Skyhigh Security Reviews

• The user analytics
• Having a full idea about infrastructure

DLP rules.

Having full control of infrastructure.

Iteration process.

Two years.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Five out of 10.

No.

The support team implemented the solution.

Not applicable.

It is good.

Yes.

All the information available on each service, including its risk assessment. Service groups, automatic assignment of services based on designated conditions, and the ability to utilize multiple log sources for the data.

Provides quite a bit of visibility into cloud services being utilized in our environment. I've been able to take the data available in Skyhigh and create discussions about whether we should be allowing or blocking certain services. This has also allowed us to start developing policies/procedures around new services which get introduced into our environment.

Iron out the few bugs that I've seen.

Less than one year.

None that I'm aware of.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

A 10 out of 10.

A 10 out of 10.

We did not previously use a different solution.

Unknown, as I was not involved in the setup process.

Unknown, as I was not involved in the procurement process.

Unfortunately, I don't have this information.

Not applicable, as I was not involved in the decision to go with this product.

It has a very user-friendly UI and is easier to pick up for people with less technical experience.

It’s a small improvement; however, it has augmented the pre-existing network monitoring services already in place to something more meaningful for higher levels of management.

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.

I have used Skyhigh for three months.

I can’t recall any stability issues.

We used this as an internal solution, so I can’t reasonably address scalability.

I rate technical support 7/10. I felt they were very accommodating when we worked with them, but as we were ramping up the product, we needed a lot of support to understand Skyhigh functionality. We had a dedicated resource communicating with us for some time, but there was a sudden switch and the knowledge transfer between them wasn’t comprehensive, leading to some lag in support.

We previously used a different solution but we did not drop it. We attempted to use the two solutions together.

I was not a part of initial setup, so I can’t speak to this point.

I was not part of pricing, so I can’t speak to this point

To my knowledge, Skyhigh was meant to help fill some of the performance gap shown by our other solutions, so we weren’t actively looking for products to do this so much as experimenting with a single new product we’d heard about.

Use this product in conjunction with others. It has good coverage in terms of monitoring, but other commercial products were used to mitigate threats to the network.

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.

The user analytics.

We were able to analyse our user activity, which helped us to identify the associated risks.

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

Three years.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

A six out of 10.

A seven out of 10.

No.

I was not part of the setup.

A vendor team did the implementation. I would give them a seven out of 10 on their expertise.

I have no idea of what it is.

No.

• Tokenization
• User analytics

• Identification of user activity
• Login information

De-tokenization.

More than one year.

Not for now.

No.

No.

Good.

Good.

No.

Straightforward.

We used a vendor team.

I do not know.

It is affordable. Skyhigh has some good features.

No.

We use it to block malicious IP addresses and check for security leaks. 

It is easy to configure rules.

It is an expensive solution.

I have three years of experience with this solution.

Technical support was very good.

The initial setup was easy and took about two weeks.

It's an expensive solution.

It's the perfect tool for investigation of malicious IPs, and I rate it at ten on a scale from one to 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.