieces which cannot be sent to an outside company.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

When this solution is used it requires a lot of administration because the users can have difficulties using it and require assistance. The administrators are continuously modifying the policies for the users. Technical support will be used frequently.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for a few years. 

The stability of the solution can be good. However, the configuration takes a long time for it to be done properly.

We have approximately three customers using this solution.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is scalable.

The support from McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention could improve.

The initial setup of McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is complex. The configuration can be complex. For example, configuring the policies and filters.

Our team did the implementation of the solution.

The price of the solution could improve, it is expensive. We typically sell one and three-year licenses.

The amount of staff needed for maintenance depends on the size of the company.

I rate McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

We've used the solution mostly for antivirus and malware protection only. There's some scanning of emails, phishing websites, and then also scanning my pen drive or hard drive or external hard drives.

It's good in that it does what it is intended to do.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is easy to set up.

The solution takes up too much CPU and memory.

I've used the solution for a few years. It's been about six or seven years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I'm not sure about the scalability. I only use it for personal devices and have never attempted to expand it.

I'm using the solution myself. No one else uses it. 

I've never had an issue with McAfee. I've never had to reach out to technical support.

I'm also familiar with Kaspersky and Norton Security Premium.

I previously used an open-source solution, however, that was six or seven years ago.

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple. it's not overly complex or difficult. 

The deployment only takes five to ten minutes. It's pretty fast.

You can do the deployment yourself. It doesn't require any help per se. 

I pay a yearly licensing fee which is about $1000 in my local currency. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'm happy with its capabilities. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

McAfee Total Protection Data Loss Prevention is used for protection for endpoints and specifically for DLP.

The overall features of McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention are very good.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention could improve by having artificial intelligence.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for approximately three years.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is stable.

We have approximately five customers using this solution.

The solution is scalable.

In general the technical is average. Not great but not bad.

The implementation of the solution is complex. Based on the architecture, it should integrate with different solutions. The full implementation took approximately one month.

We have two engineers that do the maintenance and support of this solution.

There is an annual license to use this solution.

I rate McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to protect laptops and mobile phones.

I don't have any issues with this product. It satisfies my requirements.

The interface can be improved, it's too cluttered.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for five years.

We are using the latest version.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is a very stable product.

We have not tried to expand this solution yet. We have more than five users in our organization.

Technical support is good. They are timely in responding.

We are also using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention.

The initial setup was straightforward with McAfee's help.

We had help from McAfee.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

Pricing is okay. We don't have any issues with the pricing of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

We use the solution in the banking sector. Banks would like to prevent any customer information or confidential documents from leaking outside their environment. We use the solution on the email channels basically. We also use it sometimes on USBs, and other tools also.

The solution is very easy to manage.

Overall, it's an easy to use product. It has a great end-user experience. The solution is quite powerful.

It offers good monitoring of your endpoints and provides excellent reporting.

The interface showcases threat incidents very well.

We've had issues with the Lower and Upper filter of the device control module. 

Technical support doesn't really offer fast response times.

They could continue to refine their defense on signature attacks.

We've been using the solution for a while. I have about two years of experience personally.

While it is largely stable, I have experienced issues with browsers, especially when we export and import the DLP policy. After importing the DLP policy, we weren't able to get a classification and definitions of the data loss prevention from Microsoft Edge or other browsers. They hung when we tried to access the classifications and definition page.

This doesn't really count as a stability issue. It's more of an availability or usability issue.

We have about 2,000 users in one environment. In another environment, we may have as many as 3,000 users. The solution scales pretty well.

While we typically implement this solution for our customers, I would say that we would like to increase usage.

When we've had issues in the past, and, although they ended up solving our problem, we found the response time was pretty slow. There was a bit of a delay. They could have been faster to respond. Other than that, we're pretty satisfied with their level of service.

I haven't experienced a lot of users, however, so far, McAfee has been excellent.

Generally, the solution is pretty straightforward to setup. It's not complex. That said, there is a common issue with an installation video. It's something about TLS support, TLS version 1.1. There's a command you should execute, however, there is a conflict of KBs. We had to do a bit of research and we were able to troubleshoot it ourselves in the end.

Ultimately, deployment takes about two to three hours. It doesn't take too long.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need the assistance of any integrators or consultants. I also didn't need the help of technical support.

Although I don't have too much information on the exact costs of the solution, it's my understanding that the pricing is pretty good.

We're systems integrators. We aren't McAfee customers.

I would recommend this solution to other companies. It's stable and strong in data loss prevention. It works quite well.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at a nine. If it offered more responsive support and better usability, It would get higher marks from me.

The solution was added to the existing infrastructure such as AV Next-Gen. We were using it to expand into whitelisting. Primarily the use case was to test technologies that could grow beyond the traditional approaches for Next-Gen AV and get into more deterministic protection against unknown attacks, without relying holistically on behavioral type approaches that were meant to stop attacks, and protect processes and data.

The whitelisting works well.

The technology would provide a DLL hook injection into memory to monitor processes as they were inserted into memory. Assuming they pass the other tests from the AV side, and they're allowed to be inserted into the memory, then the DLL hooks allowed the product to monitor those processes for injection, or for any risk. That worked some of the time but didn't work on everything.

We found ways to inject code into processes that were being monitored and it was a silent failure. The solution didn't see everything. It did a good job of just stopping the insertion of malicious code from normal sources, but more advanced items it didn't catch. It was a silent failure on some of the more advanced attacks.

The solution needs an easier integration in heterogeneous and dynamic environments.

The product needs to offer more protection for memory-based attacks.

We only really used the solution for three weeks as part of a test.

The solution was very stable on the current supported operating systems. We tried to deploy it on some legacy systems that McAfee didn't officially support, and ran into a lot of issues there, going into older operating systems. Current operating systems and their support list worked just fine. There were no compatibility issues with supported operating systems.

In terms of scalability, it would really go back to the deployment with the same type of concerns. Where scalability in a homogeneous environment is relatively simple, but in a heterogeneous environment is vastly more complex and challenging.

Technical support was good for what we needed. We just needed some support on the original install and set up, and we ran into some issues with unsupported systems. However, support was responsive and pretty timely. I had no concerns with support. It was good.

We had used other McAfee solutions before. McAfee was the status quo. Then, the expansion was into Solidcore and app control. It was really about expanding within the McAfee portfolio.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. It was a little time consuming just to get everything functioning and set up correctly. I would say it wasn't heavily complex, however. 

The documentation on how to do it was relatively good. It was something that, without a lot of skill, could be deployed. It just requires some focused knowledge. 

Overall, I would say it has a moderate level of difficulty as far as ease of deployment.

The deployment takes quite a bit of time, based on the variety of applications in the system. For us, if it was a very homogeneous environment and all systems had the same applications, and they were all sort of built off the same images, so it would be relatively easy to do. There would still be some complexities with the unique differentiation between systems.

If we were deploying to an environment that was very heterogeneous and a highly varied array of software in the different systems, it would be much more complex and time-consuming to deploy.

The maintenance would be pretty difficult if it was an actively managed environment. If the environment has new applications and updates and changes on a regular basis, it requires quite a bit of management within the technology to keep up and authorize new known items for protection. However, in a less dynamic environment, it would be much easier to maintain. My concern, and one of the concerns we had just with the technological approach, was how easy would it would be to maintain and manage the system long term.

I don't have any insight into the cost. We were looking mostly at the technological aspects of the solution. There might have been some extra charges for the aggregation and SOC integration type of items.

We were a service provider and reseller.

We had the solution in a lab environment for about three weeks, so we weren't a longterm user of it. We had a client that had familiarity with other aspects of McAfee protection solutions, and they were looking to just expand it to get more into whitelisting. They wanted to use it as a stop-gap for the deficiencies in the other aspects of their technology. We were looking for it to provide protection against more advanced malware and unknown malware attacks. That's what we did in the lab environment. We tested it.  

I don't know which version of the solution we tested.

I would advise other companies to take care of understanding the environment that the solution is going to deploy in. They need to be cognizant of the challenges with dynamic and heterogeneous environments, as it relates to how the technology is deployed and how easy it is to deploy and maintain. Finally, they should be wary of the limitations in the protection efficacy, as it relates to some of the most advanced types of malware attacks, where we found the product to be deficient in some areas.

The biggest lesson we learned from using the solution was that there's a high expectation that as a company, McAfee implements this type of a solution to expand upon their solutions in the AV that they came from. What we've learned is that the step change in protection is not as great as we had hoped. The ability of it to stop the most advanced malware and other unknown types of attacks didn't live up to the expectations that were associated with a whitelisting solution.

I'd probably rate the solution six out of ten. It's not a bad product. It has some deficiencies, however. We found other technological approaches that offered much higher efficacy in protection and were easier to maintain. 

We are a solutions provider. We make recommendations to people and companies concerning virtualization solutions, server solutions, file sharing and things of this nature. So we also need to protect servers or client machines or PCs and so often we need to recommend the purchase of some antivirus solutions. McAfee is one of the solutions we use in our recommendations.  

It provides us with an excellent solution to recommend to clients for security.  

One of the most valuable things for us about this product is that we needed some solution that can be used in desktop virtualization. We are not using the antivirus program in common ways. We use antivirus in desktop virtualization.  

The most important solution for us is protecting the virtual machines that we host on our servers. We need security protection for our clients and server solutions, security protection for virtual desktop solutions and security for the cloud-based system solutions. We work in all of these fields.  

One thing that would help us is if the McAfee agent that we install on virtual machines became lighter. It is a bit heavy for installation on virtual machines and it uses too much in the way of resources. It takes a lot of the CPU, the RAM, and other resources in comparison to some other application like Kaspersky. Kaspersky Security Solution is a lighter solution than McAfee. McAfee is a little heavy for many installations and does not work for all clients and situations.  

It would also be good if the McAfee solution contained specialized features just for the virtual desktop. Some brands of security solutions already have this type of feature which makes it easier to use them for desktop virtualization. I can not find that currently in the McAfee product.  

We have been using this product for about 10 years for some internal solutions and for our clients.  

Of course, a product like this has to be designed to be stable. The whole point of McAfee is to be a stable, dependable solution for total security.  

In our experience, the product is easy to scale both on server and desktop visualization.  

The number of clients we have using McAfee Total Protection for data within our company and within our client deployments is hard to say in total. We have lots of clients in various territories. We work in five countries in the Middle East. So I don't know the exact number of users, but I know there are more than 1,000 SMBs, or small to medium businesses, that we have deployed for.  

The users at each site are IT Managers, IT Admin, Security Admins or some type of IT expert for the administration.  

I have previous and current experience in usage of some other security applications like McAfee, like Kaspersky, like BitDefender, and like SOPHOS. So I have experience with a lot of these kinds of products and know which to recommend for particular purposes in deployments. We use McAfee because it fits certain client needs but we still sometimes use other solutions for other clients. Everyone is not the same.  

We also have our own security solutions and we do not use only third-party applications in our company. We have an ISMS (information security management system) that we customize for what we need it to do.  

For the Data Security product, McAfee is easy to install and it is easy to use. This is not the setup and usability that are part of the problem when it comes to this product.  

We do our own implementations.  

I did consider other options from the other vendors I've worked with before. I had kind of a friendly connection with the BitDefender company, for example. But when it comes down to making a choice for clients I have to tell them that the application is the heaviest security program. It uses the most resources of any of the products I know well, so it was not really a good solution for us to recommend. Their solution uses more resources than even McAfee. 

Advice that I would give to others looking into implementing this solution is the same as when our customers ask us for any kind of security solution. We almost always recommended that they go with McAfee. McAfee is a great choice for most cases.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee Total Protection for Data as a nine out of ten. It is very good except for the resource drain.  

Our primary use for this McAfee product is to provide a capable data protection tool to clients whose needs fit this solution.  

The interface is really the most valuable feature. The administration part is also nice because it is pretty user-friendly as it is. The interface and administration are important because the data protection capabilities are already there. The administration and the interface make it accessible and easy to use. 

Both the pricing and the support for this product could be improved. 

I think the support comes at a very high cost. In our case, there are some regions where we do not pay McAfee for support because they do not provide the support quickly or they do not have the capacity to support our needs completely. It depends on the case and where the client is.  

It is not just the support that is expensive, I would like to see better pricing for the product licensing. Feature-wise, I would like enhancements added to the GUI interface to make it more well-designed, user-friendly, and user-intuitive while adding other features to help users work with the product more easily.  

We have been using McAfee Total Protection for DLP for more than two years.  

McAfee Total Protection is stable. We have no problems with it and neither do our clients who use it.  

The clients that we deploy this solution for are small to medium-sized businesses.  

I think that the technical support can be improved. It should be cheaper, faster and more comprehensive as far as the regions it covers.  

The installation and initial setup are not so hard. I would have to give it a mid-range score. Some of it is easy and some of it more difficult. Let's say fifty-fifty as that is the best way to describe the initial setup: half easy, half hard.  

We did not need the help of a third-party to implement the solution for us. We are a McAfee partner so we implement it for ourselves and our clients.  

The pricing seems expensive both for the license and the support.  

We are often looking for information about different products that we will be able to present to our clients as a solution for what they need. We have done research and comparison of many brands and products. With McAfee Total Data Protection for DLP, we might offer the client a choice of solutions with different advantages and features such as a Fortinet product. It depends on the client's needs.  

My advice to anyone considering this type of data protection solution is that you need to choose a product based on your needs. There are so many products nowadays that do similar things and there are always newer tools and technologies emerging. I'd recommend that people not just take advice from the manufacturer or trust in internet reviews. They should test products out for themselves to be confident in what they choose. Use the trial versions to see how the product works for yourself and do a proof of concept before you decide on a solution and implement it. It would be good to try several products to be able to compare rather than just one.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the product as an eight out of ten.