Skyhigh Security Reviews

We use the solution for endpoint security. 

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. 

We have been using the solution for one year.

I found the solution to be stable.

We have not tried to expand the solution. There are 40 users using it in our organization.

The initial setup of the solution is not easy, it is complex. 

The solution requires a technical team for deployment because it is challenging. 

The price of the solution is good and we pay an annual license.

I will recommend the solution to other users. However, I would suggest having a deployment team assisting with the installation. 

I rate McAfee MVISION Cloud a seven out of ten. 

My experience with this product is from an evaluation standpoint. Since everybody is adopting cloud technologies such as SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS, they want to ensure that their data is secure. This product can be used to help people access our cloud applications securely, control users, and manage data movement over the cloud with respect to our data classification policies.

We have conducted a PoC but have not used it in our production environment.

They provide a variety of options for scalability, where we can use it over the cloud, or we can deploy it on-premises through our proxy. We can also use agent-based installation. Together, from a coverage point of view, the solution is pretty good. The other products that I have evaluated do not have the scalability options that McAfee has.

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.

We evaluated McAfee MVISION Cloud for a couple of weeks. 

It is meant for large organizations and it will support more than 10,000 users.

The technical support is good and they are customer-friendly. We don't use the support for MVISION Cloud but we use McAfee support for other products, and we are satisfied.

As part of our evaluation process, we have used several solutions from different vendors.

This is an expensive product, although it is made for larger enterprises and not for small organizations. This is generally the case with McAfree enterprise solutions.

This is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This is a web security product, it controls the usage of web for employees. There is an integral anti-virus and web URL filtering solution. I've used the solution in multiple companies that I worked in, and for the last six months I have a new company and I sell the solution along with other security products. I'm a security engineer. 

I like the anti-virus filtering, URL categorization, and reporting capabilities. I also like the ability to control what kinds of files or content can be downloaded. So you can restrict executables and potential harmful files. It's a very sophisticated and mature 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. 

I've been using this solution for nine years. 

Scalability is no problem. It is cluster able so I can use many devices. We have small companies in Hungary, usually some 1000 users, but we have one simple appliance. It can deal with many users. I assume even 50,000 users would not be a problem for this product. 

I've used technical support rarely but when we've had an issue they respond relatively quickly and they know what to do. I like them. 

I have seen other products like Websense, which is Forcepoint now, and McAfee Web Gateway which is better than Websense, I think. The features are generally the same, but McAfee is easier to manage and maintain, easier to overview. It also has better debugging capabilities and better logging.

The initial setup is very, very straightforward. I think it's one of the best. 

I would definitely recommend this solution and would rate it a 10 out of 10. 

We use this solution to protect us against online threats, as well as for user activity monitoring.

The most valuable feature is the SSL decryption.

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 have been working with the McAfee Web Gateway for five years.

This is a stable solution. It is constantly running across the entire enterprise.

Scalability on the cloud is something that needs improvement.

Our company has about 50,000 employees.

McAfee's technical support is fairly good.

Prior to McAfee, we were using Blue Coat. Two of the important things that Blue Coat was lacking are the SSL description capability and the in-line antivirus. I'm not sure if they have the capability now, but that is the reason that we switched to McAfee.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward and easy to perform.

Our in-house team implemented this solution. The architectural design and implementation were completed with the support and assistance of the McAfee team.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to use a hybrid model, rather than just something for a specific use case. Otherwise, you won't have a full 360-degree view. Integration with Active Directory is critical, as is the log integration with your SIEM solution. These are key factors that you need to consider.

If I were rating the on-premises and cloud-based features separately, I would give it a nine out of ten on-premises and a seven out of ten for the cloud.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as a CASB, a Cloud Access Security Broker, to gain insight into our cloud environment. We integrate this solution for our clients as a companion service to our main cloud product.

It gives us visibility into how the data is being used within our cloud environment. It shows the flow of information, and in our case, it has to with documentation that is restricted. For example, if a document contains credit card information or social security numbers then we are able to track it when somebody tries to delete them or do something else that is prohibited. We get flagged, which is the key. It enhances the visibility of what's in our cloud environment.

The most valuable feature for us is the integration with DLP. 

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.

That stability is good. It's a very good tool.

We have had no problems in terms of scalability.

We have a team of about forty people who use it. There is the DLP team, the various tenant cloud security administration team, and we also have our staff that uses it.

We found that the documentation is meager, but the response time from technical support is very good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

This solution is very easy to set up.

It took us about a month to get it up and running, but it took us four months to figure out how to use it amongst the different teams.

The licensing fees are based on what environments you are monitoring.

We did evaluate a couple of other options, and we have other solutions as well. We have Evident.io, one from Cisco, and one from Palo Alto. None of them are good in every environment, so we use a combination of these solutions.

I have found, based on implementations for multiple clients, that Evident.io doesn't meet the needs of all of the people. Evident.io is not a security protocol. It gives you visibility into your cloud, but it's not a broker. It's just an analysis tool. It is very PaaS-friendly, but not a SaaS-friendly tool. This is opposed to Skyhigh, which is SaaS-friendly but not PaaS-friendly.

My advice for anyone who is implementing this solution is to know what roles you will need to grant access to and have your roles predefined.

This solution has good coverage and good integration with other McAfee products. I am not giving it a perfect score because of the uneven coverage for other platforms. They tend to lag in terms of support for new platforms and new tools that come out on the cloud. 

I would rate this product a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is to prevent employees from extracting the data out of their corporate system and getting them outside through Gmail and things like that.

Predominantly, there are two valuable features: One is the data loss and the other one is network loss. 

It also prevents you from writing data to your Gmail and does not allow you to move your data outside of the corporate system. That is the most important feature for me.

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.

Stability has been good so far. 

We have 14,000 users using this solution, all of the employees in the company. Everybody has it installed on their laptops or their desktops.

I would advise someone considering this solution to configure it the way the OEM advises you. You should have a list of customization.

I would rate it a seven and a half out of ten. 

We use it for cloud risk services.

It monitors the cloud usage of our company and shows the status on the main dashboard. There, we can see what kind of cloud applications are being used and see a risk assessment for each one, indicating low, medium, or high. For each cloud application, we can see how many users are using it. It's like auditing for each cloud application. In that way, it gives in-depth visibility and a granular monitoring facility for the company: What is happening inside the company, what people are using, what kind of data is going through the company. It really helps in understanding cloud traffic.

There is one feature called data governance that shows all the cloud services which are used.

There is another one called cloud registry where we can see a risk assessment for the cloud services being used. If we want to add a new cloud service or a new cloud application, we can check into it and do an assessment through the cloud registry. That is the feature that I like most.

Generally, it is available.

The scalability is pretty good. The only thing we have faced is that sometimes, randomly, the portal becomes too slow. We only have between 100 and 150 users of the portal, which is a fairly small number, but scalability is not really an issue.

In terms of extent of use, it will monitor all the cloud usage in the company, whether there are 100k or 200k users. It will monitor everything, whatever comes from the logs, and present the data in an understandable format.

Technical support is pretty good.

This is our first solution of its kind.

We have definitely seen an ROI over the years we have been using it; not from a dollars perspective but in different ways.

They definitely charge a huge amount. All the security service providers charge a huge amount.

At the time we chose this product, we did not evaluate others, but recently we have a looked at a couple of other products. The others are pretty good. They have come up with a lot of innovation, improved security, and developed a lot of enhancements. In different ways, everybody is good.

Do a PoC for a week or ten days. If you don't like it, go with another vendor. But I believe you will like it.

It's not necessary to give access to everyone in the company to monitor their cloud usage. There are specific teams that use the platform for a specific purpose.

They have improved a lot. Every month or every three months they are coming out with a new update. Whatever we have asked for recently, they have added it to their roadmap. Since McAfee acquired the SkyHigh applications, there will be a lot more features to come. We are expecting a lot of features to be onboarded to the platform.

For our use case, what we currently have is good enough.

We use it to discover, protect, and permit.

Skyhigh for Shadow IT provides us visibility into the Shadow IT. It helps us in blocking high risk services and also in containing the data exfiltration to these high risk services.

It help us monitor high risk services, blocking them, and also feeding them to our egress points.

The risk management feature.

Integration with other technology ecosystems.

Initially, there were stability issues, but now it is perfect.

No scalability issues.

The support team is very good.

We did not previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was okay.

The implementation team was proficient.

Have a risk-based approach towards pricing.

There were none to evaluate at that time.

It is an innovative, dynamic tool.