Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

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.  

We are a solution provider and McAfee MVISION Endpoint is one of the products that we implement for our clients. Our clients use it to help manage their security.

The most valuable feature is user-based policy provision. It allows for greater granularity.

Our clients use the VPN to create secure connections to their servers.

A policy-editing console should be added.

Having automatic updates would be helpful.

We have been dealing with this product for about two years.

We are completing two deployments each week and I don't have any comments with regards to stability. I would say that it's stable enough.

We have about 20 clients who are using this solution and it is easy to scale. I would estimate the number of users to be about 400.

McAfee has good support and they are very responsive.

We deal with endpoint solutions from several vendors including Sophos, Symantec, and CrowdStrike. We are still using Symantec in parallel with McAfee.

The capabilities of these products are similar and the real difference is in the support. McAfee has the best support nowadays, as Symantec takes too long to respond.

The initial setup sometimes has to be done manually because of issues with Active Directory. That said, it is not normally complex. Complexity can come from using export files because McAfee does not have a policy-editing console.

One of the recent deployments we completed required three of us 15 days. This including training people in different locations.

We implement and deploy this product for our clients.

Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a reseller and McAfee is one of the security solutions that we implement for our customers.

The cloud-based security and data protection features are essential for the work from home set up, because of the pandemic.

Some of the most valuable features of this solution are the ePO, centralized management, single control, and ease of management. 

The agents are easy to deploy.

For McAfee, as long as you have ePO it is easy to manage.

It integrates well with other solutions and I like their CASB and the Web Gateway, their cloud security.  Most of our clients are migrating to the cloud and they are evaluating cloud security solutions and data protection.

Endpoint resource utilization causes high levels of instability and that is something that needs improvement. Our clients are concerned about how it can affect their endpoints and do not want the CPU overburdened.

I have been working with this solution for four years.

The stability is good.

This is a scalable solution. Most of our clients are enterprise-level companies with 10,000 users.

My personal experience with technical support is limited, but we have a good working relationship with them. In the four years that we have worked with McAfee, we have found that the people behind this product are easy to talk to. No matter how complex the problem is, they will help you to better understand it.

Overall, I feel that their support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward and it is easy to configure.

The pricing is mid-ranged and quite reasonable compared to other similar products.

Being a reseller, we handle many different endpoint products and have evaluated several of them. When comparing to Symantec, for example, McAfee is better in that they have multiple agents and multiple consoles. We also work with CrowdStrike and Cylance.

Some of our customers prefer McAfee because they started with an on-premises solution, which is a good thing. Not every company is cloud-ready, yet. Some of them have hybrid configurations, where they have on-premises protection as well as cloud-based protection.

Price-wise, McAfee is less expensive than CrowdStrike or Cylance, although not as cheap as Kaspersky or Sophos. I would say that it is reasonable, for the feature set.

We have been working with McAfee for four years and the sales and support have always been good. It is not difficult for us to handle McAfee because they have always worked well with us.

I think that this is a good option for people working from home because it is easy to implement and deploy the agents.

My recommendation for anybody who is implementing this product is to have VPN access set up, adding to the security, especially when working from home.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for intrusion prevention.

We are service providers.

The most valuable features are the prevention layer that detects the signature value and prevents threats in the network.

The reporting could be improved, by providing more reporting features.

The resolution time should be faster.

I have been working with McAfee Endpoint for more than ten years.

We have experienced a few issues.

I have contacted technical support and they are good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It takes two days to deploy.

We did not use a vendor or an integrator, we have our own team.

I have experience with multiple vendors and this is a product I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution has three primary uses for us. 

Our environment is Windows-based. We don't have Mac and very little space for Linux systems. We use the solution on all of our Windows devices as a basic antivirus protection. That's our first use case.

The second use case for the solution is to be able to have USB restrictions on my endpoints. 

And the third would be the protection of machines when, especially now in this COVID-19 climate, users connect from home. There are a lot of network-based attacks. When users are connecting from other networks, they're protected from dangers with this solution

The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible.

There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging. 

The second improvement I would like to see would be to make the speed of the updates much faster. I've seen other vendors that have already released an update for new ransomware and yet McAfee has not. They seem to generally delay releasing an update to protect against something, which can be dangerous as it gives malicious content time to spread. 

I've been using the product for almost two years at this point.

I would say on a scale of one to 10, the scalability would rate at an eight. It's not perfect and there's room for improvement. However, it's generally been stable for us.

We've seen some versions of McAfee not functioning correctly. Then, suddenly, we had to put in a patch. Occasionally, the notes are not there and when we raise a ticket with the support they came back and say, "Oh no, no, this version has a bug, you guys will need to move to a new version."

The scalability of the solution is good. We've actually scaled up, so we can speak from experience. We initially rolled out to a smaller set of users and then eventually to our entire base. We've scaled up to about 15,000 users at this point. There were no issues in doing so. It's quite straightforward to expand outwards as needed.

Technical support I would say is average. A lot of times we've gotten standard responses from support. They don't really offer a solution. The responses that we have gotten from support is something that we have already tried or they'll simply tell us to move to the next version. That requires us to deploy to 15,000 users. They don't go out of their way to be helpful. 

We've always used McAfee. There never has been another solution that the organization has tried out.

I personally have worked with a few other solutions. I'm not talking about next-generation products, like a CrowdStrike or a Carpenter due to the fact that they are a different league altogether. However, I would say I've had extensive experience with Symantec also. 

In terms of Symantec versus McAfee, the two big differences are that on McAfee I am able to scale quite well and now, especially with users who are connecting from home, I can see users' statuses over the internet. That way, we can check the health of the machine and update machines remotely. That isn't the case of Symantec. Unless the user connects to back to the office VPN we will not be able to do as much.

However, where McAfee falters is the size of the modules, which are quite large.

The initial setup was simple and the deployment itself was straightforward. The was no complexity in terms of the architecture or the initial deployment of the solution.

I came into the organization when McAfee was already deployed. However, I've set up some other packages. For example, although McAfee was already deployed, the USB blocking features module, took about two months I would say to deploy across the network.

We have a team of approximately four people the deploy patches and updates and generally maintain the solution.

We deployed the solution ourselves and continue to deploy any ancillary modules on our own as well. We don't need the outside assistance of consultants or integrators. We have a team that manages these items in house.

I would advise, if somebody's looking at buying a brand new solution fresh or have a solution coming up for renewal, to look at the next generation antivirus products. The next-generation products are far more sophisticated. They might be a little higher in price, but in terms of manageability, updates, and the packet size, they are far superior. 

McAfee has released something called Envision. It's a next-generation antivirus. In this other solution, they have incorporated a lot of next-generation technologies. It's a different license and a higher-priced license altogether. 

Overall, I would rate this solution seven out of ten.

This is part of our network security solution. We have it running on different servers and workstations that are on different platforms.

McAfee EndPoint Security has a lot of good features that work well if they are implemented properly.

This solution is difficult to implement. There are lots of features but it has to be implemented the right way.

I would like this solution to do what Palo Alto traps does because I would only need to run this one product.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for perhaps the last ten years.

It is stable, once it is configured and set up properly.

The technical support is good but the local people are bad.

On the workstation, the initial setup is easy.

For the server, it takes a long time for your people to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the integration between environments.

Something that needs to improve is the interface. I would also like to see simple processing and reporting online. 

The stability of the solution was not very good.

We had some issues with the scalability but it was taken care of. It can be improved, however. 

I will rate this solution an eight out of ten. In the next version I would like to see an improvement in the scalability and stability. 

FireEye Endpoint Security is positioned as an Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) product. 

We are a distributor of the FireEye product. We offer a combination FireEye package. We offer the product in many sectors, like banking and government.

We use the latest version.

We offer it in a private cloud model for our customers who want to build a security operations centers in their environment.

The most valuable network security feature is the network sandbox solution. This sandbox feature works on traffic flow. Detects multi stages attacks based on MVX analytics engine which detects zero-day, multi-flow and other evasive attacks with dynamic, signature-less analysis in a safe, virtual environment. It stops infection and compromise phases of the cyber-attack kill chain by identifying never-before-seen exploits and malware.

It has capabilities like machine learning and endpoint protection as an antivirus.

The investigation and forensic analysis have been most helpful.

They could use a Host Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) and application control module.

If you have another endpoint product running on the same machine, you have to fine tune functions from FireEye to avoid performance and user experience issues.

It is stable. There are zero false positive solutions, not like other solutions.

We plan to increase our usage.

They have a strong technical support.

Before FireEye, we used McAfee Endpoint Protection and Trend Micro.

The setup was straightforward.

Our deployment and implementation strategies have to remain agile. Every customer requirement is different. Some implementations require a direct connection and so it will take, for SMB customers, a day more or less. For larger enterprises according to the distribution and the need for more trenches with lots of internet gateways, it could take up to five days. E.g., the deployment could take two to three days with 500 users.

Our technical team does the implementation.

We require two to three people for deployment and maintenance.

The current pricing is much better than before because they now offer product-related promotions along with some changes in product licensing. The new pricing model is better than before.

It is a yearly subscription-based product, which includes the license and hardware. There is also a subscription for technical support up to five years.

It is inexpensive with a competitive price.

We also looked at Palo Alto Networks Traps and Trend Micro.

It offers protection from the latest threats.

We use this solution to enhance our internal defense system, protecting us against malware and advanced persistent threats.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

This solution has helped to protect our organization against security threats.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity. The triage process is quite effective, and it is compatible with many different systems.

We had a very large problem that has, unfortunately, not been solved. Simply put, when we start the computer the program will not start. We have encouraged FireEye to solve this problem because we have to manually start this product each and every time, and it affects almost thirty percent of our environment. From a security perspective, this is not stable.

After using various components in this solution, I get the feeling that not every part of the whole FireEye suite works perfectly with the other parts. Sometimes you have this functionality where the product has the ability to take data from one part of the solution and use it in different parts. Sometimes, however, you don't have this luxury. The solution needs more suitable dashboards that handle things from different perspectives. For example, a CEO and a technician from operations are completely different. The integration and display of the dashboards have to be done better.

We have had trouble with stability because the program fails to start when the computer does. 

This solution is very flexible and scalable.

This solution needs stronger support in Eastern Europe because of the time difference between, for example, Poland and the United States. It makes it difficult to contact technical support. In order to receive good support, we have to wait until 5:00 pm before we call. Essentially, the vender needs a better presence in more time zones, and 24/7 support would help to fix this.

Technical support has another problem, where the support from the US is better than the support elsewhere. The training and knowledge should be the same, no matter which tech support group you contact. This might be accomplished using a better internal knowledge sharing system.

We did use another solution prior to this, but because we have the entire FireEye suite, we decided to create a more monolithic approach to security using different products. These include FireEye EX and FireEye AX, which are used for malware protection, network protection, and sandboxing. We decided that if these were good enough then we would push more for the endpoints, which is why we adopted this solution.

The installation of this solution is straightforward from my perspective.

I like FireEye products, and they have a huge portfolio for this solution. However, this is not a magic bullet where you can install it and your problems will disappear. The problem is with the people, rather than the tool. From my perspective, you can install every tool, but you need to have a security operations team involved in the process of analyzing, sorting, and eliminating threats.

When we started our project, we had very few people and we have realized that this had to change. The system without human intervention is useless. We needed to build more complex security operation centers to handle false positives, the triage process, and eliminating threats.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from this solution is that people need to be ready and the business needs to be ready to use it. This is not a toy. It is a very mature solution to protect the internals of the organization and it should be treated in this way.

This is not the worse product that I have seen. I've seen many, many bad products. At the same time, this is not the best product that I have seen.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is broken down into different components from the portals. Web filtering, which is an added feature has been great for us. Other than that, we also make use of other products under McAfee, so it was DLP, HIPS, as well. Rogue Detection is more for detecting and managing systems on our network. That worked very well for us. From an interface point of view, it's really simple and straightforward.

On the next release, they should build an easier way to see a repair option within the McAfee icon on your system tray. If there was an issue, you should be able to contact the user or just right-click on "repair". That would be a very good feature to add. That could be a place of improvement, just adding that button, or customizing it.

We have good compliance. Compliance is using it at the moment, so we work 90% plus. It works well. It's being used on a daily basis and runs very well.

The solution is simple to scale. In South Africa, we have about 12 to 18,000 deployed and over 18,000 Endpoint users. We have two servers as well. 

Installation was a bit complicated right in the beginning. We obviously had to use a different extension and some of the policy had to be modified, changed or migrated across, but there were no other issues.

I've been using the Complete Endpoint Protection for maybe a year and a half, but the other half of the McAfee Suite, the McAfee Virus Enterprise, I've used since 2012 and then it migrated to McAfee Endpoint.

From a customer point of view what they need to look out for is just mainly some of the products that they use to make sure the exclusions are correct. The processes that they need to exclude, as well, are done correctly. It is mainly on the exclusions to ensure they don't have any impact.

I would rate this solution eight out of 10.