Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

We are using it on our network as protection.

An area of improvement for this solution is to make it easier to manage.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

It provides a lot of information and great visibility, with really great options for managing the environment.

The desktop firewall is a great product. It can be set to allow only authorized applications to communicate with the internet. In this way, it can block the changes for an unknown application to access our command and control server and to receive encryption keys. It is very good at preventing crypto-malware.

Their drive encryption is perfect.

You can create a complete inventory of all available executable files on the machine and whitelist the ones that you want, then lock the machine so that nothing else can be executed.

The web filtering is quite good at the endpoint level.

The threat intelligence exchange product is great because at the moment malware is detected on one device or other devices and endpoints, our servers are informed about the threats and they will be automatically recognized.

The solution has a ton of products and great features.

ePO can now be integrated with products from other vendors such as BeyondTrust, Boldon James, Titus, and you can even control Microsoft BitLocker. The architecture is easily extended and upgraded.

The vendor should simplify the way they bundle the products because it's very hard to explain to customers what products contain which features.

This product requires Microsoft SQL Server as a database and you have to deploy it yourself, then later integrate it with the console. 

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security since it first entered the market, which was several years ago.

This is a stable product. I have been working with their console since version 4.6 in 2011 and in cases where it stopped working, I was able to recover easily and it was repaired when the issue was solved. None of them crashed in a way that you could not recover from and fix it. The repairs were always relatively easy.

It is very scalable. We have four or five people in the office, but I have a few thousand workstations that are being protected by it. We have more than 10 ePO consoles, with some on-premises and some on the cloud.

We rarely needed to contact support from the vendor. In the situations when we needed some configuration from them, the response was always good.

We are McAfee partners, so I have used almost all of their endpoint products.

The initial setup is a little bit complicated, although this is because it has a tremendous number of features. Almost anything that you can think of can be configured.

The time required to deploy an ePO server with endpoint security depends on the number of endpoints in the environment, as well as the business processes. Some things require monitoring and observation over time, but in general, it can be set up over two or three days.

Our in-house team is responsible for the deployment, which requires one engineer on-site. We also provide support to our clients.

The pricing is great and licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

In general, it is a really great product and I recommend it. I don't have any objections and most of the users only use perhaps 25% of the features that are available. I cannot remember a time that I needed a feature and it wasn't available in the console.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

McAfee Endpoint Security can be used for threat protection, for malware protection, and for data loss prevention by encrypting the end user devices using full depth encryption.

We are using the latest version minus two because we generally update the antivirus to the current version after testing it. So generally it is two versions behind.

We have three versions in our network, one is the latest version, then we have a minus one on critical machines and minus two on the endpoints.

The most valuable feature of McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is stable. It is a good product.

In terms off what could be improved, it is a little bit slow.

Additionally, the encryption part definitely needs to be improved.

We have faced certain issues recovering the data from systems which could not be fully encrypted by McAfee and then the decryption was a nightmare, it took a lot of time. Some could not even be recovered. That was one issue. 

The endpoint protection and anti malware features are good. But encryption and decryption are a bit slow and it's a tedious job.

The second issue is that the public dashboards are out-of-the box kinds of features, so they need to be configured, which takes a lot of time.

Finally, there is an issue with the device timing features for allowing certain devices within the network for what we call USB protection. For master devices or static Bluetooth devices which need to be connected, the white-listing of those devices needs to be more straightforward, it is currently highly technical.

The dashboard and encryption should be improved. 

There is a cloud-based environment available from McAfee which is called MOVE. If the customer has already implemented it on-premises, it should be integratable with the MOVE version. We discussed this with McAfee and they said encryption data can not be moved to cloud. This means if I move my antivirus server to the cloud, I still need to maintain a separate encryption server within my network. That is the challenge.

We would like to see all the features available on cloud.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for three years.

McAfee Endpoint Security is a stable product. 

In terms of scalability, as of now, we have licensing for 2000 users. We originally purchased it for 1800 users. Now we have renewed it for another year for 2000 users.

It's not scalable now because we have endpoint detection and response, the new technology which has been released by many companies, including McAfee. If we need to move to EDR, we will need to remove this and to implement the EDR across different products.

We require three people to deploy and maintain the solution.

Before switching to McAfee Endpoint Security, we were using Trend Micro.

The initial installation went on for two and a half months.

It was straightforward for Endpoint Protection Antivirus for encryption, but it took some time. This McAfee encryption had some issues with Windows 8 and Windows 7 older versions. For new versions it runs smoothly.

When we implemented three years back we used a system integrator, our partners, for doing the installation.

We have 1700+ systems so we needed to be setup with this solution.

I think the costing is fine compared to other products. Cost-wise you definitely get value for your money.

We have already recommended it.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security as a seven.

We provide services. We mainly use this solution for endpoint security and protection. We have cloud, hybrid, and on-premises deployments.

A big advantage of McAfee Endpoint Security is the ability to manage very big environments. We are supporting environments with 200,000 to 300,000 endpoints. The ability to manage with one single console is very important for us.

McAfee has phenomenally improved in terms of detection. It provides real-time detection and response with the error, Real Protect, and reputations. It is not only based on signatures but also on behavior analytics, artificial intelligence, or machine learning. We have environments that never had issues with ransomware in the last 20 years. McAfee has a very good performance in this field.

The management console is a little bit difficult to understand for admins. You need a lot of time in order to become familiar with that. It is a little bit complicated and not too easy to understand. 

Its price can also be improved. Its price is higher than its competitors.

McAfee also needs to have better cloud integration and more data centers in the EU. The cloud center should be in Europe or in Germany. In Germany, it is really important to have access to your data within the same country. Customer data needs to be placed and processed in the same country.

I have been using this solution for 20 years. 

McAfee is very big. You can implement it in a very small environment but also in a very big environment. You don't have limits or limitations.

Technical support could be better. The first level of technical support has to support about 30 or 40 products, which is an impossible number to support. Therefore, their support teams at the first level needs the support of product specialists. You, in any case, get a professional product specialist at the second level, some times at the first level.

For the initial setup, McAfee always requires some kind of consulting, which is good for us as a provider. A customer cannot do an installation without help. It is not too easy for a customer, but it is fine for consultants.

Its price is very high. It is higher than its competitors, and it should be less.

You would be very happy with McAfee if you have the know-how of this solution and you have somebody who is an expert at this solution. McAfee is not too easy to understand, but when you understand the solution, you could be very happy with it.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for endpoint protection, CASB, and it is integrated with Office 365.

The most valuable feature is ease of use.

The dashboard is quite good.

I would like to see more integration with third-party products.

Pricing is always something that can be improved.

In the future, this product should make use of artificial intelligence and machine learning technology.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for more than 10 years.

The stability is good and we haven't had any issues.

Scalability-wise, McAfee is a good product.

The technical support from McAfee is about average.

We use Symantec as well as McAfee for endpoint protection.

We have found that McAfee has better coverage when compared to Symantec.

The price of McAfee is pretty similar to Symantec, and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

In summary, this is a good product and they have most aspects covered. That said, it needs better integration with third-party products. Even the integration with other McAfee products can be improved further.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for endpoint protection, to block malware and viruses.

We like the web control and firewall.

I have been using McAfee for twenty years. 

It's very stable.

Scalability also works nicely. It's easier to scale it out on thousands of machines.

We only require two staff members for maintenance. There around 16,000 users. 

They have two different kinds of support. One is enterprise support and one is normal support. They charge more for enterprise support and when we raise tickets we get a good response but with the normal support, their response is not quick. They don't give much preference to normal support. It can take three, four days, or even a week to get a reply from them.

Being in the IT industry, we have come across different products, McAfee and Defender plus Symantec, and Trend Micro. For my needs, I like McAfee the most. Symantec might be equivalent but I like McAfee the most.

There are good web, application, and firewall control features. It would be helpful if the controlling of connections coming to the PC could be done from McAfee's side so that we can block those connections. 

It's a good product. I would recommend it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's easy to use and it's very powerful. It offers nice endpoint protection.

We use it for all Windows and MAC clients. We use it for endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. We are using the latest version.

The endpoint protection and disk encryption features are the most valuable.

It didn't work well for some of the use cases. We have different use cases for each entity. 

Their support is also not good and needs improvement.

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

Only the endpoint is stable. There are still a few things that need to be done in DLP.

It can scale. We have around 10K users who use it on a daily basis. 

Their support is not good. It needs to be improved.

We used Symantec previously. They didn't have a suite, and I wanted a suite that can give me a single control panel to manage my endpoint protection, DLP, and disk encryption. I wanted to use only a single agent with different modules so that I don't have to worry about multiple things.

It was not that simple. I would say it was moderate. It took more than three months to stabilize.

We used a partner integrator. We maintain it on our own. 

It is not that expensive. There is no additional cost. We got the entire bundle together.

I would not recommend this solution because a lot of new-age solutions are available in the market. These solutions are better than McAfee Endpoint Security and can do a better job.

I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We want more protection for our servers. We would like to know if a real incident or something compromising is happening. Therefore, we have deployed this EDR solution.

The exploit guard and malware protection features are very useful. The logon tracker feature is also very useful. 

They have also given new modules such as logout backup, process backup. We ordered these modules from the FireEye market place, and we have installed these modules. We are currently exploring these features. 

The Linux support is very poor. I use base detection. Currently, they are providing malware protection and logon track features in Windows and Mac. These features aren't available in Linux. It will be helpful to extend these capabilities to Linux.

We would also like assets grouping and device lock protection features, which are included in their roadmap.

We have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for the past two years.

The current version is more stable than the previous ones.

It is easily scalable.

My experience was 50/50. Sometimes, it was good. Sometimes, they took some time.

We were using McAfee AV. We switched to FireEye Endpoint Security because we had some performance issues with McAfee AV. We are not facing those issues with FireEye Endpoint Security.

It is easy to deploy. It took us a month to deploy. 

Deployment may take more time based on the architecture and the environment. With some vendors, it took us some time to analyze because there were things that we wanted to monitor, which depended on the production. Therefore, we installed it step by step, not in one step at full force.

If you are deploying on Windows or Mac, there will be minimal issues, and you can go for this solution. With Linux, you need to understand a few features. What you expect from Windows and Mac is not available in Linux. If your main technologies are open source, then probably rethink about FireEye Endpoint Security. You can go for FireEye Endpoint Security after they have the same capabilities in Linux. Most of the features are there in their roadmap.

We mostly faced issues with Linux support. In the past, we also had issues related to communication between an agent and an endpoint where they didn't communicate, the communication got stopped automatically, or the data communication time didn't sync properly. In the later versions, they improved and resolved these issues.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. It's gradually growing, and a few features that we require are not there. If these requirements are satisfied, I would rate them nine or ten.

This product is mainly used for detecting viruses and malware on the laptops and also to scan older, existing files.  

The ability to check a wide range of vulnerabilities and devices is a very valuable feature in this product. This is not really a user interface or manually driven product. VirusScan gives an alert to the user that a scan should be performed on their device and the user has to click it to initiate the scan. Then McAfee scans the device and it gives a report saying that it has run a scan of the system and now everything is fine. It runs for the user rather than manual scanning.  

We are using it so the company is providing better security coverage end-to-end. I am not sure how to improve on that because it already achieves that goal and updates constantly.  

One thing I think it should do is alert administration if some attack is happening in local systems. I am not seeing that kind of alert. When users run a scan on their own system and nothing is found, that is fine. But ideally, VirusScan also has to send a notification of the source of an attack if one is detected.  

For example, if the threat came from opening an email attachment, an alert could be broadcast to warn other users on the system not to open the same attachment and McAfee could do that automatically. Something like that. Or at least it should make a report or alert for the administrator so that they can take the proper action.  

For the last six to eight years we have been using McAfee VirusScan Enterprise.  

The stability of the solution is fine, actually, and we are satisfied. It does not have a problem working with the 10,000+ users in our organization. It checks and updates everything every day and the stability is there.  

The scalability with McAfee is good. We currently have about 10,000 laptops which we are using it to secure. It is globally distributed and everybody uses the data scanning to ensure data security is a high priority.  

The people are using it with roles that range from the top to the bottom of the corporation. It is mandatory to use McAfee to ensure that we are in compliance with security regulations as well as preventing data loss on our local systems.  

We have plans to increase the usage of this product as the employee base and the number of devices increases.  

I did not have a chance to interact with the technical support team at McAfee because our local internal IT takes care of everything when it comes to the maintenance. Some issues that we have occur because the product is not upgrading locally for whatever reason. Our IT people will handle that type of minor support issue for us.  

As far as I know, before this company used McAfee VirusScan as a solution for these past six to seven years, there was not another endpoint security protection product in place.   

The initial setup is straightforward for the administration. The end-user should not have to do anything. There is an automatic trigger and it scans devices on the network along with their files and automatically generates a report. That is all there is to it. It is updated through the central station which tracks the upgrades and the devices that it scans.  

The implementation is kind of done in incremental steps because it is a cloud solution. It is just being pushed from the system to the central location. The agent runs on every laptop and we either manually click it when it issues a notice that it is time to scan the device, or it triggers by itself. It automatically runs these processes without intervention.  

As always, the cost of the licenses has to be paid and it will be per user per year. But the cost is minimal because we have taken a sort of deal with McAfee for a site license.  

I recommend McAfee VirusScan to everyone in an enterprise environment. Part of the reason is that nowadays everyone is working from home. Their systems and devices have to be secure when they are connecting externally to the internal network with whatever device they are using. They should have at least one security solution in their system so that they can avoid vulnerabilities that they may encounter outside of the secure internal network. VirusScan ensures that is happening.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee VirusScan Enterprise as a nine-out-of-ten. It is a very good solution and gives good blanket protection.  

McAfee MVISION is security for integrated VMware and OpenSite cloud solutions.  

McAfee is fine as an endpoint. We are offering the product to clients for data protection. It is not about this being a reactive solution like a firewall. There should be a shield of gateways, wherever possible, whenever this security solution can be implemented.  

The biggest problem we had with this product was when the DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) did not respond well to a threat. We experienced one virus attack that the product did not catch. I do not know the exact CDC (Communication Device Class) details. That time, we did an analysis, but the systems crashed. We could not even access the infected file servers.  

Because we could not access the servers in that attack, we could not even remove all the threats. Eventually, what we had to do is find out which servers got infected and then we had to roll back those servers to a previous backup. It left us in a little bit of a vulnerable situation. It ended up not being what we hoped for in an endpoint solution.  

Because McAfee was infected, other endpoint protections were also affected that made the situation more difficult to resolve.  

Improvements that I would like to see in MVISION would be to provide some additional features for the cloud to make their product a one-stop solution. For example, every organization is going into hybrid-cloud. That may allow part of a solution on-site. That can be part of multi-tier platforms and would be more flexible.  

What they can do is offer more in order to be a leader in innovation for different architectures rather than for enterprise only. For example, the endpoint security product uses every desktop like service. They have the features for the hardware detection and the platform access, then on the application layers. These three layers are a part of the firewall. So these are the firewall and then there are other things they could be offering as a single source to create a more secure environment as a proactive solution.  

This is something that definitely could be improved, especially with intrusion detection and intervention. It is very important to do more to cover the security of these more invasive practices. So, they could improve things with a web application firewall, and improve intrusion detection and prevention. Those should be the key areas which they are focusing on right now to improve the utility of the product moving forward.  

If you have a look into the Gartner report, there are many companies that are making advances in this category of product and it means competition for McAfee.  

I have been using this type of product from McAfee since about six years ago off and on.  

I think it is a stable product. It needs to be more robust in identifying threats.  

It is a scalable, of course, as it is designed for enterprise use. It is scalable unless you do not configure it correctly and try to work with it without knowing how to do it.  

We have been in touch with the McAfee technical support. They also struggled with a problem we had with an infected server. I was involved in the contact with McAfee at the time when trying to resolve the issue. Ultimately, they did not have any solution for the problem and we ended up rolling back the server. In all that is a bit of a problem with the product and the technical support. Neither were optimal.  

The installation and implementation are the easiest parts of using the product. The real difference comes in how you want to optimize the performance. That is the key. Otherwise, implementation is not challenging.  

By optimizing the performance, I mean that you should not change the function of the basic purpose of a security product. If it is a firewall implemented on the network, that product should be providing the service without excessive expense or resources in performance. We are looking at the cloud solutions in the same sense. There can be performance concerns for products on the cloud. It is a known factor.  

Then the second point is all about the features and configuration. The question is about configuration management using tools on the cloud platforms. You may be using multiple clouds. You have to be sure you can configure it so the product remains secure across platforms. Security solutions should also focus on providing that rather than forcing users on to different products and having to manage multiple solutions.  

The deployment for McAfee MVISION Endpoint, after everything has been considered and all of the points have been taken into account, takes some time. Say we have got around 3,000 to 10,000 servers. The type of configurations can be critical. If the client provides a rule-based requirement, we have to go with their requirements. Depending on what needs to be configured, this can take more or less time. Each of the servers will take a certain amount of time to do the implementation. So the time estimate for the implementation has to include the customer requirements. Analysis has to be completed for each unique need.  

The maintenance is looked after by the client. It should not take more than five to six team members, even if we have a client with 3,000 servers. That is the number of people that we would expect once the product is properly organized and implemented.  

That should not be considered just an eight-hour per day effort. It needs to be serviced around the clock because the servers do not sleep. Deployment of people to maintenance teams is important.  

With the installation complete, the configuration done, and the maintenance team in place, using the product is all about monitoring it. A lot of intrusion detection is getting automated now, but not everything will be. Someone has to take some time doing analytics with the logs.  

We try to configure the solution to sort out many things. We have to work with what the client is expecting and configure for that level of load and to get proper alerts. The configuration will probably be ongoing as a part of maintenance and review.  

MVISION is intended as an enterprise product and it is priced like one. That is what I can say about the pricing. Enterprise organizations will be able to make the expenditure and it will not be practical for most smaller organizations. This solution is within the price range of competitors at the enterprise level.  

We definitely evaluated other products and continue to. We have to put our case forward for justifying our products and solutions within our company and with our clients. It has been an experience with the POC. Whatever the product and features, the cost-benefit analysis has to be taken in terms of leaky security. That may not matter for certain situations and products, but from our testing and experience, it will definitely matter for this product right now.  

Our company has to make a decision about whether they have to switch to a different product internally. If we try to become a partner with a certain company and begin to resell that to other clients, we can get a better price in a negotiation. This may affect the product we end up using.  

We definitely need to explore a lot. In this case, it will take a lot of time to consider the benefits of various products and cost-benefits.  

My advice to people considering this solution is that they should take a look at it. As of now, that is all I can say. I was not focused on working with all of the products within this category and, after a long time, I am working with them again. Just these last three or four months, I am back into evaluating the security solution sets more rigorously.  

I am not biased at this point and have to leave the possibilities wide open in order to make a good recommendation.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint as a five to six in a range of ten. The rating is not about the product being perfect, I am not rating it too high because the things that are missing are things that really should be a part of a superior endpoint solution already. They have so much to work on as of now with this product that it seems to be lagging behind. With their experience in the business, they should know these things are important. If you look into the other competing products of whatever brand, the competition has already released identity and access management. The new organizations in the category are coming into this field with all the latest innovations. As more of them do, they will create a challenge in the marketplace. McAfee is lagging a little behind and not moving quickly to keep up.