Skyhigh Security Reviews

What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis.

Skyhigh Security, as a product, is excellent, but in terms of the right services and support, those are lagging very much, for example, in Trellix. From one hundred, its score has gone down to ten, so ten out of one hundred, otherwise, it's the number one product. Pricing and design are fine, so no further changes are required on those.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Skyhigh Security is a single console for all the products, for example, under the Trellix portfolio, it would be good if it could be managed by a single console because it's not possible currently. 

Competition is running much faster than the solution, so to improve Skyhigh Security and catch up to the competition, there's a need to add these additional features into one console.

I've been working with Skyhigh Security (formerly MVISION Cloud) since the day it was launched, so it's been four or five years now. It's not being used in the organization. My organization sells it, governs, and implements it for clients. My organization is still supporting Skyhigh Security.

Skyhigh Security is a stable solution.

Skyhigh Security is a scalable solution.

I'm rating the technical support for Skyhigh Security a zero. Support for the solution is not good, though the tutorials and documentation are excellent. 

Support is not easy to reach, and the engineer who handles the issue first-hand isn't much aware of the issue. Rather than understanding the issue, he simply told me: "Okay, follow this. What is the version? Is Windows updated? Which version of Windows are you using?" By the time you're done talking with the engineer, the ransomware attack would have happened and people would have lost their data.

When a person contacts support, he's one hundred percent done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting, but the support team for Skyhigh Security doesn't listen when you tell them that you're already done with L1 and L2 troubleshooting and can now move forward to the next level of troubleshooting and support. Support will do L1 & L2 again, take and capture the logs, then do the analysis, even if you're giving them your analysis, your report. Support will tell you: "No, we don't want this analysis report, though it is the same. We will do it again, and then we will report."

We compared Skyhigh Security with SentinelOne which is also quite good, but the limitation is there because SentinelOne is just an EDR solution, while Skyhigh Security has many other things to offer. There is no apple to apple comparison possible.

The initial setup for Skyhigh Security is simple. Clients can do it themselves because they have already been using the ePolicy server on-premises solution and now are moving out onto Skyhigh Security, and with the added features, they're more comfortable with the setup.

Pricing for Skyhigh Security is fine.

We evaluated SentinelOne.

The deployment model for Skyhigh Security depends on the customers. Some customers deploy it via the public cloud, while some deploy it via the hybrid cloud. Customers use the latest version of the solution.

I'm rating Skyhigh Security ten out of ten. Its current version is 100%.

I'm recommending Skyhigh Security to others.

We have 2 customers using McAfee Web Gateway. It is very useful as a complement to endpoint security. It is used to monitor incoming and outgoing traffic, as well as production.

McAfee has a very strong URL spam filtering feature.

McAfee Web Gateway has two kinds of solutions, one is for on-premises and the other is virtual. Their virtual solution is not as strong as their on-premises solution.

I am a reseller and partner of McAfee. I have been using McAfee Web Gateway for about 5 or 6 years.

It is a very stable solution.

McAfee offers good support.

The initial setup is not straightforward. You must know technology and networking. It would also be helpful if you have some expertise with McAfee products. If you have one person who is certified on McAfee products you can do the setup yourself.

It took approximately 3 days to deploy and implement 2 boxes on-premises. It then takes 5 to 10 days to fine-tune it. In total it takes about two weeks to set up.

Compared to other solutions and their prices, it is a bit on the costly side. However, it is not out of reach. Our customers pay a yearly license.

Although it is costly, I would recommend this solution to anyone. I would rate it a 9 out of 10.

The solution is basically it's a cloud access security broker. It's basically the leading cloud access security broker in the market. If you are talking about getting controlling access to AWS, Azure or Google cloud, or most of the major cloud providers, they can integrate that to help protect an organization from data loss, breaches, or from unauthorized access in general.

I actually had an encounter with a government entity. They had a lot of their staff leaking government data, and they were using a website, a known website called WeTransfer. It's a Chinese website that's used to transfer big files without you needing to create an account. Users in the company were basically, whenever they wanted to transfer files, doing it through this site and unintentionally leaking data.

This week, the POC installed the McAfee web gateway, integrated the MVISION Cloud, and got insights. A lot of their business was done on WhatsApp within their systems. An yet, until this moment, they had no visibility over this. Now they have it. Now they know, and they can initiate changes.

What I really like about the product is something called the ability to view the sanctioned IP apps, which is a major challenge for organizations today. There are sanctioned IP apps or unsanctioned IP apps. In an organization, you will find employees that will use services or applications for the business, which are not authorized by the IT department, and the organization fails to have visibility over this.

What McAfee can provide is full details into what your users are doing on the cloud. For example, lots of employees may be using WhatsApp for conducting critical business workflows, and yet their organization is not permitting them to use WhatsApp. Without a solution such as this, the company will never find out if they actually are using WhatsApp and to what rates. With MVISION Cloud and their web gateway, companies basically get visibility and insights into what their users are using on the cloud.

The product has the ability to provide insights and also to advise on misconfigurations on the cloud. For example, I may be a cloud customer and I'm using IS workloads or infrastructure and service workloads on Azure. I may have object storage configured on Azure, however, this object storage didn't get secured properly. It was publicly open. The system can suggest changes to alert you to this item and advise on how to fix the issue.

With MVISION Cloud, you can actually get detection notices. It will notify you, tell you, hey, be careful. You have object storage that is open to the public. You should lock it down, should have restricted access. You should have some credentials here or there. It will basically act like an advisor for your cloud configuration as well. This is what I really like about it, to be honest. It can tell you if something can go wrong before it happens. It allows you to fix things before situations can get out of hand.

In terms of their compatibility with major cloud providers, in terms of their abilities, capabilities, and features, they exceed everyone's capabilities in the CASB market.

Their integration capabilities are vast. They seem to be able to integrate all major clouds. 

The solution is very stable.

The solution can scale.

Technical support has been very helpful.

The solution is the leader in the market right now. It's hard to consider where it falls short, as it is so far ahead of everything else.

One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps. That can be room for improvement.

I'd love to see an on-prem version of the product. Instead of McAfee providing the service, it should be also software available for customers in the market to install on their data centers.

The solution has been very stable. We haven't had issues with it. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

It's not software that you can install. Scalability is on McAfee's end. It's not on the end-user or the partner or any of them, as it's a cloud service basically. However, it scales to meet your company's needs.

We have about ten customers currently using the solution.

Technical support has been very good. It's amazing, especially for the MVISION Cloud portfolio as it's a different team. In general, it's good. We are quite satisfied with their level of support.

You don't install the solution. The dashboard comes from McAfee Cloud. You just integrate it with your cloud, and you enter your credentials to your cloud providers. If you want, you can integrate it with an on-premise McAfee web gateway to get insights, shadow IP, sanction IT apps, look for unsanctioned apps, and whatnot. However, it's not software that you can take and install wherever you like. It's a service, basically. 

Honestly speaking, there is no competitor for MVISION Cloud. There are competitors in the market, of course, in the CASB market, lots of them. However, there's no one that's reached the level of MVISION Cloud just yet.

I don't have much experience with McAfee MVISION Cloud, however, I do have a good understanding of it. I also managed to pitch it and demo it to one customer and sold it a couple of times. 

It's originally not a McAfee product. It belonged to a company called Skyhigh before, which was acquired by McAfee. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I don't believe in perfect solutions, however, this is quite good. I haven't ever seen anything quite like it. 

I'd recommend it to other users. If a company is having workloads on the cloud, whether it be on Office 365 or AWS or Azure or Google cloud or IBM cloud, whatever cloud, it's highly recommended for them to at least consider MVISION Cloud as it can really help them secure their access to their cloud workloads. Especially those customers who have a hybrid cloud. They will most likely want a CASB that will be able to manage both clouds from the same dashboard.

Currently, we are using cloud discovery and analytics. This has given us an insight to which services our end users are subscribing to and where our business data may be held.

We are able to identify the high-risk websites and block them before the end users start using them to ensure that a business case is made for unblocking a high-risk site (rather than having to run interference after the fact). It also allows us to suggest other alternatives and safer services to the end user.

One feature offered is a 48-hour turnaround to add a service to the global registry upon request. While they do turn around risk assessments very quickly, often many of the answers are unknown which drives the risk scores of the services up. When provided with contact information, they will reach out to the service provider and get answers to those questions, but it doesn’t provide a lot of value to show a service as high risk just because they haven’t had the opportunity to ask yet.

I have experienced a few cases where I provided a direct contact name (who was expecting a call from someone at Skyhigh) for the cloud service provider being evaluated, and have received feedback from the contact that no one reached out to them after several days or, in some cases, weeks.

I have used this product for about 16 months.

I have encountered some stability issues. However, these seem to have improved over the last couple of releases.

I have also encountered scalability issues.

Some logging was turned on that filled up the log file shares very quickly; it took some time to determine the cause of the issue and remediate it.

The technical support level is good. They are responsive and truly desire to solve problems. The support staff can update versions of the software on our on-premises log processors in less than an hour via a WebEx session.

I have not used any other solution.

The setup was straightforward. We set up some on-site log processor devices to gather the firewall logs and send them encrypted to the server for analysis. The results were processed and then appeared on our dashboard.

The pricing policy is based on the employee/contractor count (people with a user ID in your active directory domain). The pricing policy is best if you enter a multi-year agreement.

I have evaluated other solutions such as Imperva Skyfence, Netskope, and Elastica.

If possible, have them run a simulation in your live environment for 30 days and you will be impressed with the kind of data that is collected. I, personally, highly recommend this product.

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.

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.

Insight into services being accessed and/or used in corporate environment. Additionally, Shadow IT as a whole and provides another set of eyes on web proxy logs.

It has allowed insight into gaps that may exist in current web proxy tool policies. Improves creation of security alerts on web proxy logs by having a separate system interpret said logs.

Skyhigh has given us categorization and rating of websites separate from what the web proxy places on the logs.

The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data. A better search capability, similar to a SIEM, would also allow deeper log analysis.

• 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.