The stability of the solution's cloud portal needs improvement. Sometimes, it gets timed out.  

I use the solution on a Macintosh computer and it has issues and does not work when I try to log in from the Safari Browser, but it works fine when I log in from the Google Chrome browser. The console has issues when the login is done through a Safari Browser. The console has to be more competitive and the compatibility of the browser needs to be better.

I want to know about Skyhigh's competitiveness with other brands and about the vulnerability assessment and micro segmentations. I know Skyhigh has other products, but right now, I am studying what this new product is about.

They only have English support, so I would like for them to add some Spanish support.

The performance of the tool can be improved to provide faster report generation. On most occasions, the tool takes several hours to generate reports with a large quantity of data, which is too long. The technical support could be more knowledgeable.

MVISION Cloud is not well known and there should be more information about the solution. There could be integration to local applications.

In a future release, they could improve by adding Shower IT.

You have got a lot of people in the industry now like Netskope and a lot of people in that space. You can't really say one's better than the other. They all were built off the original architecture and what a CASB is, however, maybe they scale better, and maybe their brand of deployment is stronger.

You have to have some kind of background with cloud-based security, like working with different providers and how to make instances in the clouds and that kind of stuff - including cloud, networking cloud, cloud application development, anything like that is a requirement to be in the CASB space.

One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications.

Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak.

I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products. SkyHigh Security is also not closely integrated with other McAfee CWPP products. If you have McAfee-connected security storage that you've built in the past, I have not seen integration between that storage and SkyHigh Security. Integration between the solution and other McAfee products needs improvement, though it may be because SkyHigh Security is an acquired product and is not a homegrown product of McAfee. McAfee may not have invested time with integration, but that is one good idea where McAfee could turn SkyHigh Security into a complete security product, and not just a CASB solution. Integration is really important and could help transform SkyHigh Security into a complete security solution.

Performance could also be improved in SkyHigh Security because it is the main concern of customers. What's challenging is that the solution has a lot of CPU and requires a lot of memory which affects performance.

What I'd like to see in the next release of SkyHigh Security is strong integration with third-party products. API integration is also another feature to focus on because everybody is now building APIs.

We haven't really had any issues with the solution. There isn't really any aspect that is lacking.

An area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is its UI. It needs to be enhanced and made more user-friendly. Right now, the UI of Skyhigh Security is sometimes confusing.

For example, my company is deploying Skyhigh Security for a client and integrating it on the cloud, from an on-premises deployment to a hybrid deployment. Though the experience isn't bad, there needs to be more enhancements.

Another room for improvement in Skyhigh Security is the limited training resources, especially when you compare it with Cisco, which has many study materials in the market, even free training resources. You'll get limited resources if you search for Skyhigh Security tutorials on Google and YouTube. Because of high-security requirements and the training material for Skyhigh Security not being available, most engineers and architects avoid the product because there'd be a lack of knowledge in configuring and achieving the goals you'd want to reach via the use of Skyhigh Security.

The NOC team deploying the product is having difficulty getting training resources for Skyhigh Security. You'll be charged an enormous amount if you search the market for training because of the limited resources available. Skyhigh Security needs to work on marketing and awareness as an improvement to the product.

I'd like to see proper branding in the next release of Skyhigh Security. for example, if I know the product and I have training materials, that would give me the confidence to recommend it to customers. Skyhigh Security should send marketing emails to people, especially architects, explaining what the product is about, its features, and where to get training materials on Skyhigh Security.

A free lab available with the basic features of Skyhigh Security would also be great, so anyone can log in and check the product within the vendor site. It's just making one small lab that anyone could click on to access the product and see how basic features work. Currently, when you download Skyhigh Security, there are minimal resources for testing it, and if I don't know the product, why would I purchase it for testing? Through a small lab or trial, you can go and log in and say, "This is an excellent product, so I'm going to purchase it, then install it in my production environment."

The on-premise version of Skyhigh Security can be integrated with cloud solutions. Still, it would be great if  Skyhigh Security could be deployed on the cloud and proactively monitor on-premises integration, so customers who don't have on-premises infrastructure could also deploy Skyhigh Security on the cloud to integrate with both on-premises and cloud solutions. If Skyhigh Security can work in both environments, that would be nice because you can manage everything from a single product.

Another feature I'd like to see in Skyhigh Security is the auto repair feature, which enables the product to repair itself whenever there's an issue. For example, suppose Skyhigh Security is used on a three-node cluster, and most of the cluster is down. In that case, the product should be able to re-trigger another node and create that node automatically. If one instance is down, Skyhigh Security should automatically create another instance. No product in the market currently supports auto repair, so if that feature is available in Skyhigh Security, many customer issues, such as breakdowns or downtimes, would be solved. The auto repair feature would also make Skyhigh Security good for DR (Disaster Recovery), and that would lessen customers' worry about production. Customers will confidently say, "Okay, the product is down, but Skyhigh Security will automatically repair it, so I won't need to worry about it."

You can integrate Skyhigh's rules with Active Directory groups. For example, you can allow access to a specific website for a defined set of users. I can do that, but the rules are not straightforward. It can look up the group in Active Directory. However, it doesn't always find the proper group name. The rule configuration should be simpler and more granular. The admin should be able to map 80 groups in the rules quickly.

Backups could be more automated. I have to manually back up all the policies and I can't schedule this. That is a pain. I must remind myself to back up the policies weekly. 

McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve.

Skyhigh Security, as a product, is excellent, but in terms of the right services and support, those are lagging very much, for example, in Trellix. From one hundred, its score has gone down to ten, so ten out of one hundred, otherwise, it's the number one product. Pricing and design are fine, so no further changes are required on those.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Skyhigh Security is a single console for all the products, for example, under the Trellix portfolio, it would be good if it could be managed by a single console because it's not possible currently. 

Competition is running much faster than the solution, so to improve Skyhigh Security and catch up to the competition, there's a need to add these additional features into one console.

Reports. The reports are useful but they do not always give the information in the format that I'm looking for and can take a while to run.

Probably my two biggest issues are as follows:

1. Even if you narrow down the scope of the report so that there is not too much data, when a report is generating, sometimes it will get hung; thus you have to delete it and run it again. This does not happen too often but when it does, it can be rather inconvenient. Especially since when I need to manually run a report, there is often a time sensitive reason that cannot wait for a report to generate twice.
2. SkyHigh has the ability to place users or groups on a ‘Watchlist’; which allows you to see certain views with these Watchlists users/groups in them. This is great when you are looking at live data but if I wanted to generate a report on ONLY the watchlists (or specific sub-watchlists), it is not possible. One of our main Watchlists is everyone on the IT Team. Since IT users tend to have more access and control over the environment (myself included) we like being able to single out these users when looking at data. My CIO especially, would love to have a report over specific services, bandwidth, etc… that the IT team is doing every week or month; so that he knows that we are not doing anything malicious. This feature should be provided soon but it is still not in Production.

Though the Skyhigh Dashboard is processing large amounts of data, the speed of the Dashboard could be improved. Also, it would be nice to be able to get more advanced search functions to filter out data and quickly obtain the data that we need.

Support for securing more cloud apps.

They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise.

Perhaps in this year's configuration, something that could be added is the SSL inspection.

Sometimes the console performance is slow and updating custom attributes can be cumbersome as you have to do each attribute for a cloud service individually, the click the popup box to continue. 

The console performance is sometime slow, meaning that switch screens or generating reports can sometime feel sluggish.  Data and graphics takes time to load in the browser, and also performance can depend on which browser you are using. 

There is a customizable part of the SkyHigh global registry called custom attributes.  We use these attributes to identity and record details of our own interactions with the cloud service to show which we are reviewed, which services are approved, blocked, sanctioned, etc..  Entering information into these custom fields requires you to confirm changes for each field individually, a UI improvement could be to add a save or update button to the site instead of doing each field individually.

I think that the User Interface could be improved.

In the next release, I would like to see some seeking functions so we can see origination.

The solution is the leader in the market right now. It's hard to consider where it falls short, as it is so far ahead of everything else.

One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps. That can be room for improvement.

I'd love to see an on-prem version of the product. Instead of McAfee providing the service, it should be also software available for customers in the market to install on their data centers.

The Web UI is still not quite as responsive as we would like. However, in praise of Skyhigh, they have taken this feedback into account. This is their biggest focus area for next major release.

The secure gateway could be improved. If they worked on that they would be more competitive.

They should offer more learning opportunities. If they could provide tools to help users interested in learning more about the technology, that would be ideal.

McAfee needs to add more products that could be managed from the cloud. At the moment, not all of their endpoint products can be managed from this console. I'd like McAfee endpoint products to be managed from the cloud console. It's my understanding that they do plan to do this. It's just a matter of time. 

There are still a lot of customers who are demanding on-premise solutions. That's the situation on the ground here. People do not easily switch to cloud products. They're sticking to on-premise solutions so that they can fully control their IT. 

The solution is hard to configure, our team does not have specific training requirements for McAfee making it difficult. Another issue is with decreasing performance with desktop and laptop due to the solution.  

In a future release, I would like them to add email protection as part of their offerings. 

The cloud capability needs to be improved in terms of scalability. More generally, both scalability and performance on the cloud need to be improved.

The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP.

We would like to have integration with Shadow IT analytics.

I would like to see more power being given to the admin. In the sense that in case an employee is facing an issue and they want to configure a service, like attaching an email in Gmail, for example, they should be given the option to make the service request and get that configured on the go.

McAfee Web Gateway has two kinds of solutions, one is for on-premises and the other is virtual. Their virtual solution is not as strong as their on-premises solution.

The documentation could be improved. The documentation could be more detailed with more examples of usage.

The biggest challenge we have with McAfee is their cross-cloud support. They tend to lag by a few months, in terms of providing support for new cloud platforms, or new cloud features. We're primarily focused on SaaS, so the other opportunities for them to improve their integration is with AWS and PaaS.

I would like to see better integration with on-premise tools.

The encrypted disk implementation could be improved. I currently use it from a dongle or USB key with two-factor authentication to access my computer.

One feature offered is a 48-hour turnaround to add a service to the global registry upon request. While they do turn around risk assessments very quickly, often many of the answers are unknown which drives the risk scores of the services up. When provided with contact information, they will reach out to the service provider and get answers to those questions, but it doesn’t provide a lot of value to show a service as high risk just because they haven’t had the opportunity to ask yet.

I have experienced a few cases where I provided a direct contact name (who was expecting a call from someone at Skyhigh) for the cloud service provider being evaluated, and have received feedback from the contact that no one reached out to them after several days or, in some cases, weeks.

The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data. A better search capability, similar to a SIEM, would also allow deeper log analysis.

Iteration process.

Iron out the few bugs that I've seen.

Its capabilities are still rather limited compared to other solutions. It’s a reasonable monitoring service, but it would still need to be coupled with other solutions to be practical.

I found that when it comes to monitoring services on the network, Skyhigh gives a more comprehensive and practical break down of what risks the user is looking at. This is very useful when reporting metrics to upper management. However, it felt slightly lacking in the technical breakdown area as compared to other services we used at the time. Some of the explanations it gave for risks were too vague to address, so we would revert to another product we use regularly to get a more specific picture of a threat.

It needs to be more user-friendly, as it is a little bit complicated to use.

They should implement straightforward automation capabilities that include the integration of AI and ML. It should be able to handle solutions quickly whenever a rule has to be created. It should, for example, suggest to the admin that if there is any indication of data corruption then a notification will be sent. In addition, initial steps will be taken to ensure that the data is safe.

Improve the user interface (UI) of the tool and make it user-friendly.

De-tokenization.

It is an expensive solution.

I think it's a very good product although the user interface is not very intuitive and could be improved. Because of its sophistication, it's not so easy to manage and you have to learn to use it well. The solution can't really be simplified because then it would not be so customizable. You have to know what you're doing. If you don't know about filtering, you won't be able to use it well. I also think that the URL filter model and the web application filter model should be more tightly coupled but it's a lot of effort to get them to work together, not an easy problem. It's two different models - URL filtering and web application filtering. 

Integration with other technology ecosystems.

The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities.

The pricing of the solution could be adjusted to make it more reasonable. 

SkyHigh has the ability to place users or groups on a ‘Watchlist’; which allows you to see certain views with these Watchlists users/groups in them. This is great when you are looking at live data but if I wanted to generate a report on "only" the watchlists.

The services take some time to load. It would be helpful if the loading time was reduced.

1. The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities.
2. The de-tokenization process
3. Data anomalies

Detecting threats.

De-tokenization.

Cloud computing.

Reports.

De-tokenization.