McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention Reviews

We primarily use the solution for the restriction of Androids. It's for virus protection and for data loss prevention. I'm able to install the agent and forcefully upgrade all the agents in one console from EPU, hence we can protect some runners from the whole archive. I'm able to protect viruses from accessing the website. 

The ability to block all USBs from the McAfee portal has been great. 

There aren't too many good things I could say about the solution at this point, however. It really hasn't been working the way it should for us.

We're not very satisfied with the solution. There are some bugs on it that we've been having to deal with. Due to this fact, we've been looking for other options.

McAfee in India really isn't working the way it should right now.

The solution needs to improve its EDR systems.

The solution needs to be a one-stop protection shop. And yet, the DLP isn't strong. Anyone can break it quite easily.

The solution takes up a lot of hardware space and uses too much RAM and CPU. It sucks up our resources due to multiple processes. 

The processing time is too low. Each and every interval should receive a vulnerability scan, and yet McAfee can't seem to do this. On top f that there are bugs within it that make checking vulnerabilities a problem.

Customer support is terrible. Compliance is also very bad.

We've been using this solution for about three years.

The stability is okay. If we were to rate it out of five, I'd give it a three. It's not the worst, however, it could be better. It offers a moderate amount of stability.

I'm not happy with the solution's ability to scale. If you have multiple files, the problem is McAfee also has multiple files, and, when the user is in working mode, suddenly the solution will start scanning without first asking the users and without showing the amount of time it will take. Suddenly your CPU and RAM take a dive. It affects everything. It might be a bug when you upgrade the solution. It's possible that it's not upgrading correctly or not connecting appropriately.

We have about 500 people using the solution currently.

Technical support has not been helpful for us. We tried to reach out during the implementation process and were given a run-around. We realized afterward we needed to go through a vendor. McAfee won't help us directly. Except that, from day one, no one could help us or answer our questions.

With most companies, technical support is amazing. That's not true in this case. FortiGate, for example, has great customer service.

We're looking at a different solution right now, as this one isn't working for us. We're currently using it, however, very soon we'll implement a different solution instead of this one.

The initial setup is complex, and on top of that, when you try to reach out for help and try the customer support number, they tell you that you are calling the wrong place and redirect you somewhere else instead of helping you. You need to go through a vendor to get any help, and they have to go to McAfee on your behalf.

In terms of maintenance, many other antivirus companies have software that provides maintenance. If you're going for the on-premises solution, maybe a server requires maintenance every six months or one year and there is usually a printed maintenance checklist. It's an offline process. However, no one can sort out this process on my team. On top of that, if you are going to increase the volume, you will need to upgrade and it is another platform that you have to buy and that will require maintenance.

The pricing is kind of expensive. There are other options out there that work better for the price.

With the bugs we're dealing with on this solution, we're looking for other options. We've looked at Cloud Security Intel and Trend Micro, for example. We've also been looking at one of EI Intelligence's early response DLP.

We're just customers. We don't have a relationship with McAfee.

We're using the most up to date version of the solution. The EP is version 6.0.0.197 and the host edition is 8.0. The DLP endpoint version is 11.4.0.452.

I would never recommend this solution to other organizations. I'd rate it four out of ten overall.

We use this solution to protect laptops and mobile phones.

I don't have any issues with this product. It satisfies my requirements.

The interface can be improved, it's too cluttered.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for five years.

We are using the latest version.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is a very stable product.

We have not tried to expand this solution yet. We have more than five users in our organization.

Technical support is good. They are timely in responding.

We are also using Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention.

The initial setup was straightforward with McAfee's help.

We had help from McAfee.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

Pricing is okay. We don't have any issues with the pricing of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

McAfee Total Protection Data Loss Prevention is used for protection for endpoints and specifically for DLP.

The overall features of McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention are very good.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention could improve by having artificial intelligence.

I have been using McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention for approximately three years.

McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention is stable.

We have approximately five customers using this solution.

The solution is scalable.

In general the technical is average. Not great but not bad.

The implementation of the solution is complex. Based on the architecture, it should integrate with different solutions. The full implementation took approximately one month.

We have two engineers that do the maintenance and support of this solution.

There is an annual license to use this solution.

I rate McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention a seven out of ten.

The solution was added to the existing infrastructure such as AV Next-Gen. We were using it to expand into whitelisting. Primarily the use case was to test technologies that could grow beyond the traditional approaches for Next-Gen AV and get into more deterministic protection against unknown attacks, without relying holistically on behavioral type approaches that were meant to stop attacks, and protect processes and data.

The whitelisting works well.

The technology would provide a DLL hook injection into memory to monitor processes as they were inserted into memory. Assuming they pass the other tests from the AV side, and they're allowed to be inserted into the memory, then the DLL hooks allowed the product to monitor those processes for injection, or for any risk. That worked some of the time but didn't work on everything.

We found ways to inject code into processes that were being monitored and it was a silent failure. The solution didn't see everything. It did a good job of just stopping the insertion of malicious code from normal sources, but more advanced items it didn't catch. It was a silent failure on some of the more advanced attacks.

The solution needs an easier integration in heterogeneous and dynamic environments.

The product needs to offer more protection for memory-based attacks.

We only really used the solution for three weeks as part of a test.

The solution was very stable on the current supported operating systems. We tried to deploy it on some legacy systems that McAfee didn't officially support, and ran into a lot of issues there, going into older operating systems. Current operating systems and their support list worked just fine. There were no compatibility issues with supported operating systems.

In terms of scalability, it would really go back to the deployment with the same type of concerns. Where scalability in a homogeneous environment is relatively simple, but in a heterogeneous environment is vastly more complex and challenging.

Technical support was good for what we needed. We just needed some support on the original install and set up, and we ran into some issues with unsupported systems. However, support was responsive and pretty timely. I had no concerns with support. It was good.

We had used other McAfee solutions before. McAfee was the status quo. Then, the expansion was into Solidcore and app control. It was really about expanding within the McAfee portfolio.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. It was a little time consuming just to get everything functioning and set up correctly. I would say it wasn't heavily complex, however. 

The documentation on how to do it was relatively good. It was something that, without a lot of skill, could be deployed. It just requires some focused knowledge. 

Overall, I would say it has a moderate level of difficulty as far as ease of deployment.

The deployment takes quite a bit of time, based on the variety of applications in the system. For us, if it was a very homogeneous environment and all systems had the same applications, and they were all sort of built off the same images, so it would be relatively easy to do. There would still be some complexities with the unique differentiation between systems.

If we were deploying to an environment that was very heterogeneous and a highly varied array of software in the different systems, it would be much more complex and time-consuming to deploy.

The maintenance would be pretty difficult if it was an actively managed environment. If the environment has new applications and updates and changes on a regular basis, it requires quite a bit of management within the technology to keep up and authorize new known items for protection. However, in a less dynamic environment, it would be much easier to maintain. My concern, and one of the concerns we had just with the technological approach, was how easy would it would be to maintain and manage the system long term.

I don't have any insight into the cost. We were looking mostly at the technological aspects of the solution. There might have been some extra charges for the aggregation and SOC integration type of items.

We were a service provider and reseller.

We had the solution in a lab environment for about three weeks, so we weren't a longterm user of it. We had a client that had familiarity with other aspects of McAfee protection solutions, and they were looking to just expand it to get more into whitelisting. They wanted to use it as a stop-gap for the deficiencies in the other aspects of their technology. We were looking for it to provide protection against more advanced malware and unknown malware attacks. That's what we did in the lab environment. We tested it.  

I don't know which version of the solution we tested.

I would advise other companies to take care of understanding the environment that the solution is going to deploy in. They need to be cognizant of the challenges with dynamic and heterogeneous environments, as it relates to how the technology is deployed and how easy it is to deploy and maintain. Finally, they should be wary of the limitations in the protection efficacy, as it relates to some of the most advanced types of malware attacks, where we found the product to be deficient in some areas.

The biggest lesson we learned from using the solution was that there's a high expectation that as a company, McAfee implements this type of a solution to expand upon their solutions in the AV that they came from. What we've learned is that the step change in protection is not as great as we had hoped. The ability of it to stop the most advanced malware and other unknown types of attacks didn't live up to the expectations that were associated with a whitelisting solution.

I'd probably rate the solution six out of ten. It's not a bad product. It has some deficiencies, however. We found other technological approaches that offered much higher efficacy in protection and were easier to maintain. 

We use the solution in the banking sector. Banks would like to prevent any customer information or confidential documents from leaking outside their environment. We use the solution on the email channels basically. We also use it sometimes on USBs, and other tools also.

The solution is very easy to manage.

Overall, it's an easy to use product. It has a great end-user experience. The solution is quite powerful.

It offers good monitoring of your endpoints and provides excellent reporting.

The interface showcases threat incidents very well.

We've had issues with the Lower and Upper filter of the device control module. 

Technical support doesn't really offer fast response times.

They could continue to refine their defense on signature attacks.

We've been using the solution for a while. I have about two years of experience personally.

While it is largely stable, I have experienced issues with browsers, especially when we export and import the DLP policy. After importing the DLP policy, we weren't able to get a classification and definitions of the data loss prevention from Microsoft Edge or other browsers. They hung when we tried to access the classifications and definition page.

This doesn't really count as a stability issue. It's more of an availability or usability issue.

We have about 2,000 users in one environment. In another environment, we may have as many as 3,000 users. The solution scales pretty well.

While we typically implement this solution for our customers, I would say that we would like to increase usage.

When we've had issues in the past, and, although they ended up solving our problem, we found the response time was pretty slow. There was a bit of a delay. They could have been faster to respond. Other than that, we're pretty satisfied with their level of service.

I haven't experienced a lot of users, however, so far, McAfee has been excellent.

Generally, the solution is pretty straightforward to setup. It's not complex. That said, there is a common issue with an installation video. It's something about TLS support, TLS version 1.1. There's a command you should execute, however, there is a conflict of KBs. We had to do a bit of research and we were able to troubleshoot it ourselves in the end.

Ultimately, deployment takes about two to three hours. It doesn't take too long.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need the assistance of any integrators or consultants. I also didn't need the help of technical support.

Although I don't have too much information on the exact costs of the solution, it's my understanding that the pricing is pretty good.

We're systems integrators. We aren't McAfee customers.

I would recommend this solution to other companies. It's stable and strong in data loss prevention. It works quite well.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at a nine. If it offered more responsive support and better usability, It would get higher marks from me.