Skyhigh Security Reviews

What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis.

Skyhigh Security, as a product, is excellent, but in terms of the right services and support, those are lagging very much, for example, in Trellix. From one hundred, its score has gone down to ten, so ten out of one hundred, otherwise, it's the number one product. Pricing and design are fine, so no further changes are required on those.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Skyhigh Security is a single console for all the products, for example, under the Trellix portfolio, it would be good if it could be managed by a single console because it's not possible currently. 

Competition is running much faster than the solution, so to improve Skyhigh Security and catch up to the competition, there's a need to add these additional features into one console.

I've been working with Skyhigh Security (formerly MVISION Cloud) since the day it was launched, so it's been four or five years now. It's not being used in the organization. My organization sells it, governs, and implements it for clients. My organization is still supporting Skyhigh Security.

Skyhigh Security is a stable solution.

Skyhigh Security is a scalable solution.

I'm rating the technical support for Skyhigh Security a zero. Support for the solution is not good, though the tutorials and documentation are excellent. 

Support is not easy to reach, and the engineer who handles the issue first-hand isn't much aware of the issue. Rather than understanding the issue, he simply told me: "Okay, follow this. What is the version? Is Windows updated? Which version of Windows are you using?" By the time you're done talking with the engineer, the ransomware attack would have happened and people would have lost their data.

When a person contacts support, he's one hundred percent done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting, but the support team for Skyhigh Security doesn't listen when you tell them that you're already done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting and can now move forward to the next level of troubleshooting and support. Support will do L1 & L2 again, take and capture the logs, then do the analysis, even if you're giving them your analysis, your report. Support will tell you: "No, we don't want this analysis report, though it is the same. We will do it again, and then we will report."

We compared Skyhigh Security with SentinelOne which is also quite good, but the limitation is there because SentinelOne is just an EDR solution, while Skyhigh Security has many other things to offer. There is no apple to apple comparison possible.

The initial setup for Skyhigh Security is simple. Clients can do it themselves because they have already been using the ePolicy server on-premises solution and now are moving out onto Skyhigh Security, and with the added features, they're more comfortable with the setup.

Pricing for Skyhigh Security is fine.

We evaluated SentinelOne.

The deployment model for Skyhigh Security depends on the customers. Some customers deploy it via the public cloud, while some deploy it via the hybrid cloud. Customers use the latest version of the solution.

I'm rating Skyhigh Security ten out of ten. Its current version is 100%.

I'm recommending Skyhigh Security to others.

MVISION Cloud can be deployed on the cloud and on-premise.

I am using MVISION Cloud to have visibility for some CLP rules of the access to Office 365 applications.

The most valuable features of MVISION Cloud are the automatic reports and modification incidents.

MVISION Cloud is not well known and there should be more information about the solution. There could be integration to local applications.

In a future release, they could improve by adding Shower IT.

I have been using MVISION Cloud for approximately two years.

MVISION Cloud is a stable solution.

The stability of MVISION Cloud is fine. You can use whatever service with whatever number of users you want. There is a very good map to see all the services that you are receiving. You can always see what is happening, but the users never know if there is anything happening in the back end of the servers.

We have approximately 15 users using this solution in my organization.

I have used the support. They are very good but the speed of their answers could be quicker.

I rate the technical support for MVISION Cloud a four out of five.

The initial setup of MVISION Cloud is simple. From the moment that you have all the requirements, the process only takes five minutes. MVISION Cloud will notify you that they will have a maintenance day, which will take approximately one hour, but you don't notice that they are doing it.

There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually. The price is reasonable.

I would advise others to understand which of their use case has services that have direct integration with MVISION Cloud. The service is working very well.

I rate MVISION Cloud a nine out of ten.

McAfee Web Gateway is used as a proxy gateway in our company.

The most valuable features of McAfee Web Gateway are anti-malware, reports, and powerful categorization of web pages.

McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve.

I have been using McAfee Web Gateway for approximately five years.

We have approximately 7,000 users using this solution in my organization.

We implemented McAfee Web Gateway with a partner.

There is an annual licensing cost to use McAfee Web Gateway. The purchasing of licensing can be difficult for the government sector. 

There should be a hybrid form of a license model. For example, if I have a user working remotely and another one on-premise, it would be wonderful to have control in the cloud and on-premise.

I rate McAfee Web Gateway a seven out of ten.

• Shadow IT monitoring 
• Sanctioned Cloud App Security

• Shadow IT reporting capabilities
• DLP integration
• Encryption

It has given us visibility into our employees activities and access to cloud apps.

Support for securing more cloud apps.

Two and a half years.

Some issues, but many had to do with the complexity of our deployment and they all have been worked through. 

The Shadow IT portion would sometimes stop processing our proxy logs, but these issues seem to have been fixed.  

No.

It is excellent and top-notch.

No previous solution was used.

For Shadow IT, it was straightforward. 

For Sanctioned App Security deployment, it was a bit more complex. This was primarily due to the amount of integrations we decided to do with the existing technologies we owned, like DLP, SSO, etc., and because of the size of our cloud application.

An in-house team.

Very good.

I don't deal with pricing. Thus, I cannot answer this.

Yes. Netskope, Bitglass, Adallom, and Skyfence.

Make sure you plan your deployment carefully. Break the project into phases. This makes for more wins sooner, which you can report to your upper management. Develop a good rapport with the team who owns the cloud application, so you can get full cooperation from them.

We use this solution to protect us against online threats, as well as for user activity monitoring.

The most valuable feature is the SSL decryption.

The cloud capability needs to be improved in terms of scalability. More generally, both scalability and performance on the cloud need to be improved.

The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP.

We would like to have integration with Shadow IT analytics.

I have been working with the McAfee Web Gateway for five years.

This is a stable solution. It is constantly running across the entire enterprise.

Scalability on the cloud is something that needs improvement.

Our company has about 50,000 employees.

McAfee's technical support is fairly good.

Prior to McAfee, we were using Blue Coat. Two of the important things that Blue Coat was lacking are the SSL description capability and the in-line antivirus. I'm not sure if they have the capability now, but that is the reason that we switched to McAfee.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward and easy to perform.

Our in-house team implemented this solution. The architectural design and implementation were completed with the support and assistance of the McAfee team.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to use a hybrid model, rather than just something for a specific use case. Otherwise, you won't have a full 360-degree view. Integration with Active Directory is critical, as is the log integration with your SIEM solution. These are key factors that you need to consider.

If I were rating the on-premises and cloud-based features separately, I would give it a nine out of ten on-premises and a seven out of ten for the cloud.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is to prevent employees from extracting the data out of their corporate system and getting them outside through Gmail and things like that.

Predominantly, there are two valuable features: One is the data loss and the other one is network loss. 

It also prevents you from writing data to your Gmail and does not allow you to move your data outside of the corporate system. That is the most important feature for me.

I would like to see more power being given to the admin. In the sense that in case an employee is facing an issue and they want to configure a service, like attaching an email in Gmail, for example, they should be given the option to make the service request and get that configured on the go.

Stability has been good so far. 

We have 14,000 users using this solution, all of the employees in the company. Everybody has it installed on their laptops or their desktops.

I would advise someone considering this solution to configure it the way the OEM advises you. You should have a list of customization.

I would rate it a seven and a half out of ten. 

We use it for cloud risk services.

It monitors the cloud usage of our company and shows the status on the main dashboard. There, we can see what kind of cloud applications are being used and see a risk assessment for each one, indicating low, medium, or high. For each cloud application, we can see how many users are using it. It's like auditing for each cloud application. In that way, it gives in-depth visibility and a granular monitoring facility for the company: What is happening inside the company, what people are using, what kind of data is going through the company. It really helps in understanding cloud traffic.

There is one feature called data governance that shows all the cloud services which are used.

There is another one called cloud registry where we can see a risk assessment for the cloud services being used. If we want to add a new cloud service or a new cloud application, we can check into it and do an assessment through the cloud registry. That is the feature that I like most.

Generally, it is available.

The scalability is pretty good. The only thing we have faced is that sometimes, randomly, the portal becomes too slow. We only have between 100 and 150 users of the portal, which is a fairly small number, but scalability is not really an issue.

In terms of extent of use, it will monitor all the cloud usage in the company, whether there are 100k or 200k users. It will monitor everything, whatever comes from the logs, and present the data in an understandable format.

Technical support is pretty good.

This is our first solution of its kind.

We have definitely seen an ROI over the years we have been using it; not from a dollars perspective but in different ways.

They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount.

At the time we chose this product, we did not evaluate others, but recently we have a looked at a couple of other products. The others are pretty good. They have come up with a lot of innovation, improved security, and developed a lot of enhancements. In different ways, everybody is good.

Do a PoC for a week or ten days. If you don't like it, go with another vendor. But I believe you will like it.

It's not necessary to give access to everyone in the company to monitor their cloud usage. There are specific teams that use the platform for a specific purpose.

They have improved a lot. Every month or every three months they are coming out with a new update. Whatever we have asked for recently, they have added it to their roadmap. Since McAfee acquired the SkyHigh applications, there will be a lot more features to come. We are expecting a lot of features to be onboarded to the platform.

For our use case, what we currently have is good enough.

The most valuable feature of Skyhigh networks is the capability of giving an overview of all active cloud services on our network. Skyhigh analyzes syslog data from our firewall, and returns a report of the cloud service usage on our network. In other words, this takes the 'shadow' out of Shadow IT. It sheds some light on the current situation.

The report returned by Skyhigh not only shows which cloud services are in use, but also gives each individual cloud service a risk assessment in terms of risks associated with the service. The categories are Data Risk, User Risk, Legal Risk and Business Risk. With this overview of the associated risk for cloud services on our network, we can make some very conscious decisions about how we want to shape which services are used on the network. We can make sure that we offer safe alternatives to the services already in use. We want all our users to use cloud services, so that we can stay agile and flexible, but we also want to make sure we don't take any unnecessary risk.

Skyhigh furthers the protection of our sanctioned cloud services. Once we make a decision on which services we feel are a good match for our company, we can add extra protection to those services in the form of monitoring and threat prevention. Skyhigh can make sure that all data we put in our sanctioned cloud service is compliant with our company policy as well, as industry regulations. In other words, if one of our users accidentally puts data in the cloud that isn't compliant, we can remove this data before it causes problems. This is a win for our users and the company as a whole.

Skyhigh also monitors the usage of our sanctioned cloud services. They can spot any abnormal activity, such as users logging in from several different countries in a short period of time, or other suspicious activity.

We now have a good conscious about using Cloud services. Without an overview, you can only imagine what is going on. With monitoring, analysis and threat prevention, we know exactly what is going on and can prevent activity that we deem unacceptable or creates unnecessary risk. We have a much better overview of where our data is, both in terms of which service, but also in terms of geographical location.

The Web UI is still not quite as responsive as we would like. However, in praise of Skyhigh, they have taken this feedback into account. This is their biggest focus area for next major release.

I have been using it for one year.

In version 2.7, we had a few issues. However, none of these were major, and they were usually fixable within a very short period of time.

We have been able to provide Skyhigh solutions for customers of single office companies, as well as larger global companies, without any issues.

Technical support was very good. Our partnership with Skyhigh is extremely close, and their incident response is sublime.

The initial setup is quite easy. You must provide a log sample to Skyhigh, who then make sure their log parser is specifically suited to the customer. Once you have received a tenant, and the parser has been created by Skyhigh, the setup takes approximately one hour.

The Skyhigh licensing model is based on the number of subscriptions of administrative users on the network. There are two separate licenses: Discovery and Secure.

Discovery gives the overview of which Cloud services and on your network. Secure protects your sanctioned Cloud services. We have chosen both, but there is nothing limiting you from running either of the two licenses separately.

If you are currently using a sanctioned Cloud service, then we recommend getting both licenses (Secure and Discover). However, if your company doesn't have an official Cloud service in use, then we recommend only purchasing the Discover license. You can always purchase the Secure license at a later time, if your situation happens to change.

We are a consultancy company that wants to get into the CASB area. We did very thorough research on the products that were on the market. We have done this on an ongoing basis to check on the competition. We researched Netskope, Aperture and Elastica thoroughly, before concluding that Skyhigh is the most mature and feature-rich product.

One of the biggest factors in choosing Skyhigh was that Skyhigh integrates with your current infrastructure, rather than adding another agent or needing to send all traffic through a proxy. This simplifies setup, as well as ensuring that the product does not cause bottlenecks. It just adds value to your already existing security infrastructure.

Be prepared to involve management and your HR department. The data presented by Skyhigh, will most likely warrant change, both in terms of company culture, as well as adding restrictions to company policy. Once you have discussed policies and compliance, create some automation flows or workflows to ensure that all unwanted services or risk attributes are added to the block list on a regular basis.