Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

Overall, we handle the implementation of the solution, taking into account the policy required to secure the network.

We primarily use McAfee Endpoint Security for data loss and endpoint protection.

An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports.

Upon receipt of the incident, the review is important. Based on this it is possible to construct a workflow for closing the case. 

It is crucial to keep the data inside the department. Receipt of the incident is a pain point since there is a need to engage one's system administrator as part of the data loss protection consent requirements and this involves sensitive information. However, nothing will be accomplished with a system administrator, only with a compliance administrator who is fully knowledgeable. 

The solution is not stable and the ecosystem enters the picture for those responsible. Each system is connected in a centralized manner to give a holistic view of one's endpoint and environment. This is how things are at present and it offers a great way of setting things up. But, it poses an issue that a person cannot translate the value of the information once the entire system is integrated into a single console. Nothing will be accomplished in the system if incidents are frequently received but with no correlation between them. There is a need for combining IP analytics with artificial intelligence in respect of these reports. 

The initial setup was complex and required too many servers.

A perpetual license is not an option with McAfee Endpoint Security or anyone else for that matter. 

The price of the solution is high in Asia, in contrast to Symantec, which gives you a 70% discount on the closing of the project. The issue at hand involves the people. McAfee did have some big clients in my country and region. However, it did not have many clients. 

The solution is deployed on-premises since it mostly involves a bank. 

Unfortunately, most clients have chosen to remove McAfee and have switched to Silence because of its ease of use. They are not interested in updates. 

I feel McAfee Endpoint Security is a good, mature product, although the price of the technology poses an issue. In Pakistan and Asia, there is a different kind of field environment than in Europe and the United States. While we cannot offer our clients managed services, which is what everyone wants, in Europe and the United States they can. 

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security as a six out of ten. 

I have found DLP to be a valuable feature.

When it comes to DLP or McAfee Security Encryption, with which I am happy, I like to make use of the solution for Vault, but find that the encryption is problematic. The system needs reforming. Suppose the solution is utilized on a laptop or desktop and the client wishes to make an assignment to another person but forgot his password. The data cannot be archived or backed up. 

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for the past five years.

The solution is reliable.

Previously, I used the solution for a single site consisting of nearly 300 users. However, as I found it to also be a good tool for DLP endpoint, I now use it for another client with nearly 700 users.

Counting from one to ten, this being the highest, I fully support the solution's technical services.

The initial setup is very simple, allowing a person to get the videos or documents on the internet. 

The deployment takes one to two days.

I do licensing on an annual basis and this is what I always recommend to my clients over the monthly option. This is because all my clients are long-term and do not wish to pay on a monthly basis, instead preferring licenses of, perhaps, three years with an additional one or two year option. 

I am using the latest version of the solution minus one. 

Some of our clients deploy the solution on-premises and others use clouds, such as AWS or IBM Cloud. I'm actually a service partner with IBM Cloud and the community manager with AWS Cloud.

We currently have two or three clients utilizing the solution and it can be said that it is a good product. 

The solution is really good and competitively priced, so someone wishing to secure his enterprise or make use of it in an inexpensive fashion should do so. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

I have found many of the features to be useful.

I have been using this solution for three years.

The solution has been stable.

The scalability of the solution is good.

The customer support is good.

The installation is easy and only takes approximately one hour.

When comparing the solution to others it is a bit expensive. We are on a monthly license.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

MVISION Endpoint is the management software for McAfee that manages the Windows Defender. It manages the Windows Defender anti-malware, Windows Defender Exploit Guard, and Windows Defender Firewall. These are the three main components that McAfee manages centrally from an ePO, and that ePO can be an on-premises ePO management server, or it can be an MVISION ePO management server on McAfee cloud. So, management can be both on the cloud and on-premises.

It's simple and very easy to use. Before MVISION Endpoint, McAfee had their own Endpoint Security software called ENS, which included their anti-malware engine. Even though ENS was a comprehensive product and a very good product as well, it was confusing for some professionals. 

In the times that we live in now, an IT personnel, even a specialized one, is a generalist. So you have an IT person who is managing the firewall and endpoint security, and also managing the ERP and backups, and the switches as well. Everything in the environment will be handed over to a single person.

A product like McAfee ENS is pretty extensive and allows for advanced configurations, especially for security professionals. However, IT personnel often fail to configure it properly. MVISION Endpoint is so much easier and so much simpler for the lay security personnel to handle. This is what I really like about it.

McAfee has an on-premises ePO server, which you can install on your environment. You can add your infrastructure and push the agents all from the console; so you literally don't have to do anything on your own. From the dashboard, you'll push the agents, install them, configure them, and manage them all from the console.

McAfee has several MVISION products. It will be really amazing if they could be consolidated into one dashboard. As of now, I know that this is on the roadmap and is expected to be released very soon. It'll unify the management of the various MVISION portfolios. It will be a great tool for improvement.

Instead of needing separate management consoles to manage some of the products in the portfolio, a unified console for MVISION Cloud, MVISION EDR, MVISION Endpoint, MVISION DLP, and the remaining MVISION portfolio would be great. I believe that McAfee is addressing this at present.

A drawback with the cloud MVISION ePO is that you can't push agents from the cloud portal. You need to download that agent, and you need to figure out a way to install that agent into the machines.

I'd like to see MVISION Endpoint for other platforms because MVISION Endpoint is only compatible with Windows 10 and Windows 2016 and above. If I were using a Linux operating system, I would not be able to use MVISION Endpoint.

I'd like to see it in the Mac operating system as well. I'd like to see cross-compatibility, which would be great. Even though McAfee has a simpler product for Androids and the iOS, it would be great to see the ease of use of MVISION Endpoint across the portfolio.

I've been using it for two years.

McAfee doesn't provide the security software. It manages the security software which is built in to the Windows 10 and Windows Servers 2016 and above. Unlike McAfee ENS, which uses its own software to do the scanning and its own signature database that could add lots of clutter to the operating system, MVISION Endpoint uses Windows Defender, so there's no added overhead for the machines. As a result, it is pretty stable.

In terms of scalability, you can deploy as many agents to as many machines and protect them from the ePO, whether it's an on-premises ePO or one on the cloud.

Technical support is great. I didn't have to interact with them that much, but they provided good support at the times when I had to reach them. They were responsive; that is, I'd get a response within the same day.

In my experience, the installation has been straightforward.

The only major issue is that if a client is going to have his ePO on the cloud, his management server will be on the cloud. So I will need to push agents to lots of machines. There is no automated deployment from the cloud to on-premises machines. That means that I need to download the McAfee agents and have to take care of the deployment and the automation on my own.

Customers would need to purchase a license. If a customer purchases an MVISION Endpoint license, he may use that license to install ENS. It's a flexible license where you have the option to either use the McAfee security software or the Windows Defender managed by McAfee, which is MVISION Endpoint.

With MVISION Endpoint, even if you don't know about cybersecurity, you can just turn on the protection checkbox. It's that easy. It was really relatable to my experience with Sophos because the configuration there was also that simple, so I really liked it.

For those who can't afford expensive cybersecurity professionals but are responsible for configuring the security of the organization, MVISION Endpoint is a good product to go with. It's flexible, and you can manage it from the cloud or on-premises.

At present, it is often used by small businesses because of its ease of use, configuration, and deployment.

It's been around on the market for a long time, and has undergone many improvements. So, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint at eight.

We use the solution to protect our endpoint systems.

I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to manage the solution from anywhere and having an overview of the companies security. I can see which computers are patched, which computers are updated, and which ones might have possible infections or problems. Additionally, The solution is always up to date because there are updates frequently. Recently, MVISION was added and it is a new feature that has some advanced security qualities.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution to be scalable. We have approximately 60 users using this solution in our organization.

We used Symantec a long time ago.

The installation is very easy.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have a team of two that does the deployment and implementation.

There is a one-year and a three-year license available for this solution, we are currently on a three-year license. There are more secure featured solutions from McAfee on the market but for smaller companies like ours, they are too expensive.

Since we are a public utility company there are some laws here when it comes to purchasing, we have procurement procedures. We have to do tendering and then companies apply. I am very happy with the solution. If I could extend the license, for example, for three more years, I will do it immediately. We are in the process now. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security.

The solution offers very good endpoint security.

The solution is quite stable.

We've found the pricing to be pretty good. It's not too expensive.

The solution needs to offer better local technical support.

I would like to see Endpoint Vulnerability Assessment included in the solution in the future.

We've been using the solution for about ten or so years now. It's been a while. It's likely been around a decade.

The stability of the solution is very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is great.

We don't have very good local technical support. The company really needs to build out its ability to support clients at a local level. We're not overly satisfied with the level of help we receive due t the lack of local support.

I wasn't responsible for the initial setup. I can't really speak to how easy or difficult the solution is to set up or how long the deployment takes.

The pricing is pretty reasonable. It's not too expensive.

We're just a customer and end-user. We aren't affiliated with McAfee and do not have a business relationship with them.

I wouldn't recommend this solution to other companies, at least not in Indonesia. There's no local support of the product here and it affects our ability to leverage it properly.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for endpoint security.

The remote installation capabilities are very helpful for us. Its automatic installation is a good feature.

The malware detection is very good. 

The features, for the most part, are reliable. When installed as endpoint security, ransomware detected on any endpoint will be automatically quarantined there. It's then disconnected from the network and users are able to clean up that particular wireless area.

The initial setup isn't too difficult.

The solution scales well.

The solution offers good patches pretty regularly.

The solution takes up a high amount of memory and can cause the system to hang.

The malware detection, as good as it is, does not seem to be deployed correctly. It's not doing system quarantine. If a system gets attacked by ransomware, it's not going to be quarantined correctly.

If someone wants to filter or asks the system, "Please remove that antivirus we don't want it here," due to the fact that we don't want to work on a specific system, we get frustrated as it won't remove itself. It just starts scanning when we don't want it to and it begins to slow down everything when we need to do important work. 

We would like there to be better reports that we could take to management to have them be able to look at.

Recently, we have seen that Ransomware updating is starting with just SQL services. It would be nice if it was offered across the board.

I've been using the solution for about one year at this point. It hasn't been too long.

While the system is stable and we are getting malware protection, we've found that the one big thing is that we are getting performance issues. Every system goes slow. There is a significant slowdown when we install the McAfee agent. That's one of the big issues we're just facing continually.

The solution scales quite well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

We don't get any support from McAfee. If the endpoint server is down or something is not working, or the data is not connected, you may need technical support, however, in truth, we haven't had any type of these problems. From the server-side, it was working perfectly, providing the proper reports. We haven't had any real issues and therefore haven't needed to reach out.

I have some experience with Sophos and Trend Micro Apex One. I find them to be a bit better than McAfee in terms of capabilities.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the implementation process. It's pretty normal, pretty standard.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We're doing the latest version of the solution. I do not have the version number on-hand.

50% of companies are facing ransomware issues right now. We have also faced that in the past. That's why we have looked into Apex One. We have installed that. All systems are under Apex One. Everything is updated, however, it's not protected as it's not continuously communicating with the data centers. They are not updating the algorithm as they should. They need to make improvements to that part. 

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

I'd recommend the solution for companies just working with a few documents, however, if you are an enterprise, you might find that the solution slows down your system and it could affect your work in general.

I work for a company that is a McAfee partner. We sell the solution, and we have engineers that implement the solutions. Basically, I am part of the technical staff that implements the solution on-premise.

We use endpoint security for our clients. We configure policies to scan the computer every single day in some cases and every week or even every moment. Basically, it protects the endpoint, and we have policies to do advanced threat protection.

Thanks to the implementation of this tool, we have managed to avoid massive virus infection, have visibility into console events and be able to implement action plans to contain threats.

Threat prevention is valuable because most clients use other solutions like antivirus as part of web protection. I don't find that kind of solution useful. We use the firewall to protect the client's network or even blocks and some kind of traffic that the computer received. The ATP model, I think, is one of the most important features because it can protect the computer when an application doesn't work as expected. It will alert and send messages to the ePO, and we can see everything.

The local technical support could be better. It would also help if the engineers can develop some automation features for the on-prem ePO. For example, in the on-prem ePO, you can store the endpoint using the IP address or using text, or using the default version. But in the MVISION ePO, you don't have that kind of feature. It's complicated to sort the endpoint because you have to do it manually.

I also think the detailed level of the detection could be better. In some cases, it's very complicated to figure out which file is the one that is actually impacted, depending on the dashboard you see. The dashboard is one of the most important things in the ePO because it's where you can see everything in a central location. But sometimes, you need to change from one view to another view to find what you're looking for.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for about three years.

It's very stable. It works as expected, and I am very happy with this solution.

This is a very flexible product. It can be installed on a single physical or virtual server, or well installed on a windows cluster, and if you want to explore other modes it can also be implemented in the AWS cloud or as a SAAS.

In some cases, if the report comes from India or America, it's basically an open and shut case. But if the support comes from Latin America, you probably have to scale that problem to another area or another region. You need a person that has more experience with the product.

No. 

The initial setup can be both straightforward or complex. Some documentation on clients is very slow. Basically, we spent time implementing the ePO version because sometimes the database from the ePO is too big, and we need to do some things to the database to shrink the space, and it doesn't always work as expected. Sometimes, we have to follow one, two, or three steps to get the data and various scenarios to increase the number of steps because troubleshooting wasn't working.

If we implement MVISION, eventually, it would take around three hours because we have to install the software on the server. We have to do all the upgrades and implement some upgrades to the ePO software. Basically, it's three hours, but it can take five to six hours, depending on the data's size.

We implement this solution for our customers. If you are an engineer, and you have the experience, you can do it. If someone doesn't have experience with the OS, with Windows, or with the product, you might need specialized engineers.

For the issue of implementation costs, you require that the partner you use has qualified personnel to carry out this activity or you can use the professional services of McAfee, but these can be somewhat expensive.

Our clients ask us about other solutions like Cylance. I have one client that uses CrowdStrike. If you compare Cylance and McAfee Endpoint Security, the main difference is support. 

McAfee is excellent. You can ask any questions, and with a couple of clicks, you will find the answer to the issue. If you don't find it, you can open a support ticket. Sometimes, the McAfee solutions are very complex to configure. Just in some topics, but on the other hand, very simple to configure.

I recommend that the client needs to be aware of what McAfee can do for them. If the engineer can implement the solution, he'll just follow the book, and he's not going to get the best experience from the product.

To not impact the computer or the endpoint's performance, you need to finetune the policies. If the engineer doesn't have that kind of experience, you won't get the best out of the product. The client needs to get an engineer with a lot of performance tuning experience to get the most out of the product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give McAfee Endpoint Security a nine.

We use this product for endpoint server protection and content security.

What I like best is the integrated end-to-end security that works with the security information and events manager. It's a complete suite.

Technical support is an area that can be improved because sometimes, the response time is a bit slow and the explanation is short.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for three years.

This is a stable product.

McAfee Endpoint Security is scalable. We have approximately 3,000 users.

We have used technical support in the past and I find that their response time can be a little bit slow. Also, they provide less of an explanation than we expect.

At this time, we use the complete suite of McAfee solutions. However, we used to use Trend Micro.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward because it comes with the central admin manager. This means that it can be deployed or pushed from this console.

It takes a couple of hours to roll this solution out to about 500 users.

My in-house team is responsible for deployment and maintenance. There are three people in our support team.

If the price of this product were lower then it would be much more attractive.

Since the maintenance is done by our own team, the price of the subscription should really be cheaper.

This is indeed a premium product when compared to others.

Feature-wise, I am happy with this product and we have no plans to change it at the moment. It is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The two primary use cases are towards the process monitor and malware detection for APT (Advanced Persistent Threat).

FireEye Endpoint Security has improved our customers' organizations. Before a customer was with us, they may have worked with Windows Defender. This is for suspicious activity. Then they implement the next solution that is for network monitoring. With that, they deploy the EGX for info security. Now, with these components, they have a lot of visibility on their network and endpoint activity.

The most valuable feature that my customers have found with solution is the capacity to collect all the information for forensic analysis purposes.

In my personal and professional view, I think the reports need more development. They need more details on the reports and more details taking the executive view into consideration.

These reports contain the information that is gathered at the intake solutions. They are more geared for the technician and I think they need more executive information because it is important to talk to the main executives, and for them to see what is happening related to some of those suspicious activities.

I have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for something like 4 years.

In terms of stability, we have had some issue related to the deployment and hardware requirements, because most customers need to revalidate all those requirements. For example, if your deployment was on a hyper B environment, we don't know their server. They decrease in the performance of the appliance because in some cases, the requirements are not specifically stated, including the CP or reserve for those components. For example, I may define that the memory requirement is 16 gigabytes with a specific machine build.

FireEye Endpoint Security's scalability is awesome. I think it is one of the best on that front. This is because many of its steps are related to the optimization of whole the process, it's ratings and solutions with mail, social network, input solutions, and next generation CMM like Kellogg's. All these are on the single platform called FS. I sold a lot. You can see its integration with print solutions. That's very amazing.

We have companies with a lot of endpoints. We think we have something like 4000 agents and 2 main appliances.

Technical support is really great. The support is generally very fast, responding within one day.

The main deployment is very simple because it's related to the deployment of an OVA file. The physical deployment is no problem.

But the deployment needs some special knowledge about the quick console.

Deployment tales about one week or less.

If you compare your solution without the antivirus solution, and the price of the agent, it is a little bit expensive. But when you learn more about the value of forensic analysis, you will pay those costs. The price is expensive compared with other solutions, with the competitors. But it is really fast and really flexible and the user can research the information.

I think they checked out Kaspersky as well.

I would recommend to check how they might pull reports. For example, where the customer modes fall because it's an independent investigation related to an IP.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give FireEye Endpoint Security a ten, because it's the only good option.