Skyhigh Security Reviews

We use Skyhigh Security to audit people for internet behavior and for the discovery of shadow IT devices.

I personally don't have any issues with the performance or the stability of the solution. However, I am not the only person using this tool, and I can't speak for other colleagues using it.

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.

I've been using Skyhigh Security for about a year, but we have had the tool in-house for five years.

I rate Skyhigh Security a nine out of ten for stability. On some occasions, we have a service that is stopped, and it's not being alerted in the interface, causing a delayed response time.

Unfortunately, I don't have experience with the tool's scalability. So I can't say whether it's good, or should be better. We only have one partly on-premise and partly cloud solution, and we do not use the scalability features. Approximately 30,000 users use Skyhigh Security in our company, and we do not have plans to increase the number of users.

The experience with technical support depends on the person you get in touch with. I had experience with a couple of engineers who were unfamiliar with the products, and hence the experience was quite frustrating. I also had experience with a couple of engineers who knew what they were talking about, and the problem was resolved immediately.

We use the latest version of Skyhigh Security. Currently, a team of ten people are involved in the maintenance of the solution.

We are currently using Skyhigh Security in combination with another product, and we're trying to use the best features of both products. I prefer the other product we're using, which has similar capabilities. This other product is fully cloud-based, has more efficiency and performance, and gives more insight into the environment than Skyhigh Security.

Overall, I rate Skyhigh Security an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to provide security to remote users.

Skyhigh offers solutions like WLP and CASB. These tools provide instructions and guidelines for enhancing data security. Additionally, they offer additional software solutions for further protection.

Skyhigh Security is complex to manage. While it should ideally be more user-friendly, customers often find themselves having to manage it post-deployment.

I have been using Skyhigh Security for six months.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes 30 minutes for normal while for bigger deployment, it may take upto two hours. You have to install the agent, and install the certificate. One engineer is enough to deploy to maintain the solution.

The pricing varies depending on factors such as requirements and the management. While it may not be the cheapest option, it's generally reasonable for what it offers. Ultimately, the cost depends on the deal and the level of service required.

FortiGuard is a little easy to manage.

The functionality of Skyhigh Security is comprehensive, but it may be complex for our customers. The technical team can navigate it, ordinary users may find it daunting without extensive research. They may require assistance from MSP for effective management. The portal should be designed to be user-friendly, ensuring ease of understanding for the IT team or any other relevant department.

The DLP component ensures compliance with HIPAA and PI regulations. They maintain a static portal to track other compliance requirements they're adhering to.

I recommend the solution. However, they'll need well-trained professionals to manage it effectively. If you have another VPN and connect it to this network, it may cause some issues and require constant troubleshooting. This could potentially block agents, so it's important to carefully configure the settings from the outset. Fine-tuning is necessary, so it's crucial to dedicate time and effort to the project.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Skyhigh Security is ICAP. We're also using it for web proxy and filtering purposes for all internal company websites and user sites such as Microsoft Team filtering.

The feature I like best about Skyhigh Security is its wide range of product support. For example, my company had NetApp storage running, and Skyhigh Security has on-premises NetApp storage support, which isn't available in other solutions.

Skyhigh Security also has a better filtering feature versus the filtering feature in other solutions.

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."

I've been using Skyhigh Security for about a month now.

As of now, there's no instability from Skyhigh Security. It's a very stable product.

My team uses 500 MB of traffic, so to be honest, Skyhigh Security hasn't been tested that much, but with that kind of traffic, it's a good solution. For the use cases at the moment, Skyhigh Security is pretty scalable.

We haven't raised tickets with Skyhigh Security support. We just purchased the software and downloaded it on our own by learning from their site. We haven't interacted much with the Skyhigh Security technical support team.

My company is replacing McAfee Web Gateway with Skyhigh Security because it's not getting what it requires from McAfee.

McAfee Web Gateway is a good product, but it isn't as good for ICAP purposes because it's lacking in ICAP protocol and proxy, compared to Skyhigh Security. The main use case for the two products is ICAP, so my company decided to go with Skyhigh Security.

The initial setup for Skyhigh Security is easy. It's straightforward, so I'm rating the setup a four on a scale of one to five.

Pricing for Skyhigh Security is okay, though there's always a scope for price improvements. Its pricing is okay compared to other products because other products have very expensive licensing costs. Along with the licensing, support is also provided for Skyhigh Security, so pricing is reasonable, but if there's proactive or better support, that will justify the pricing. I haven't interacted with the Skyhigh Security technical support team yet, so I'd give pricing a four out of five rating for now.

My company is currently using two products for security, McAfee Web Gateway and Skyhigh Security.

My rating for Skyhigh Security is an eight out of ten because I haven't fully tested all of its features. If I was able to use the product more extensively, my rating could even be higher in the future.

My company is a customer of Skyhigh Security, providing support for it. My company purchases Skyhigh Security through the client.

McAfee Web Gateway is used as a proxy gateway in our company.

The most valuable features of McAfee Web Gateway are anti-malware, reports, and powerful categorization of web pages.

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.

I have been using McAfee Web Gateway for approximately five years.

We have approximately 7,000 users using this solution in my organization.

We implemented McAfee Web Gateway with a partner.

There is an annual licensing cost to use McAfee Web Gateway. The purchasing of licensing can be difficult for the government sector. 

There should be a hybrid form of a license model. For example, if I have a user working remotely and another one on-premise, it would be wonderful to have control in the cloud and on-premise.

I rate McAfee Web Gateway a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for web filtering.

I integrate and manage the solution. It's deployed on-premises.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We haven't had any issues with the product.

It's easy to configure. It's not hard to manage day to day.

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.

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

The scalability is fine. We work with Fortinet too and Fortinet doesn't work like McAfee. McAfee does more than Fortinet.

Technical support is really great. I would rate them 4 out of 5.

Setup is a little bit complex but I think the environment is complex. We needed help from McAfee and another integrator.

I would rate the complexity of setup 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

My advice is to discuss your goals before you install the solution because you can do a lot with McAfee Web Gateway.

You can connect to SaaS applications, like Workday, Office 365, or Dropbox. There are hundreds of SaaS applications. A remote user can connect to some kind of gateway or be assisted by a gateway connection from his home, and he would then connect through that gateway to a broker, a broker with basically the CASB as a broker, and the broker would then put that layer of security too.

A lot of people sell the solution, including Palo Alto. You've got Skyhigh Networks, which was the leader of CASB and then they were acquired by McAfee, and then now they've broken off into Skyhigh Security. They still have the CASB and they're still considered a market leader. 

They were very, very aggressive in the market to get a new market share or to take over market share while other companies were being broken up.

It's a really easy product. It is a pretty straightforward product. The only thing that Skyhigh doesn't is what Palo Alto does - they don't do any kind of a software-defined WAN, SD-WAN. If you have different circuits to utilize different bandwidth across different media and also set up redundancy links and that kind of stuff, that's all the SD-WAN. They do not have SD-WAN, Skyhigh Security does not have SD-WAN. Palo Alto does.

They were real big on the secure services, edge SSE and zero-trust network architecture type deployments. A lot of that stuff coming out of the networking and when things moved to a cloud, you have what's called sanction IP, which is basically, what we always knew as an internal network in all the security and firewalls and everything about that and then as things moved to the cloud, business to business type stuff and then you start having what's called shadow IP. That's when you have to build all the firewall policy infrastructure in the cloud to emulate what we were doing down inside of a business, connecting servers or PCs or network switches and that kind of stuff. However, infrastructure as a service is doing the same type of functions yet they're cloud services and not physical network services, or switches, meaning there's no mounting it in the rack and that kind of stuff.

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.

The stability has been good. it's a reliable solution. 

As a cloud solution, it's easily scalable. 

You can spin up an instance of something in the cloud or cloud providers a lot faster than deploying network infrastructure switches, routers, and all that stuff. Plus, you can tier down. There's a lot of flexibility you can do with cloud services versus native on-prem services.

Technical support is okay. We haven't had a problem with them.

I'm also familiar with Palo Alto.

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.

There are a lot of testing requirements and things that people have to go through to create in the CASB industry. Netskope didn't get a leg up as they were like the CrowdStrike of the EDRs. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

MVISION Cloud can be deployed on the cloud and on-premise.

I am using MVISION Cloud to have visibility for some CLP rules of the access to Office 365 applications.

The most valuable features of MVISION Cloud are the automatic reports and modification incidents.

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.

I have been using MVISION Cloud for approximately two years.

MVISION Cloud is a stable solution.

The stability of MVISION Cloud is fine. You can use whatever service with whatever number of users you want. There is a very good map to see all the services that you are receiving. You can always see what is happening, but the users never know if there is anything happening in the back end of the servers.

We have approximately 15 users using this solution in my organization.

I have used the support. They are very good but the speed of their answers could be quicker.

I rate the technical support for MVISION Cloud a four out of five.

The initial setup of MVISION Cloud is simple. From the moment that you have all the requirements, the process only takes five minutes. MVISION Cloud will notify you that they will have a maintenance day, which will take approximately one hour, but you don't notice that they are doing it.

There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually. The price is reasonable.

I would advise others to understand which of their use case has services that have direct integration with MVISION Cloud. The service is working very well.

I rate MVISION Cloud a nine out of ten.

What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis.

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.

I've been working with Skyhigh Security (formerly MVISION Cloud) since the day it was launched, so it's been four or five years now. It's not being used in the organization. My organization sells it, governs, and implements it for clients. My organization is still supporting Skyhigh Security.

Skyhigh Security is a stable solution.

Skyhigh Security is a scalable solution.

I'm rating the technical support for Skyhigh Security a zero. Support for the solution is not good, though the tutorials and documentation are excellent. 

Support is not easy to reach, and the engineer who handles the issue first-hand isn't much aware of the issue. Rather than understanding the issue, he simply told me: "Okay, follow this. What is the version? Is Windows updated? Which version of Windows are you using?" By the time you're done talking with the engineer, the ransomware attack would have happened and people would have lost their data.

When a person contacts support, he's one hundred percent done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting, but the support team for Skyhigh Security doesn't listen when you tell them that you're already done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting and can now move forward to the next level of troubleshooting and support. Support will do L1 & L2 again, take and capture the logs, then do the analysis, even if you're giving them your analysis, your report. Support will tell you: "No, we don't want this analysis report, though it is the same. We will do it again, and then we will report."

We compared Skyhigh Security with SentinelOne which is also quite good, but the limitation is there because SentinelOne is just an EDR solution, while Skyhigh Security has many other things to offer. There is no apple to apple comparison possible.

The initial setup for Skyhigh Security is simple. Clients can do it themselves because they have already been using the ePolicy server on-premises solution and now are moving out onto Skyhigh Security, and with the added features, they're more comfortable with the setup.

Pricing for Skyhigh Security is fine.

We evaluated SentinelOne.

The deployment model for Skyhigh Security depends on the customers. Some customers deploy it via the public cloud, while some deploy it via the hybrid cloud. Customers use the latest version of the solution.

I'm rating Skyhigh Security ten out of ten. Its current version is 100%.

I'm recommending Skyhigh Security to others.