Trellix Network Detection and Response Reviews

There are sandbox capabilities. You can submit malicious files and great feedback, including if there is malware, what it is doing, et cetera.

The way it works is better than others thanks to the sandbox. It can give you simulations in different operating systems and applications and give your real insights from the perspective of a real environment.  You gain insights into evasion techniques. 

It's not just running in the background on an endpoint. You can do tests and learn. You can do behavior analysis. That's the main feature. 

The solution can scale. 

There isn't something missing - even with HX. HX was in the box and was working EDR and antivirus. They just need to keep the updates running and the features stable, and that's it. No new thing is required.

The initial setup is not exactly easy. 

It is an expensive solution.

We've been using the solution for six to eight years, since 2014. 

The stability is okay. It's something they always need to improve and manage. Yet it's quite good overall, so long as it stays updated. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

The solution can scale well. It's not a problem.

We have one client with around 5,000 users, however, the user base varies from customer to customer. 

We've dealt with technical support. 

They take some time to answer, however, they solve the issue.

I compared this product with something like MD, for example, Forcepoint.

It's about how you are using the solution. If you don't have a Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall proxy you shouldn't go for MD. You should go for FireEye.If you need to use MD, you need to have the other solution as well. It's not working as a standalone. It feeds from other solutions.

The initial setup is a bit complex. It's not simple. For example, in the box, the imaging is very complex.

We implement the solution for our clients.

The product is pricey. We'd like it to cost less. Not all customers can afford it.

I am a deployment engineer. We are not using FireEye for ourselves. We are deploying it to our customers.

We are usually using the latest version since the database will be updated, and the images of the box itself will be updated regularly. It's always better in this kind of solution to have the latest update.

You can get it as a service provided by your cloud provider. With the on-premise, you will get the box, and each type of box has its deployment methodology or deployment technique. For example, if you are going to deploy the NX, you can make it online, and your networking can give it a motherboard from your switch.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's just a bit complex to set up.

We use FireEye Network Security to secure the internet link. The solution works as an inline sandbox. Additionally, it can scan and monitor all uploads and downloads, and internet browsed links.

The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design.

FireEye Network Security should have better integration with other vendors' firewalls or proxies, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet. Files that are being submitted should happen through the API or automatically.

In the next release, they should add a multiple virtual context feature.

I have been using FireEye Network Security for approximately two years.

The stability of FireEye Network Security is good, but I can face some problems in the memory and CPU. When I had the limited license to the SSL, I had to measure my SSL needs from day one so that I would not face any problems with the license.

The solution is scalable, you only need to purchase more licenses to have more scalability.

The support from FireEye Network Security is not very good. Palo Alto and Fortinet have better support.

I rate the support from FireEye Network Security a six out of ten.

I have used Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions.

The initial setup of FireEye Network Security is not complicated.

We implement the solution for our customers.

When you purchase FireEye Network Security NX, will need to purchase a megabit per second package. You must know your needs from day one.

I would recommend those wanting to implement FireEye Network Security to take the needed small course from FireEye and they will master the solution. It's a very simple solution and a very effective product in my network.

I rate FireEye Network Security an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used for detecting malicious traffic based upon known IOCs and it's integrated with the artificial intelligent speed, so we're able to recognize which IOCs are matching and their threat attribution.

I think there are some very functional features in FireEye when you compare the solution to traditional SIEM solutions. Traditional SIEM solutions don't have their own IPS/IDS functionalities and they integrate with third party WANs. In contrast, FireEye has created an ecosystem of products integrated with their own SIEM, which is cloud-based and integrates with network security, email security, host security and the like. 

The support is somewhat lacking with long response times. The expectation is that when it comes to security response, technical support should be readily available.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable with different modules of NX appliance which is a passive IPS/IDs for different bandwidth capacities. It's a matter of using the appropriate ones. 

The initial setup is straightforward. There is one template for location where we installed the virtual appliance and once that was up and running, it was fine. We had four or five people in the network team that set up the appliances.

We pay an annual subscription fee. 

We evaluated three options and decided to go with FireEye.

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

We implement this solution for our clients for the complete protection of their network.

It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye. 

I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went.

Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone.

They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules.

It is very reliable. Its hardware is also very robust. I have not heard anything about device failures. Its hardware can survive at 50-degree temperature.

Its scalability is good, but it depends on the features you are using. If you are using all the features, you might have to upgrade the boxes. It can scale to a certain level. For example, if you have 100 users, it can cater to 120 or 150 users, but it cannot cater to over 200 users. A lot of time, because of money issues or some other issues, customers just buy the hardware for their current needs, and they don't consider the future requirements. It is not something that is related to the scalability of FireEye.

We do not use it in our company. We are a partner of FireEye, and we implement it for our customers. I have seen customers using it for maybe 4,000 or 5,000 users.

Their tech support is based in India. They are very supportive.

It is very user-friendly. You just plug in the serial console, and you'll just get all the options. You just type the question mark symbol in CLI, and it will show all available options. The setup was pretty straightforward. I was able to do the basic configuration within 30 minutes. Rules and policy optimization can take a long time, but the basic configuration is pretty smooth and quick.

Its price is a bit high. A small customer cannot buy it. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would definitely recommend this solution. Anyone who is looking for a complete network protection solution and does not have any budget issues should definitely go for it.

I would rate FireEye Network Security a ten out of ten for technology and security.

The server appliance is good.

Technical packaging could be improved.

It would be helpful to receive access to the administration of the product.

We have been working with FireEye Network Security for one year.

It's a stable solution.

If you choose a good appliance, it could be scalable. 

You have a login to your applications.

We are 600 users who are on the payroll, but in total, we have 3,000 and 2,400 of which are volunteers.

Technical support is rather good. But it's very restrictive, it's false of maintenance. 

If you're don't authenticate it each month, you have to ask for another password and it's a little bit repressive.

Previously, we have not used another solution, because it's a compliment to TruePoint Securities.

The CheckPoint product is very strong, but we have found that some cases on CheckPoint lessons are not on the list.

The initial setup was straightforward, you can do it by yourself. 

You don't have to find a partner or a FireEye expert.

The pricing is not reasonable. The user fee is not as high but the maintenance fee is expensive.

For the next project, we will be doing comparisons for massive attacks.

We have been customers for five years and we have a very good relationship with them.

It's not the first line of defense. It's for us to subline of defense itself. It depends on the analysis of the threat.

An alternative tool could be Endpoint security.

I think we will put in service for Endpoint Security, soon. But network security is aligned more in your defense unison.

I would rate FireEye Network Security an eight out of ten.

We are using it from the perspective of data protection. We have two types of data that is coming. One is the actual data or the customer data that comes into our premises, and the second is the internet traffic that comes into our organization. FireEye devices scan all the traffic that comes through the tools on which we have configured FireEye, and they also analyze a lot of traffic.

It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities.

I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. 

They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet.

We have been using FireEye for a couple of years.

It is stable.

They are very good. They follow the SLA and have two types of support. Premium support is available 24/7, and it is more customized.

We were using an IBM product.

Its installation is quite easy. It is a straightforward installation unless you are using multiple technologies in your environment. If you are using Radware and other stuff, your FireEye needs to understand all the technologies. It needs to understand the data coming in from the switch and the data sent from the hardware devices and the load balancer. It tends to take a little time to understand the data traffic, but it is easy to implement. It takes about an hour.

We had a consultant. Configuring the device takes about an hour, but we also have the backend configuration related to our environment, which takes a bit more time.

We work across the globe. From the data center perspective, we have about 13 locations across the globe where we have implemented this solution. Two to three people are enough for its implementation.

I would recommend this solution to others. We plan to keep using this solution. We have just migrated to the latest FireEye devices.

I would rate FireEye Network Security an eight out of ten.

We are using this solution for sandboxing on all channels.

The most valuable feature is the network security module. It is better than other solutions and it can make and find electrical movement.

Also, the attack vector is a feature that no one else offers.

Overall, it's a great solution.

It is very expensive, the price could be better. 

I have been using FireEye Network Security for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. It's very agile.

The scalability is great. 

You don't have to purchase another machine, but if you want, you can add another one. It goes through the cluster very smoothly.

I am part of the professional services with multiple organizations and multiple users.

Technical support is great.

The initial setup was complex because there were some bugs, but the professional service of FireEye was able to resolve them.

It took a long time to deploy.

We are a reseller and the professional services of FireEye.

It's an expensive solution.

We evaluated other solutions before choosing FireEye.

I would recommend this solution to others interested in using it.

I would rate FireEye Network Security a nine out of ten.

We use FireEye to protect our web and email traffic.

The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email. It uses virtual machines to test the behavior of the files and determine whether they are malicious in nature. If there is any abnormal activity then the file will be blocked. The corresponding hash value will then be recorded, submitted to the cloud, and added to the blacklist.

It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto. They should be sharing their threat database and information. For example, if something is discovered by FortiSandbox or the Palo Alto Sandbox, it should be announced to all of the vendors so that they can take action and block these files.

FireEye can be improved in terms of network visibility. Some minor enhancements are needed.

I have been working with FireEye for about three years.

The stability is very good.

Scalability has been okay until now. If there is a major expansion in the future then we will proceed with that as it comes.

I have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be good.

I found the initial setup straightforward.

We had assistance with the implementation.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to fine-tune based on the use cases. Test the solution, monitor the alerts, and be proactive about anything that shows up. If there is any abnormal activity then be sure to take action quickly, and also, ensure that there is policy in place for other departments to act accordingly when malicious traffic is detected.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.