McAfee MVISION Endpoint is used for endpoint security across all platforms, including mobile and desktop users.
All endpoint-related activities for which the company has a charter.
McAfee MVISION Endpoint is used for endpoint security across all platforms, including mobile and desktop users.
All endpoint-related activities for which the company has a charter.
In my opinion, it's a pretty good product.
I have not received any complaints about the performance.
I would like to see more local integration for the applications that we use. We are looking forward to having more unified management.
We have been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint for one year. We have recently implemented it.
McAfee MVISION Endpoint has been stable.
We have not yet scaled it, but I believe that it is scalable.
Our organization has 7,000 users.
I'm not sure if the technical teams have done so, but I haven't contacted technical support.
We are using Cisco Umbrella, as well as McAfee.
Our own team performed the installation. I didn't hear any complaints, so I guess it's pretty simple.
To deploy and maintain, we have a team of two administrators and one manager.
It is based on an annual subscription.
I would definitely recommend McAfee MVISION Endpoint because it is cloud-based app management and requires little maintenance.
I would rate, McAfee MVISION Endpoint, an eight out of ten.
We use McAfee Endpoint Security as a solution for workstations and laptops.
Some of McAfee Endpoint Security's main features are it has benefits over normal conventional antivirus solutions because it works much faster.
The solution learns which piece of software is running on the computer and compares it to a white list or black list database, if it is on the white list it allows the application and if it is on the black it does not.
McAfee Endpoint Security uses fewer computer resources than many competitors making it less of a burden on the performance of the computer.
We have had some of our clients not happy with McAfee Endpoint Security because it blocks some of the applications they are trying to use. They should make it easier to unblock applications.
In a future release, McAfee Endpoint Security and all other endpoint solutions should reduce the number of resources needed to run their solution, such as hard drive space and CPU processing. The fewer resources the solution uses the better the performance of the hosting computer will have.
I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for approximately 15 years.
The solution is stable.
McAfee Endpoint Security is cloud-based making it scalable.
We have approximately 100,000 users using the solution in my organization.
I can log into the McAfee portal and get support. We have not had any problem with the support and we have never had an interruption or a case of software failing.
The installation was very easy and quick. It only takes a few minutes.
We can do the implementation of the solution. Customers can do it by themself or in a corporate environment it can be pushed from the central server to each individual computer.
The maintenance of the solution is done by an outside vendor.
For each computer that is connected to the server McAfee charges us for each computer based on our license agreement.
We are in the process of moving away from McAfee Endpoint Security and replacing it with Cylance.
The solution is great by itself. However, it is important how management is organized within the company and how quick of response the teams can apply white list and other security measures.
I would recommend this solution to others.
I rate McAfee Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.
The package of protection that it provides is useful. It has antivirus, malware protection, VPN, and a whole bunch of other features.
It is just there in the background and does its job. Every once in a while, it reminds me that it is doing its job.
They can make it free, but that's not going to happen.
I have been using this solution for about a year. It seems to be the current version.
So far I have no issues. It is very stable, and does not tale a lot of CPU or memory resources, which was a problem in older products.
I am using it on a personal computer, so scalability is not an issue.
I have not used their support.
Its setup is very easy and straightforward.
Its price is reasonable. Setup was easy.
I would advise others to get the most comprehensive protection that they can. For me, it meant McAfee, but there are other good solutions around.
I would rate McAfee Endpoint Security an eight out of 10.
We've only got two or three machines. The solution is simply used as an antivirus, however, we've rolled it out to all of our customers and we use it as a managed service.
The solution has reduced false positives for our clients and ourselves.
It's got quite good ransomware detection.
The product can be deployed across mobile devices.
It has a managed service push deployment where we can push cloud tasks into policies.
It's a really good product. It's stable and scalable. It offers good flexibility, has a small footprint, offers a minimal effect on performance, and is from a trusted brand.
We have found the deployment to be very fast.
Technical support is excellent.
We're still looking for weaknesses. The product is still quite new for us. That said, so far, every time I have thought, "I wonder if it can do this or it can do that." I've been able to do it.
McAfee has also asked us for feedback, and we noticed when we gave them suggestions, they worked to implement them. For example, we asked for the ability to leverage Windows Defender instead of creating an endpoint. They've just put that in so you can choose now what you want to do. You can change that deployment and push it out without any intervention by the client as well.
The initial setup can be a bit complicated for those unfamiliar with the product.
We have been using the solution for about four or five months at this point.
The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.
The companies we work with range in size from small to large.
The solution is very easy to scale.
I would rate technical support at a ten out of ten. They have been great. We have found them to be helpful and responsive. My personal interaction with them was absolutely brilliant.
The initial setup can be difficult the first time. You have the flexibility to give all sorts of setup options. You need to know, for example, do you want this, do you want that, do you want these exclusions? Do you want these exploit preventions? et cetera. There are a lot of components. It's going to be complicated initially, however, once you've done that and set it up for a customer, then it's very simple just to deploy it and roll it out.
We rolled out another customer on Friday, and that's 35 sites we've done so far - and I was able to do the whole lot remotely. It's quick to deploy. For clients, in terms of the deployment, I just simply send them a link to their emails and they just go click on it and it goes.
Once the product is deployed, there isn't any maintenance necessary. It's all controlled from a SaaS portal.
The pricing is okay. It's in the middle and there are actually surveys out and they all say that as well.
There's a couple of license options. You can choose a single license or you can choose what we call a MV2 license. Every single license gives you the ability to install a product on five other devices - including mobile. You get a Windows license and that enables you to install it on a tablet, iPhone, or Android device (up to five) as well.
We're a McAfee partner.
We are using the SaaS version. It's my understanding that we are on the latest version of the solution.
We would recommend the solution to other companies. We actually sell it and provide it to all our clients.
I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.
We are using this solution for endpoint security against cyber attacks.
FireEye Endpoint Security is easy to use and lightweight compared to others.
Most of these types of solutions including others, such as Carbon Black and FortiEDR, all have the same features. However, Carbon Black is the leader when it comes to being robust and user-friendly and this solution should improve in those areas to stay more competitive.
I have been using FireEye Endpoint Security for a couple of months.
This solution is scalable. However, it could improve to be able to be handle large-scale operations. The OS most systems are running I am not sure it can handle a lot of nodes but many companies are coming out with cloud options that should be able to manage much more nodes.
Technical support can take some time to respond on the first level. They could improve the speed at which they resolve and handle support.
We have an administrator and engineer that does the implementation and maintenance of the solution.
I have evaluated Carbon Black and FortiEDR.
I would not recommend this solution to others. However, if you have a small budget then this solution could be a second option.
I rate FireEye Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.
We are using the latest version at the moment because I'm managed by the MVISION tenants.
In the past, many people had issues with the utilization of detections and resources. ENS is actually very good for detection. When properly configured, especially when the prevention feature is activated, it integrates very well with the ATP, in respect of the endpoint. ATP offers very good protection and is a rich solution which helps to remove ransomware. I've been using the product for a while now and been able to secure a lot of environmental ransomware attacks, as well as some others, by integrating the ATP with the ENS.
It is of primary importance that the solution does not cripple my system. When an endpoint is sitting on one's computer a struggle ensues involving resources, since the endpoint is actually scanning. At present, it either does not do so or is not noticeable. The detection rate is very high and one can be certain that he is not getting false positives, since he can see if the policy is properly configured.
The detection is great and the solution is constantly improving.
It would be nice if the solution were to allow not just on-cloud management, but on-premises, as well.
I have been using McAfee Endpoint Security for a couple of years. I started with Virus Scan and moved to MVISION when it was introduced. I used ENS when it was made available. While I cannot remember for certain, I believe I have been using the solution since 2015 or 2016. I still use it.
The solution is very stable. Proper configuration means that we have not had issues with the stability. When all is said and done, the landscape is shifting towards one involving EDR, which is necessary for one to feel he has complete endpoint protection.
The solution is scalable.
While there is a need to utilize technical support, I feel it to be fair. Overall, support will point one in a certain, or appropriate, direction, although they will occasionally ask that the person solve the problem on his own. The process may take longer if the issue involves the product. Proper escalation can shorten the resolution process. While I have occasionally had to solve the problem by myself, more often than not the support is very helpful and reliable, especially of late.
The deployment is simple and very straightforward, including when one wishes to deploy in the cloud.
Deployment can be handled on one's own. Most deployments are the same. When deploying in the cloud, there is only a need to click several times on the link that is sent. There's nothing to it. Anybody can actually do the installation. It's very straightforward.
We are distributors although, as an engineer, I handle everything, including integration.
McAfee's prices are flexible and can be quite competitive, although there are other solutions that are even more so. Most end-users don't focus on which solution is better, but on which one is most cost-effective.
Our customers must pay for the licensing involved in using the solution, which they do so annually. Yet, the majority of our customers deploy the solution on-premises, which means their licenses are perpetual. There is still a need to pay for support, however, and this must be renewed annually.
The solution does a fine job of integration.
It is deployed in the cloud.
My organization is very big. Like I said, we're systems integrators. As we are a distribution company, I am in a position to speak from a technical point of view. I've actually seen environments that reach 16,000. I did the deployment for a bank in Ghana, which is under the management of the Pan-African Bank and is responsible for management throughout all of Africa, save for Nigeria. This involved around 15,000 nodes. There is another bank in Nigeria with between 4,000 to 6,000 nodes and still others with around 12,000.
I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. Leaving aside the fact that I sell this solution, when it comes to endpoint security solutions the world over, McAfee is one of the best, if not the best.
I use this solution for system security protection.
McAfee has helped our organization by keeping all of our computer systems secure from viruses or other intrusions.
The most valuable feature is the centralized console where everything can be controlled by the administration. McAfee is always improving and is coming out with advanced cloud strategies, you can always rely on them now and for many years ahead.
There are times the solution has some additional software added that is not fully integrated properly, such as Exchange Group Shield. It is quite old and is not fully integrated properly and could be improved.
In an upcoming release, there could be an improvement in performance. There are times the solution can use a lot of resources on the local machines. This normally happens when the system is scanning, the end-user can really notice the performance change. After every new version that is released, there are improvements made. However, there is still room for improvement.
I have been using this solution for approximately 15 years.
The stability is good, whenever there is an issue there is an update or solution to fix it shortly after.
The scalability has been good for us, we have not expanded very much to know more.
The technical support could be improved. We currently have business support and this has been a lot better than the regular support. The business support is more responsive and the resolutions are more thorough.
The price of the solution is fair, we have a complete security package.
The solution is very good but it is useful and important to have good experience with the endpoint testing machine.
I rate McAfee Endpoint Security nine out of ten.
Overall, we handle the implementation of the solution, taking into account the policy required to secure the network.
We primarily use McAfee Endpoint Security for data loss and endpoint protection.
An area in need of improvement involves the overview, which usually does not enable one to get the value in reports.
Upon receipt of the incident, the review is important. Based on this it is possible to construct a workflow for closing the case.
It is crucial to keep the data inside the department. Receipt of the incident is a pain point since there is a need to engage one's system administrator as part of the data loss protection consent requirements and this involves sensitive information. However, nothing will be accomplished with a system administrator, only with a compliance administrator who is fully knowledgeable.
The solution is not stable and the ecosystem enters the picture for those responsible. Each system is connected in a centralized manner to give a holistic view of one's endpoint and environment. This is how things are at present and it offers a great way of setting things up. But, it poses an issue that a person cannot translate the value of the information once the entire system is integrated into a single console. Nothing will be accomplished in the system if incidents are frequently received but with no correlation between them. There is a need for combining IP analytics with artificial intelligence in respect of these reports.
The initial setup was complex and required too many servers.
A perpetual license is not an option with McAfee Endpoint Security or anyone else for that matter.
The price of the solution is high in Asia, in contrast to Symantec, which gives you a 70% discount on the closing of the project. The issue at hand involves the people. McAfee did have some big clients in my country and region. However, it did not have many clients.
The solution is deployed on-premises since it mostly involves a bank.
Unfortunately, most clients have chosen to remove McAfee and have switched to Silence because of its ease of use. They are not interested in updates.
I feel McAfee Endpoint Security is a good, mature product, although the price of the technology poses an issue. In Pakistan and Asia, there is a different kind of field environment than in Europe and the United States. While we cannot offer our clients managed services, which is what everyone wants, in Europe and the United States they can.
I rate McAfee Endpoint Security as a six out of ten.
Centralized administration controls refer to a system in which one centralized authority manages and controls a network, system, or organization. This approach allows for more efficient management and control of resources, data, and security.
Continuous improvement is a key aspect of any successful organization, and centralized administration controls can facilitate this by providing a framework for evaluating and implementing improvements in a systematic manner. With a centralized system, updates and improvements can be rolled out uniformly and quickly, reducing the likelihood of errors or inconsistencies.
Reliability is also an important characteristic of a centralized system. Because there is a single point of control, it is easier to ensure that all components of the system are functioning correctly and that any issues can be addressed promptly. This can result in increased uptime and better overall performance.
However, it is important to note that centralized administration controls can also have drawbacks. For example, they can be vulnerable to single points of failure, and they may not be as adaptable to changing circumstances as decentralized systems. It is important to carefully consider the specific needs of an organization before deciding whether a centralized or decentralized approach is best.