Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

The solution enables me to monitor all my endpoints and ensure that our agents are reporting to the FireEye management server. That is key for allowing us to see any suspicious traffic coming in. I'm the delivery manager and we are customers of FireEye. 

I like the console and the GUI is user-friendly. One of the most important and critical features is containment. Suppose something gets infected and there's the possibility of it spreading laterally and causing a problem or compromising a network. FireEye has a feature that enables it to disconnect from a system network so that the infection doesn't spread. 

Even if an incident occurs at night when support teams are not available, the feature can contain the infection so that when the support teams get to work, they can carry out the remediation part and bring the system back to production.

I'd like to see the searches enhanced because when I hand over the product to someone without experience, it should be user-friendly to them as well. If the feature was enhanced, and the amount of data that comes in reduced, it would simplify the process for anyone. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable.

I haven't had any issues with scalability. 

The support is pretty good, we haven't had any problems. 

We had a separate team implementing FireEye and there didn't seem to be any issues so I think deployment was relatively straightforward. 

I prefer FireEye to solutions like CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Trend Micro which are not as user-friendly. FireEye is also easier to integrate with the SIEM, so all the logs get pushed and there are no issues getting the device integrated with SIEM. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We are using all Trellix solutions, and we are also using all McAfee products. Our customers are using virus scan for the old platforms, Endpoint Security, MVISION, File and Folder Encryption, File and Folder Protection, and Device Control, but at the moment, I am really interested in the integration between the new Trellix solution like MVISION and FireEye.

It is a really strong solution for endpoint security.

There should be better integration between the ePolicy Orchestrator and FireEye console. The integration of both consoles should be better.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

Its stability is perfect.

Its scalability is perfect. In our company, we have between 2,000 and 3,000 users, but our installation has about 50,000 endpoints for all customers.

They're very good. I am in contact with their support about five times a day, and they respond quickly.

Positive

It was easy. I have been using Trellix since the carbon age. I have been using Trellix since the day it was released.

Its deployment doesn't take long. 

I customize every installation.

It is not so cheap in comparison to Sophos and other solutions.

Make a really detailed survey of all the systems before implementing any solution on the endpoint. Do not buy the license and try deployment after that.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

The features we have found most valuable have been containment as well as the ability to triage agent activities.

The way that signatures work when using this solution could be improved. They could be more user friendly. We would like the ability to select a client's signature from a menu or file share to save time. 

FireEye allows three releases per day which are automated. If the automation fails for some reason, the release fails. FireEye does not allow manual releases. This is why we are moving away from using this solution. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The customer service is good. 

Neutral

I have previously used Symantec at a different company. I think Symantec is the best solution overall. 

The initial setup was quite complex. It took three months for us to roll out the solution. 

The suitability of FireEye for a business depends on the business itself. 
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

McAfee is a security-based company. All of their products are related to the security of networking. We have approximately 15 to 20 customers working with McAfee Endpoint Security.

McAfee Endpoint Security does not hang the machines. They are also not very heavy on the end-users.

Along with improving scalability, I would like DLP features to be added in to the endpoint security. 

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for almost 12 years.

The solution is quite stable.

I would give McAfee a 7 out of 10 for scalability, there is room to improve.

The initial installation is not complex. It does depend on how big your network is, but normally it's one day's work.

I believe their prices are very good. Our customers pay an annual license fee.

All of the endpoint security solutions have more or less the same kind of features. There is nothing exceptional about one product versus the other. McAfee is not as strong as other solutions like Kaspersky, Trend Micro, or Carbon Black.

I would not discourage anyone from using McAfee Endpoint Security as it is quite a strong solution. I would rate the solution a 7 out of 10.

The solution is specifically used at the endpoints. We do a lot of integrations with various clients. 

A single agent can cover multiple units.

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can integrate into other products.

The solution is not really stable. 

Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent. For example, they might say the issue will be addressed in the next release. Then, the release comes, and it is not available. Basically, we don't get a resolution from support.

This version is not very effective in our region.

The functionality of the product needs to improve the way it addresses zero-day threat levels.

We've been using the solution since 2003.

The stability isn't so great. We've had issues with it in general and have reached out to technical support for help. 

We have three to five people that use the product right now. In Pakistan, we have three offices in all three major cities and set up the solution for clients. We also use it in the offices.

Technical support is ineffective. Instead of dealing with the issue head-on, they tell us that the problem at hand will be fixed in the next release. They do not help at all.

However, our organization also offers technical support to our clients and we have a good experience - almost 20 years with McAfee and other solutions. We're good at troubleshooting.

We started using Symantec, then we adopted different technologies including McAfee and SSP, which includes Microsoft Defender. We keep changing based on the price structure in the market.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's pretty simple and rather straightforward. 

That said, I didn't handle the installation myself. We had a team that did it.

We did the installation with the main product that integrated with McAfee Endpoint Security. Between the two, the installation took a whole day, however, just the McAfee section takes about two or so hours. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's not a good idea to try and get a pirated copy.

We've looked into and worked with McAfee, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, and Symantec.

We, at one time, were the official service partner for Symantec. We still provide support to the Pakistan market on behalf of Symantec.

While the solutions we use are on-premises, the latest upgraded services that we use are moving into the cloud, and the endpoints are on-premises. Now it's sort of a hybrid solution.

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

I'd choose McAfee as maybe the third-best option, based on the experience I've had with it and the issues we've faced.

We are using McAfee Endpoint Security for network security.

There is a new feature where you can set thresholds for all the CPU consumption allowing for no consumption on the servers when the scans happen. It is a separate plugin or addon, and if we have it on all the virtual machines it automatically checks the resources, and based on that, it will schedule the scans. That is something that I have not seen in other antivirus solutions, such as Symantec.

The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly. There are multiple solutions and there is no clear line differentiating all of them. There is a centralized console where we manage everything but most of the administrators feel a little confused when it comes to managing multiple products from a single place.

In a future release, McAfee could improve by having a fewer resource-consuming agents. When you bundle up all the solutions with an agent, it becomes heavy for the endpoint to handle. This is one drawback that they should improve because some of their competitors, such as Trend Micro and Symantec both have low-consumption agents available.

McAfee has multiple solutions that can be combined together into a single product. There is no need to have this many solutions.

I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for approximately 10 years.

McAfee Endpoint Security is stable. However, the way we implement it can impact stability sometimes. The stability can fluctuate because of the configuration that we have, or the different types of policy that we have on the endpoints. The configurations can be tweaked and tuned to make it becomes stable again.

The solution is scalable. We have approximately 80,000 endpoints on a single console. If we wanted to increase the number of endpoints it can scale higher.

The support from McAfee is far better than other vendors, such as Trend Micro and Symantec.

I have previously used Symantec and Trend Micro.

The initial setup for an experienced administrator should be easy. The setup can also be easy if you follow the very detailed guide which they call the KB guide that they provide. You can receive good support from the professional services team from McAfee. That is how many organizations usually do the initial setup.

I would advise others that are wanting to implement McAfee Endpoint Security to initially use help from the professional service team at McAfee, it will help a lot by making sure they do all the scalability and enviroment requirements. Additionally, they can ask questions based on their expectation and receive suggestions and answers. As an alternative, if you have an experienced person who is well-versed with implementations then I would use them, if not, I would always recommend using the professional service team at McAfee.

I rate McAfee Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We use it for protecting our system nodes. It's run on Windows 7 and Windows 10.

The solution is stable.

You can scale the product.

Overall it's a good product that works well. 

Technical support is always available and very helpful.

The antivirus component is very good.

It's not very user-friendly as sometimes you have to install the agents and then the agents do not get deleted from the database. Due to this, we have to manually delete it from the nodes and then again we have to install it again. When distributing the product, sometimes things get confused and we need to clean up the temporary folder.

The initial setup isn't so easy. You need to know what you are doing. 

The products are getting obsolete too early. That's one of the issues we have with McAfee. They're coming up with new products too early. We installed 10.5 in 2016, and then in 2019, or 2020, we got 10.7. Now, 10.5 is obsolete. They are upgrading the versions too fast. Due to the fact that we have a subscription, we have to upgrade it to the next level which creates some maintenance issues. 

I have been working with the solution since 2016. 

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

The only thing is the reliability. It changes so fast and versions become obsolete and it creates maintenance issues for us. 

The solution is scalable. We do plan to increase usage. Earlier, we had VirusScan Enterprise, however, now, as it is integrated into the ENS threat prevention, we are migrating.

We have 15 or 20 users on the solution right now. 

We have found the technical support to be very helpful. They are responsive and available when we need them to help us troubleshoot. We are satisfied with their level of service.

We haven't really used another solution in place of McAfee, although we do also use Symantec.

The initial setup is not so straightforward. It's difficult if you aren't used to McAfee. It takes time to get the hang of it. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with McAfee.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

We are using ePO Center Server to communicate with all the endpoints that are in the network. While I cannot be certain, I believe the relevant version is McAfee 8 or 9.

We make use of McAfee Agent version number 5.6.4.151. We utilize McAfee Data Exchange Layer.

The McAfee Endpoint Security version to which we refer is 10.7.

We use the solution for antivirus purposes. 

We don't like the solution since it requires much memory consumption and consumes much CPU resources. All the machines becomes very slow whenever it uses its tab scans. For this reason, we consider the solution to not be good nowadays. The newer solutions consume less memory and CPU. 

We employ the solution for our antivirus needs, for which it is solely suited, and not as an EDR. We are actually looking for an XDR solution.

The solution is currently outdated. We are looking for Next-Gen antivirus along with EDR and it should have XDR capabilities as well. This would take care of the network and the  properties that are running in the background. They should be protected from cyber threats.

The solution should also be faster. McAfee actually offers EDR and XDR capabilities but, based on our experience, it consumes an inordinate amount of memory and CPU and this causes the system to be slow. At present, McAfee does not lead the market when it comes to antivirus security solutions. 

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for eight to ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

While the solution is scalable, we wish to change it with the latest Next-Gen antivirus and EDR option, one which comes with both EDR and XDR capabilities.

We have not had direct contact with McAfee support. We have received support from the vendor. The support is forwarded to McAfee should we encounter problems. It is good and I have no issues with it.    

We did not make use of other solutions prior to going with McAfee Endpoint Security, which we have been using since 2009 or 2010. At that time, an attack happened which caused us to evaluate other antivirus security options. In those days McAfee and Symantec were the market leaders. We are talking about 2008, 2010. This is why awareness of these solutions was prevalent. At the time, Trend Micro greatly lagged behind these two security solutions.

The installation is easy, but expertise is required.

While the installation was not especially time consuming, we would occasionally have to manually install or remove the entire tool. McAfee Endpoint Security can be considered a good product but outdated. The beta version, the one we are currently using, is not up to date. Nowadays, everybody uses EDR and XDR solutions for their security needs.

I have a team which was responsible for the installation. As mentioned, I am currently looking for another solution, one which would allow installation to also be handled remotely from the central management portal dashboard or to have the .exe file installed in each endpoint.

We have our own team, comprised of three to four support HR, who take care of installation, daily troubleshooting, support and all necessary changes. As such, we forward to receive remote support for all our users.

We took out a three-year license, including support, but it is slated to end come December. We would like to switch to a yearly subscription. 

We pay for the license on an annual basis. 

The solution is in-house, on-premises.

There are 300 people making use of the solution in our organization. 

When it comes to the question of whether I would recommend this solution to others, we can see that McAfee greatly lags behind CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Cortex, Cynet and Sophos, which are the top performing security solutions on the market. 

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

It can be used for ransomware detection and data exfiltration. It is also able to detect Remote Access Trojan (RAT).

It is easy to use, flexible, and stable. Because it is a cloud-based solution and it integrates all endpoints of the cloud, we can do an IOC-based search. It can search the entire enterprise and tell us the endpoints that are possibly compromised.

It has a feature called Isolation. If a device is compromised, we can connect it to our SOC, and no one would be able to access it. This way we can limit the damage to the network while we are investigating.

Malware detection can be better. It doesn't have support and detection for the recent malware, but it has a compensatory control where it can do the behavior-based assessment and alert you when there is something malicious or unexpected. For example, when a certain user is executing the privilege command, which is not normal. These dynamic detections are good, and they compensate for malware detection.

It has very good integrations. However, its integration with Palo Alto was not good, and they seem to be working on it at the backend. It is not very resource-hungry, but it can be even better in terms of resource utilization. It could be improved in terms of efficiency, memory sizing, and disk consumption by agents.

They have something called Managed Detection and Response. They get intel from their customers, and that intel is shared with the rest of FireEye's customers. I want to subscribe to their intel, but that is not available to us.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable. The FireEye team monitors it, and in case it goes down, we get an alert saying that the device is down. We either get their help or troubleshoot it ourselves to get it up and running.

It is quite scalable. We have scaled it according to their sizing recommendations. They have devices for different bandwidths, models, and offices.

We have about 4,000 people who are using this product. In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we are currently studying two options. One of them will basically scale up to about 40,000 instances.

Their technical support is good. For each region, they seem to have got local support that takes care of all problems. They have support teams in Singapore, India, and North America.

Its initial setup was straightforward. I have done one installation that took about 90 minutes. Virtual installations are straightforward. Physical installations have got some networking interfaces, and one needs to go through the documentation to do it. If you have got the right configuration, it is straightforward.

We have about five people within SOC. We manage the engineering and deployment aspects of it. It is not very resource-hungry.

For its deployment, we just needed about four people. We deployed about 14 appliances and one cloud-based instance. We have automated the deployment. We deployed it via Puppet, so the installation was fast.

We also use CrowdStrike Falcon, which is also endpoint security. At that time, we chose the best option based on our study. Both Falcon and FireEye were doing good in the market, so we basically went ahead with what was the best at that time. We buy the licenses for both of these and then do the deployment.

We also use Sophos, but it is signature-based. We have licenses for the normal management control software of Sophos and the agents. We have not used Sophos Intercept X. My understanding is that it is an EDR, and we look forward to doing a study on it.

Based on my two years of experience with this solution, I would comfortably recommend this solution.

I would rate FireEye Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

We basically use the solution for threat detection. It's for security purposes.

The solution is pretty good for threat prevention, web protection, adaptive threat protection, and other tasks.

The solution is very stable.

We have had a good experience dealing with technical support.

The product is quite user-friendly.

Currently, we have the threat prevention as well as the web protection, and the McAfee firewall, which we were using before, however, we have not installed it on any of our machines. We have disabled it due to the fact that a lot of stuff was being blocked, it was blocking a lot of internal stuff, which meant it needed some fine-tuning. We were supposed to fine-tune it so that we can recognize our items, however, we're still working on that.

We wanted an EDR solution, and our first option was McAfee as the EDR would go hand in hand with the Endpoint integration. We'd like McAfee to offer stronger security. It's not that it isn't strong right now, however, it needs to continue to improve as attacks are always evolving. We are concerned some attacks may be able to find a way to bypass McAfee. If the solution offered something that could detect better, it would be ideal. It would add more value to what is already in place.

I know that they have application control and all the like. The one feature that maybe is lacking is a different module for the antivirus, however, we have a lot of applications that are running in our environment that were not authorized. 

Users can just install software into their computers. We need some sort of application control system that, if there are any pieces of software that are not whitelisted, then the solution could flag it or maybe alert the administers. That would be very helpful.

I joined the organization a little while back in 2016 and when I got here they were already using McAfee product. Therefore, I've been using the solution for a few years now.

We've found the solution to be quite stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's quite reliable.

We haven't tried scaling it to as normally the license that we buy, we buy for 650 Rand and at this point, we haven't even tried adding more to try and scale it to that.

The tech support has been superb. You log a call. Sometimes we are in a different time zone when we log a service request. However, they are very responsive. I was on the line with them a few hours ago and they were helping me with an issue I was having. We are currently in the process of consolidating our SQL servers. We want them to be running from a centralized server instead of having different SQL servers scattered all over the place. Technical support is really great at helping us with the process.

While I wasn't at the company for the original implementation, looking at it, it's not that complex of a process. When I got here, we were using the lower version and then we've just upgraded it and used a higher version level. The process wasn't difficult. We upgraded to 10.5, 10.6, now we are on 10.7.

We pay 650 Rand for a license. It is a perpetual license which we normally run for two years. It will be expiring sometime in July and our renewal is normally for two years.

When we are looking at the pricing, nobody will ever say the pricing is bad. Normally what we do is we'll take quotes from different local partners, as McAfee doesn't allow us to buy direct from them. Therefore, we typically deal with resellers.

We are customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with McAfee.

We are a central bank and one of the things that we haven't really experienced or gone into is putting our solutions into the cloud - even though everything is moving in that direction. We are moving slowly in that direction as well. We'll get there one day.

I have found this solution easy to use. When you need support, you get it. Even in terms of protection, it's fine. I would recommend it to other users.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.