Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

In my company, we use Trellix Endpoint Security for its endpoint security capabilities. Wherever there is a need for someone to comply with ISMS, we deploy Trellix Endpoint Security over there and support them in maintaining it.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it allows our company to opt for single management for multiple products. The tool also supports DLP encryption or proxy can be managed by a single management console, which is a major advantage.

Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't support Mac devices. Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't offer full-fledged support for Linux.

In the future, I would like the product to support Mac and Linux.

When it comes to classification, Trellix has its own DLP solution. They do provide classification in Trellix Endpoint Security, but not at a full-fledged level. It would be good if Trellix Endpoint Security provided a full-fledged classification.

The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support. Technical support also lacks in providing proper solutions to issues.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for ten to twelve years. I use the solution's latest version. My company has a partnership with Trellix.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I rate the technical support below five out of ten.

I have used different products in the past. Since we are a consultant, we have to work with multiple vendors.

The initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud. Trellix Endpoint Security provides its tool as a SaaS product.

The deployment process can be done in around two hours.

Our company has around 40 engineers to deploy and manage the maintenance of the product.

There are some extra expenses for using the product, in addition to licensing related to the maintenance of the product.

The product is good, but that doesn't matter if the support is not proper.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use provided the support is good. If the support is not good, our company will have to state both the pros and cons of the product to its potential users, after which the customer can choose it if they find the pros to be favorable.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We build our own use cases and those provided by the vendor for specific upcoming attack scenarios. Configuring the rule set using Trellix Endpoint Security is very much flexible based on the IOCs.

Trellix Endpoint Security is good for doing containment immediately. We can get visibility of processes or services running all over the enterprise, where the agent gets information on a particular end-user system. Since Trellix Endpoint Security keeps the data for three months, we can get a complete picture of the files downloaded from the end user mission. So Trellix Endpoint Security is very helpful when you do forensics. The only drawback is that we cannot change its format, and there is no workaround currently.

The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute. It also has a dual containment feature. Trellix Endpoint Security is also useful for taking the triage image, which takes roughly thirty minutes. So it's pretty fast, and we have multiple configuration sets. We can precisely take a triage image based on what you want, like endpoint logs, antivirus logs, or the RAM.

Currently, Trellix Endpoint Security can't find the running mutexes, while other open-source products can do it. Mutex is something like a malware user. Secondly, the solution should support multiple output formats for the triage image. Currently, the solution has only Mandiant format, where you can't use tools like volatility to analyze the memory image.

It would be good if Trellix Endpoint Security had a good visualization like other products, such as SentinelOne and Carbon Black.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for one year and six months.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a seven out of ten for stability because it crashes frequently and requires a lot of maintenance.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for scalability. We have plans to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security an eight out of ten for ease of initial setup.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for pricing.

I am using the latest version of Trellix Endpoint Security. Using Trellix Endpoint Security depends upon the user's organizational needs. If their only concern is containing and taking the triage image, and if they are comfortable doing forensics with a deadline, then they can use Trellix Endpoint Security. But if some companies want to integrate their in-house or third-party tools, Trellix Endpoint Security is not a good option.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten.

For some of our engagements, we have used MVISION, including data protection, threat intelligence, and DPP also.

We use McAfee MVISION primarily for endpoint protection, antivirus, and understanding the threat intel for end users. 

It is very stable.  

The independent modules are very good. 

For the most part, the setup and deployment are simple.

The only challenge we found is the integration with its product modules. It has a DPP. That integration, we felt, is slightly complex. The complexity of advanced modules can be improved. They could do some improvements so that it is easier to deploy the advanced modules.

We would like more in their advanced modules or ATP.

I've used the solution for a could of years.

The solution has been quite stable. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

I cannot comment on the scalability. I've never tried to scale the solution. 

For desktop support, they are pretty good. 

There are certain engagements where our customers are still using it. Now, however, we do see a common trend of people moving towards Defender service rather than using McAfee.

We also use Trend Micro. We would prefer Trend Micro and would rate Trend Micro top and then make McAfee next.

The basic modules are straightforward to set up. We don't see many challenges there. However, when we talk about going into advanced ATP modules, et cetera, we do see certain amounts of complexity.

I did not work on the implementation and cannot say how long exactly it took to deploy. Likely, it would take between three and six months.

We generally deal with annual licensing. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Having used Trend Micro as well, I would rate Trend Micro higher. However, I would still choose this product as a second option.

When we recommend a product, we would recommend something based on the fit of the product and customer requirements. We worked with Defender, we worked with Trend Micro, and we worked with McAfee. All of them almost overlap in multiple use cases. That said, we do see the customer IT strategy and where they're going, and they are adopting Azure more. We know there are certain limitations in their landscape where there may be some old legacy systems, and in that case, then we would either switch back to McAfee or Trend Micro instead of Defender.

We are using McAfee MVISION Endpoint for our endpoints. It manages our antivirus and does antivirus deployments.

The most valuable features of McAfee MVISION Endpoint are advanced threat protection, web filtering, and removable storage devices in the DLP.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint could improve by an overall simplification of the solution.

I have been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint for approximately two years.

McAfee MVISION Endpoint is stable.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution in my organization.

The support from McAfee MVISION Endpoint is very good.

We previously used the on-premise version of McAfee MVISION Endpoint. It was very similar. However, we switched so we did not have to manage the server ourselves.

The initial setup of McAfee MVISION Endpoint is not difficult because it is on the cloud. However, policies are complex.

We had a discount when purchasing the solution because of the size of our company and we are happy with the price.

We have two administrators that are managing this solution.

My advice to others is for them to try the solution out. It is important to check, l the complexity of the solution because it's a great solution with lots of features and can do very granular settings. However, this can also be something that can be a hindrance because it does make it a very complex solution to learn. 

It is a great solution overall. There is a bit of a learning curve on it when you compare it with other platforms, which I think might be simpler to manage, or more straightforward. It's a very complex solution you have to get used to it.

I rate McAfee MVISION Endpoint an eight out of ten.

We use Trellix Endpoint Security for endpoint protection, including virus protection for desktops, laptops, and servers. The solution includes special dedicated modules, such as those for Microsoft SharePoint security.

Trellix Endpoint Security helps us support and secure a large number of endpoints efficiently. We have a lot of installations, supporting up to twenty thousand endpoints. With the central management system EPO, it has significantly improved our ability to manage security across these devices.

The EPO, the ePolicy Orchestrator, is the best endpoint protection central management system. 

Trellix Endpoint Security has a lot of special small modules that I like very much, such as access protection, adaptive threat prevention, exclusion capabilities, and logging capabilities. Together with disk encryption or file encryption, it provides a comprehensive solution.

The detection and response capabilities need to be improved. The product is not sharp enough in catching viruses, and we often have to use additional components alongside the pure endpoint security. Symantec, for example, might be better in this area.

We have been working with Trellix Endpoint Security for about 20 years.

The stability of the solution is very high, I'd rate it around eight or nine out of ten.

Scalability is high; I'd rate it 20 out of ten if possible.

Technical support is correct and absolutely helpful. We had some issues during the migration from McAfee to Trellix, particularly with account migrations, but generally, support has been good.

Positive

I have used Fortinet Endpoint Management, Symantec, Kaspersky, Check Point, and others. Among these, I find that the EPO system of Trellix is the best.

I like the initial setup very much because Trellix Endpoint Security has a lot of special small modules and configurations. It's flexible and allows for detailed customizations.

The pricing of the solution is correct and justified for the value it provides.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Trellix Endpoint Security is a cloud-based solution in which all the servers are installed with a McAfee Trellix agent, and that agent manages the server for any potential damage or threat.

It's crucial to always keep the antivirus and anti-malware software updated, which is implemented automatically by the agent of Trellix Endpoint Security. The agent, as part of the solution, continuously monitors the system and transmits data to the central server, where the latest antivirus definitions and remedy features are implemented across the systems. 

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for a year. 

The solution is stable enough and implements monitoring requirements effectively. In some applications, it has been found that the solution can make a system lag in pace and thus impact the performance. If the aforementioned scenario occurs, then an administrator needs to run a benefits vs. risks analysis to decide whether to continue with the antivirus or not. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. The product can be installed in almost any environment, you just need to purchase a license and install the product. The licenses should be procured as per the user needs. 

For a paid version of Trellix Endpoint Security, satisfying customer support can be experienced. 

The setup of Trellix Endpoint Security is extremely easy. The deployment process involves installing an agent on the system. The moment the antivirus agent's service commences, it immediately connects to the central server and becomes completely operational. 

The website of Trellix Endpoint Security conveys a deployer about which agent should be used as per the operating system; if it's Windows, then the Windows agent needs to be installed. 

There is an international virus database and all products like Trellix Endpoint Security have to sync the virus definition data with the international database. As part of the vulnerability assessment, the antivirus software developing companies have to keep their data synced with the centralized database.

Whenever any vulnerability or an attack is identified, immediately a vulnerability report is generated and uploaded. Following the aforementioned incident, all the antivirus companies immediately update their virus eradicating tools so that new or unknown attacks can be easily mitigated. New viruses, Trojans, or attacks are being invented and circulated all the time, so companies have to consistently keep updating their system. 

The antivirus agent keeps running and analyzing the system it's installed in, but there is no effective data regarding the analysis or detection. For instance, suppose a virus intervened in your system at 12:00 AM and immediately it was detected, then you can claim the antivirus solution to be the most effective.

I would definitely recommend that others use Trellix Endpoint Security; in an enterprise environment, they must have an antivirus, including the local and remote systems, if used. I would overall rate Trellix Endpoint Security as nine out of ten. The solution doesn't need to be integrated with other tools to function effectively. 

It serves as a comprehensive endpoint security solution that goes beyond traditional antivirus by incorporating features such as document scanning for sensitive information, approval workflows for document sharing, patch management, and advanced threat detection using AI and machine learning. It actively monitors various endpoints, including web interactions and email communications, to detect and prevent a wide range of attacks, even those that are not signature-based.

One of the standout features of this solution is its encryption capabilities and DLP functionality. It provides a robust defense against cybersecurity threats while offering user-friendly features like notifications and approval prompts. The encryption feature provides peace of mind in the event of a lost or stolen device, safeguarding sensitive conversations and data from unauthorized access. This level of protection significantly reduces the risk of extortion attempts or data breaches, making it a valuable asset for any organization. So far, I haven't experienced any security breaches or attacks.

I've encountered minor challenges related to encryption.

I have been using it for a year.

We have a user base of over one hundred individuals who use the software.

The decision to implement endpoint security software like Trellix is made at a company-wide level, involving discussions and agreements between various entities, including our parent company and potentially other subsidiaries like the one in Sweden. This decision isn't made independently by individual branches like Kenya; rather, it's coordinated and negotiated at a higher level.

I operate within a managed environment where the IT team handles the installation and setup of endpoint security software. Once installed, they provide me with the necessary details, such as login credentials and instructions for changing passwords. My role primarily involves using the machines provided to me, without needing to delve into the setup process.

Compared to the solutions, it helped us to save at least ten to twenty percent, if not more. 

I would emphasize its affordability rather than merely focusing on cheapness. It provides good value by striking a balance between cost-effectiveness and feature richness.

I would recommend conducting a proof of concept to explore the features firsthand. It's essential to understand what you currently have in place, as that will help determine whether the solution is the right fit for your needs. After that, ensure that the POC is conducted efficiently so that you can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the solution or consider other options. Overall, , I would rate it an eight out of ten. It's a good solution that meets my needs satisfactorily.

We use the product to provide system security for shared data on the network.

The platform’s most valuable features are ease of use, integration, and deployment.

The product could be flexible and offer better pricing. They should make it free, open-source software.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for ten years.

The platform is stable.

The platform is scalable. A minimum of five licenses are required for ten executives.

Our IT team requires deployment assistance from the product’s technical support team.

The initial setup process is easy if you have the required technical skills. It takes 30 minutes to complete. A team of around 20 technicians is involved in the deployment.

We implement the product with the help of our technical staff.

We pay for the product’s license. They should reduce the cost or make it free, open-source software.

We evaluated three vendors. We decided to go to McAfee Endpoint Security for better availability, ease of use, and deployment.

I recommend McAfee Endpoint Security to others and rate it a seven out of ten.