Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

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.

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.

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.