I am not using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature because I was unaware of it. I am not using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and I am unsure about them. Regarding the reporting, analytics, and audit visibility, I cannot provide a comprehensive answer. I do not know if the audit requirements help me with deep enhanced reporting and audit visibility in MetaDefender. I have not noticed any improvements in workflow automation with recent enhancements to policy orchestration and engine parallelization. What I would like to see improved in MetaDefender includes reducing the high cost of the license, as the pricing is very high. Functionality-wise, I find installation and setup very difficult, and I needed support to help me understand the setup of MetaDefender. The process requires good planning and understanding of the environment to configure it, as the integration with policies takes more time to build and requires more experience.
I don't think there are many feature improvements needed; it's a great solution. The main thing is just the pricing because it's such a top-end enterprise product. For smaller partners with a customer base that isn't as affluent, the price can be a barrier, making it more of a 'nice-to-have' for their budgets compared to cheaper competitors.
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
Co Founder / CEO at a tech company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Apr 18, 2023
MetaDefender's multi-scanning capabilities for detecting malware are satisfactory. While the package offers eight, twelve, and sixteen scans, the premium solutions that include advanced anti-agents such as Trend Micro, McAfee, and CrowdStrike are costly. The basic mode of the package we sell only offers basic scanning and most people are likely unaware of the antivirus engine's name. While multi-scanning is a useful feature, we would prefer to see the basic version include more advanced scanning options. The DLP should be upgraded and has room for improvement. The central management center is not yet at the level of an enterprise. It has all the necessary components to create a standalone solution, and the local management center has everything required. However, when it comes to selling to larger enterprises, the central management center is still at a junior level. This means that there are many features, such as reporting based on login and connectivity to external systems, that require manual configuration rather than being included in a complete solution from a management perspective. The solution has many components, but it lacks a cohesive central focus for customers. It is, for example, a company that is an OT security company, but it suddenly shifted its focus to cloud security for secure access, which is confusing. The price of MetaDefender has room for improvement. The configuration has room for improvement.
MetaDefender provides advanced multiscanning capabilities using 30+ anti-malware engines, ensuring high detection efficacy and robust prevention mechanisms.
MetaDefender's approach combines multiple security technologies like Metascan, Deep CDR, and adaptive sandboxing. These integrated solutions offer comprehensive protection against malware and vulnerabilities, catering to cloud, on-prem, and hybrid environments with enhanced performance and automation.
What are the key features of...
I am not using the expanded file type and archive coverage feature because I was unaware of it. I am not using the enhanced reporting and audit visibility features, and I am unsure about them. Regarding the reporting, analytics, and audit visibility, I cannot provide a comprehensive answer. I do not know if the audit requirements help me with deep enhanced reporting and audit visibility in MetaDefender. I have not noticed any improvements in workflow automation with recent enhancements to policy orchestration and engine parallelization. What I would like to see improved in MetaDefender includes reducing the high cost of the license, as the pricing is very high. Functionality-wise, I find installation and setup very difficult, and I needed support to help me understand the setup of MetaDefender. The process requires good planning and understanding of the environment to configure it, as the integration with policies takes more time to build and requires more experience.
I don't think there are many feature improvements needed; it's a great solution. The main thing is just the pricing because it's such a top-end enterprise product. For smaller partners with a customer base that isn't as affluent, the price can be a barrier, making it more of a 'nice-to-have' for their budgets compared to cheaper competitors.
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support.
MetaDefender's multi-scanning capabilities for detecting malware are satisfactory. While the package offers eight, twelve, and sixteen scans, the premium solutions that include advanced anti-agents such as Trend Micro, McAfee, and CrowdStrike are costly. The basic mode of the package we sell only offers basic scanning and most people are likely unaware of the antivirus engine's name. While multi-scanning is a useful feature, we would prefer to see the basic version include more advanced scanning options. The DLP should be upgraded and has room for improvement. The central management center is not yet at the level of an enterprise. It has all the necessary components to create a standalone solution, and the local management center has everything required. However, when it comes to selling to larger enterprises, the central management center is still at a junior level. This means that there are many features, such as reporting based on login and connectivity to external systems, that require manual configuration rather than being included in a complete solution from a management perspective. The solution has many components, but it lacks a cohesive central focus for customers. It is, for example, a company that is an OT security company, but it suddenly shifted its focus to cloud security for secure access, which is confusing. The price of MetaDefender has room for improvement. The configuration has room for improvement.