Skyhigh Security Reviews

We primarily use the solution for security purposes. We specifically use it for endpoint protection.

The product has a very high rating from reviewers. It's a well-respected product.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

We've found the scalability potential to be good. Technical support is often helpful.

The solution is stable and the performance is good.

We haven't really had any issues with the solution. There isn't really any aspect that is lacking.

I've been using McAfee for about ten or more years at this point. It's been about a decade. it's been a while. However, for this particular solution, it's likely been for about a year. We installed it in 2020.

The stability has been good so far. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. The performance is good.

The scalability seems to be good. A company that would like to expand it, should be able to do si without issues. 

Technical support is okay. It's fine, however, it is not consistent.

The implementation is very straightforward and very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult. If a company needs to set it up, they shouldn't have any problems.

We looked at Trend Micro as well. We compared it to McAfee and found that McAfee was rated much higher. Due to the higher rating, we went with McAfee. 

We are just a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with McAfee.

We really like the company, however, and have used them for a long time. We've used them on-premises and recently moved to the cloud.

Next year, we are preparing to use a new feature of McAfee - an EDR feature.

Overall, we have been extremely satisfied with this solution. I'd give it five stars. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at a ten.

We have better data protection after implementing the product.

The product enables us to scan files for viruses and vulnerabilities. The threat protection capabilities are very strong. The product handles our compliance and governance challenges well. It enhances our security.

It is difficult for non-technical people to learn the tool. There are no training videos available for the product.

I have been using the solution for about five years.

We used Cisco IronPort before. It was very expensive, so we switched to Skyhigh.

The implementation is very easy.

The tool is not expensive. The cost is comparable to other products in the market. The licensing model is perfect.

I have also used Cisco Firepower.

I am a reseller. The solution does not have an AI mechanism, but it is connected to an SIEM system. The SIEM system has AI, and Skyhigh transports the events to the SIEM system. We are planning to stay with Skyhigh Security. We have integrated the solution with our existing infrastructure.

I will recommend the tool to others. The tool has all the features I need. It is very popular in our country. Many companies and government organizations use it. Bigger companies use the solution more. Small companies in our country do not use security products. The solution’s website provides documentation. I learned the tool myself.

Overall, I rate the product 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.

We use this product for enterprise cloud security. My role is in strategy and security.

We were using MVISION for data protection.

The most valuable feature is the support. It's the best.

MVISION has a really good strategy and the CASB solution is excellent.

We used McAfee MVISION Cloud for two years, but have recently stopped using it.

This is a stable product.

It is definitely scalable.

The support is excellent.

Prior to MVISION, we used dedicated security tools like endpoint protection, virus scan, and so forth.

This is an expensive product, but you have to compare that with other solutions that are on the market. We have a good relationship with McAfee and have a lot of their products, so we do not pay the same price that an end-user would.

We are currently evaluating another product and will not be using MVISION in the future. One of the products that we are looking at is MVISION for the cloud.

We evaluated Netskope, but we were offered a better price for MVISION.

Personally, I have always found that McAfee has good products. This is a product that I recommend. My advice is to compare this product against other solutions to ensure that you receive the features that you want.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

So we are using Skyhigh for SWG and CASB. Those are the two primary use cases. We also use it as a web proxy to allow users to access the internet securely. The product includes content filtering and reporting. In addition, we use McAfee EPO to manage McAfee antivirus and proxy agents.

Skyhigh performs well, and we can choose from virtual and hardware plans. We can deploy the ISO on as many virtual machines as possible and easily set up high availability on the web proxy. The location doesn't matter. The user at a site will always access the web proxy for that location. It's suitable for an organization distributed across multiple regions. 

The reporting is also straightforward, which is handy for troubleshooting. You can do live tracing and check the log to see the traffic on a particular IP to determine what happened. You can configure it to say certain websites are blocked by default. If traffic is allowed, you can trace the issue and fix it. The backup features are highly efficient. 

You can integrate Skyhigh's rules with Active Directory groups. For example, you can allow access to a specific website for a defined set of users. I can do that, but the rules are not straightforward. It can look up the group in Active Directory. However, it doesn't always find the proper group name. The rule configuration should be simpler and more granular. The admin should be able to map 80 groups in the rules quickly.

Backups could be more automated. I have to manually back up all the policies and I can't schedule this. That is a pain. I must remind myself to back up the policies weekly. 

I joined this organization seven months ago, but the company has used Skyhigh for five or six years. 

I rate Skyhigh nine out of 10 for stability. It is a highly stable and robust product. 

I rate Skyhigh nine out of 10 for scalability. You can add as many servers as you want to a cluster.

I rate Skyhigh support six out of 10. My experience has been mixed. It depends on the technician you're dealing with. You might not get a satisfactory resolution from level-one support, so you must escalate the call to the right engineer to get the job done. 

Neutral

I previously used TMG Web Proxy. It isn't as good as Skyhigh, which is considered a top-of-the-line product in this segment. TMG wasn't as robust or versatile as Skyhigh. TMG was a Microsoft product, but I believe it was discontinued in 2014. 

I rate Skyhigh eight out of 10 for ease of setup. The setup is pretty straightforward if you have help from the vendor. You need some support initially, but adding servers is easy after you deploy the first one. After installation, you can update the system with a click of a button. 

I rate Skyhigh Security eight out of 10. They've recently released new cloud management features that enable you to control your proxy servers over the cloud. You only need to handle the administration, and they will take care of the infrastructure and all. You can set up a web proxy on-premises and one in the cloud for high availability. If there is a disaster, the traffic will route to the cloud web proxy, which is a fantastic feature. We haven't tried this yet.

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.

Box API access with DLP capabilities

Shadow IT

Our organization is moving much of its non-sensitive data to Box and we needed the ability to have full visibility into what was occurring within the Box infrastructure. With the Skyhigh to Box API integration, we can not only see everything that occurs but we can setup many DLP policies to block or monitor what is occurring in Box. You can also run a custom DLP query against your Box infrastructure to look for specific DLP issues that may have been created since the older data was loaded.

Reports. The reports are useful but they do not always give the information in the format that I'm looking for and can take a while to run.

Probably my two biggest issues are as follows:

1. Even if you narrow down the scope of the report so that there is not too much data, when a report is generating, sometimes it will get hung; thus you have to delete it and run it again. This does not happen too often but when it does, it can be rather inconvenient. Especially since when I need to manually run a report, there is often a time sensitive reason that cannot wait for a report to generate twice.
2. SkyHigh has the ability to place users or groups on a ‘Watchlist’; which allows you to see certain views with these Watchlists users/groups in them. This is great when you are looking at live data but if I wanted to generate a report on ONLY the watchlists (or specific sub-watchlists), it is not possible. One of our main Watchlists is everyone on the IT Team. Since IT users tend to have more access and control over the environment (myself included) we like being able to single out these users when looking at data. My CIO especially, would love to have a report over specific services, bandwidth, etc… that the IT team is doing every week or month; so that he knows that we are not doing anything malicious. This feature should be provided soon but it is still not in Production.

2.5 years

No. We currently use Blue Coat Cloud Proxy and are able to download the Blue Coat logs to the Skyhigh Log Aggregator, and they are immediately sent to Skyhigh. Even if there is an issue where Skyhigh is not receiving the logs, you will receive an email or phone call from their support letting you know they have not received any logs in X amount of time.

Originally, the interface would take longer than expected to load some of the more graphically intense metrics. However, Skyhigh has been improving their product and releasing upgrades on a consistent basis. Now the stability and speed are greatly improved. Looking forward to their next major release.

No. Since I am able to use my Blue Coat Logs (which encompasses every system on and off my network) I just have one location that I download my Blue Coat logs and then upload them to Skyhigh.

On a scale of 1-10, I would give them a 9. I have not had any issues and their support has been extremely helpful. There was one time where there seemed to be a decent amount of time between correspondences but it may have been the complexity of the issue. Otherwise, there have been no issues.

On a scale of 1-10, I would give them a 9. They have been able to fix just about any of my issues but there have been times where they would need to bring in higher level support or other support to assist.

No.

Straightforward. During the Proof of Concept, their guides and directions were very easy to follow and I was able to setup everything without much assistance.

Our implementation was in-house. Since the deployment of this CASB was rather simple, there was no need to bring in a third-party vendor. If you are trying to have a 'real-time' blocking scheme where SkyHigh pushes blocking scripts to Bluecoat Proxy SG or Palo Alto, then a third-party implementation team may be necessary. However, even setting up these integrations are not too difficult and a third-party integrations team may not be necessary.

With Pricing, the biggest thing to watch for is the difference in price per monitored user for the different API integrations. We currently only use the Box API but we thought about using the Salesforce one but it was drastically more expensive per user. We are starting to look at the 365 monitoring since we may migrate their soon but I have not looked at the pricing for it yet.

Yes, Netskope.

No.

We implemented Skyhigh for Shadow IT monitoring as well as Microsoft Office 365 real-time auditing. We monitor these on a daily basis and are currently in the process of implementing policies if certain activities are done by our end users.

We have gained a deep insight into our Shadow IT usage as well as the different activities involved in Office 365. Without Skyhigh, we had zero visibility, but now we are aware of so much more.

The risk rating of each cloud application has been very useful. Whenever we discover a new application is use, we are able to quickly determine if this application is safe to use and whether or not we should allow our end users to be able to access it.

Though the Skyhigh Dashboard is processing large amounts of data, the speed of the Dashboard could be improved. Also, it would be nice to be able to get more advanced search functions to filter out data and quickly obtain the data that we need.