Trellix Endpoint Security Platform Reviews

We've only got two or three machines. The solution is simply used as an antivirus, however,  we've rolled it out to all of our customers and we use it as a managed service.

The solution has reduced false positives for our clients and ourselves.

It's got quite good ransomware detection.

The product can be deployed across mobile devices.

It has a managed service push deployment where we can push cloud tasks into policies. 

It's a really good product. It's stable and scalable. It offers good flexibility, has a small footprint, offers a minimal effect on performance, and is from a trusted brand.

We have found the deployment to be very fast.

Technical support is excellent.

We're still looking for weaknesses. The product is still quite new for us. That said, so far, every time I have thought, "I wonder if it can do this or it can do that." I've been able to do it.

McAfee has also asked us for feedback, and we noticed when we gave them suggestions, they worked to implement them. For example, we asked for the ability to leverage Windows Defender instead of creating an endpoint. They've just put that in so you can choose now what you want to do. You can change that deployment and push it out without any intervention by the client as well.

The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product.

We have been using the solution for about four or five months at this point. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The companies we work with range in size from small to large. 

The solution is very easy to scale.

I would rate technical support at a ten out of ten. They have been great. We have found them to be helpful and responsive. My personal interaction with them was absolutely brilliant.

The initial setup can be difficult the first time. You have the flexibility to give all sorts of setup options. You need to know, for example, do you want this, do you want that, do you want these exclusions? Do you want these exploit preventions? et cetera. There are a lot of components. It's going to be complicated initially, however, once you've done that and set it up for a customer, then it's very simple just to deploy it and roll it out.

We rolled out another customer on Friday, and that's 35 sites we've done so far - and I was able to do the whole lot remotely. It's quick to deploy. For clients, in terms of the deployment, I just simply send them a link to their emails and they just go click on it and it goes.

Once the product is deployed, there isn't any maintenance necessary. It's all controlled from a SaaS portal.

The pricing is okay. It's in the middle and there are actually surveys out and they all say that as well.

There's a couple of license options. You can choose a single license or you can choose what we call a MV2 license. Every single license gives you the ability to install a product on five other devices - including mobile. You get a Windows license and that enables you to install it on a tablet, iPhone, or Android device (up to five) as well.

We're a McAfee partner.

We are using the SaaS version. It's my understanding that we are on the latest version of the solution. 

We would recommend the solution to other companies. We actually sell it and provide it to all our clients.

I'd rate the solution at a ten 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.

We currently have around 50 servers. We aren't really a big company but we have 50 servers which we manage. We use McAfee for the web filtering portion of it. For example, if a user is doing a search on Google, there's a risk-rating web content filter built into McAfee. This alerts us if there are any threats present. 

We have licensed McAfee ENS on a per-server basis. As of now, from memory, I think we have 56 endpoints running McAfee — 56 servers in total.

From the McAfee side, I really like the ePolicy Orchestrator software that allows us to manage all of our endpoints. You can create the deployment policies and whenever there is a new update — a new version of the ENS Agent, or threat protection — we could test it out in the evaluation branch, and even test it on some of our servers.

It's quite easy to manage. Quite intuitive. I would say the dashboard of ePolicy Orchestrator software is quite intuitive and quite easy to understand and manage. 

I have been using this solution for 15 to 20 years.

We have had some issues from the performance side of things, especially when we were deploying new types of software. Sometimes the consumption of resources from McAfee was a bit high. Afterward, these problems were resolved gradually in future versions of McAfee. From what I've read from the release notes, in regard to the handling of memory, McAfee has been doing a better job, which wasn't really the case in the early years. 

It's easily scalable. If I need to deploy the Agent over 800 endpoints, I just have to script it and run a group policy to deploy it to all of our computers on the network — it's quite easy. 

For day-to-day management and ongoing queries, if ever I didn't have the solution to queries, I would just raise the case to the case management section of the McAfee website. Then the McAfee support team would help me out.

I was definitely satisfied with the support team. I really can't complain. They always sent me the correct knowledge-based article and they provided really insightful information to help me find a resolution to the issue. 

At the previous company that I worked for, we used Symantec Endpoint Protection. Now, we are working with CylancePROTECT and OPTICS.

The main reason that we moved from McAfee to Cylance is that McAfee is still a signature-based product. We moved to Cylance, a signatureless-based product, where everything is updated. What I was doing, from an ENS product point stance, I had set reminders to myself and my team to update the Agent and look into the software repository to see if there were any updates every month.

Indeed, every month we had software updates and fixing restrictions. It wasn't good but I now have less of a hard time looking into this from a Cylance perspective as the Cylance library doesn't push one-minute software updates per year. I would say at most, two or three software updates a year, which is very, very small from a software update perspective in comparison to McAfee.

They're both good products. I'm not saying McAfee is a bad product. It's a very, very good product. It's mainly for these reasons that we moved to Cylance.

The ePolicy Orchestrator console is good, but from my side, I would say Cylance has a better artificial intelligence module — the OPTICS module which I would say is the way to go. I haven't really seen the trend in terms of what other companies other than McAfee or Symantec are doing, but Cylance is doing a really good job with this artificial intelligence module. It's great when it comes to notifying the team when it detects something malicious.

With McAfee, if there is a zero-day vulnerability, you have to download the patch for it from the McAfee website, then apply it to your endpoint. With Cylance, it's not like that. Each agent does it by itself — it's like a self-healing application. This is something that signature-based antivirus solutions like McAfee and Symantec didn't have until now, unfortunately. That's why we moved towards Cylance.

It's quite easy to install agents. Deployment and product updates are quite easy, as well. It goes without saying that it comes with some, I would say, low-level training and upscaling but these are easily retrievable from the knowledge base of McAfee.

We manually downloaded their AMCore versions to keep all our endpoints up to date. This way, whenever we troubleshoot the root cause of an issue, we still keep our endpoints as updated as possible and keep our environment safe.

When we installed the Agent — let's say I am building a new VM and new server. When you run the frame package, it's really intense. I would say it takes roughly two minutes to install, then afterward, to install the ENS modules, like the threat protection and web filtering packages, you've got to go through the ePolicy Orchestrator management console. I would say, all in all, it takes roughly 10 minutes.

To get it up to date, to download everything, all the packages, the software updates, and all of the AMCore DAT files as well as the virus definitions, it's quite easy. It doesn't take much time at all.  

For deployment, I worked with one external consultant.

Initially, when I came to the company, I didn't really have a background or any experience managing McAfee. I came from more of a Symantec background but I gained some knowledge from one of our external consultants who really had a deep understanding of McAfee products and their deployment. We had some training sessions and then I could manage the McAfee forum on my own. After a week's worth of training, I could manage McAfee on my own.

We had McAfee on a year renewal. We purchased it initially and then we renewed it on a yearly basis. I think the only reason we are renewing the license is for support reasons. 

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. McAfee is a good product. I worked with Symantec, but personally, I think McAfee is better.

However, in my opinion, now having worked with CylancePROTECT and OPTICS, I think  CylancePROTECT and OPTICS are on another level. Still, we have been working with McAfee for nearly 10 years and I feel it's a very good product. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give McAfee a rating of eight.

We use this product for our endpoint security.

The most valuable features are:  

- reporting facility using the ePO console for conformity and threat identification  

- using the advanced threat protection (ATP) 

- MNE module for customising and securing Windows Bitlocker.

We know that McAfee isn't the best antivirus and it can't protect us 100%, although we are okay with the level of protection that it gives us. I don't think that the problem lies in the antivirus, but rather, it's the user. Users are not happy with the antivirus and they try to solve the issue on their own, and that causes very big problems.

The is an incompatibility problem between Mcafee and Linux subsystem for Windows, another that has to do with Outlook and scripts. McAfee knows that, but the problem can't be solved at this time so we try to minimize the effect.

We have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for ten years.

In terms of stability, we haven't had many problems.

We use that solution for more that 10k station and servers, and we have space to grow...

The support that we get from McAfee is excellent.

We tried Bitdefender, F-Secure, and many other products before settling on McAfee. When our central agency switched to McAfee, we all adopted it.

The price of this product is good.

One of our subsidiaries has tried to switch products, although I don't know the reason why. Ultimately, the project was aborted.

My advice for anybody who is looking at McAfee Endpoint Security is simply to use it.

I would rate this solution an eight 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.