Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Reviews

I use the solution in my company for malware detection. My customers are mostly banking and government organizations.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its area for threat detection.

When it comes to some unknown fileless attacks, the tool is not able to detect them properly, making it an area where improvements are required.

The tool's support needs to improve in the areas of response it provides to users.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) for two and a half years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate the technical support a seven and a half out of ten.

Neutral

The solution is SaaS-based, and we have deployed it using the hybrid cloud model.

The tool's deployment phase is a lengthy process. For one endpoint, it takes 15 to 20 minutes.

The tool is cost-effective. Many agents need to be installed, and on-premises integration is required.

I haven't worked on the tool to see how it works for security workflow.

My customers have not seen any challenges while working with Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) in terms of integrations.

The tool does not support any AI and security initiatives.

The tool is suitable for enterprise companies.

If businesses are completely on the cloud, then the tool is not required. If a company has a hybrid cloud model with an on-premises model, then it will be a good tool to use.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to detect and identify critical management activities. Within the network level, you can understand what is happening in the environment. Organizations using complex systems for various purposes can easily identify shared activity within the environment. There is a detection base that allows us to identify and manage threat events. The solution also includes licenses for forensic investigations of any attack that occurs. Details can be found within the platform's release at the end of the month or whenever needed. Any Trellix malware activity will be displayed on the dashboard, and the moderating services will be integrated into everything we have built.

The dashboard makes it easier and more effective to analyze data. It also allows us to access the AWS analytics and system features in one place. If we need to find specific details about an endpoint, we can determine what is happening and how any organization is affected by the data provided.

The better approach is to apply the necessary improvements to make the dashboard more effective and user-friendly. If simplified, users can investigate issues in more detail by clicking on the relevant sections. Making it simpler would enhance understanding and improve the investigation process. Customers currently using the system can view everything on a single dashboard, which is very effective for understanding all scenarios and activities.

Customers rely on a single platform When they notice an incident, response, or attack. In SOC analysis teams, especially in banks or traditional organizations, the entire team needs access to the scenario on one platform. This allows them to understand the dashboard and detect any ongoing activity easily. Once they identify an issue, they can proceed with further analysis. Customers need a clear and visible platform that helps them understand when and how their site is being compromised.

The dashboard is split across different platforms. For example, if you want information on Incident Detection, you have to access one dashboard, and for DLP reporting, there's a separate platform. This fragmentation means you can't access everything from a single dashboard. Instead, you must navigate various options to find the right dashboard. This setup results in a separate view for each function. Ideally, we'd like to consolidate this into a unified platform, making it easier to identify site behaviors from one centralized dashboard.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) as a reseller.

We initially used McAfee's VSP and Varia System Enterprise products. After transitioning to Endpoint Security, particularly in version 10 or 7, we encountered performance issues on systems running Windows 7. The high resource utilization caused significant slowdowns, leading to numerous complaints, especially from Sakasho. The EDR was consuming too many system resources, which impacted overall performance. However, with the newer versions, like those in the InVision EPO, these issues seem to have been resolved, and the system now operates more efficiently. The current product is expected to be much lighter and more stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I highly appreciate service architecture. They are developing day by day.

We are an enterprise that provides solutions through Trellix EDR that various external customers use. Our solutions are deployed in a large and diverse environment, including companies, telecoms, and major banks. These organizations rely on our products for their protection needs.

There are multiple ways to get support. You can create a case through your partner or support portal by calling. If necessary, you can raise a call and follow up immediately.

Positive

We operate within our environment and country. One of our clients, is interested in using our on-premises solution. They are hesitant to adopt a cloud-based solution due to concerns about data security. They worry that storing data in the cloud could expose it to unauthorized access. They are confused about how the cloud handles sensitive data like CPU data and prefer to keep their information on-premises. However, other banks have embraced cloud solutions and understand their value. Over time, as more companies study and become comfortable with cloud technology, we believe others will also follow and move to the cloud. We hope to maintain their interest in our services.

Its machine learning capability is strong, and the AI configurations and system integration enhance its effectiveness. The API solutions added to this system allow us to detect and respond to incidents quickly. The quick response is also due to Edge Solutions and specific-type solutions, enabling us to conduct thorough investigations and generate reports on the platform. 

I recommend Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) because it offers strong capabilities. It’s worth noting that XDR solutions are also available and might be more effective. These XDR solutions are advanced technologies with enhanced features, including improved API integration.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I'm a consultant. One of my clients was experiencing attacks on one of his endpoints, so we installed McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, and we used it to check if the other endpoints were also being attacked. This is one of the uses cases of the solution: threat hunting.

Another use case is that McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response consolidates all the information back to the MVISION Insights, so that's threat intelligence information, and we match whatever IOC we have, together with the current attack campaign data in the McAfee databases.

The most valuable feature I found in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the guided analytics or guided EDR investigation. Normally, when you use an EDR solution, you need to have an analyst to understand all the artifacts, then you come up with the question and come up with the answers. With the guided investigation feature in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, DoD is easier, because the tool does the analysis itself, based on the artifact, then it maps back into the MITRE Framework and gives us all the answers.

An area for improvement in McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the historical search. For example: when you have information on the artifact and a precedent, you want to do a search, and that is a bit lacking in the tool.

Another area for improvement is in the automation feature of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response, because it still needs some work in terms of integration.

What I'd like in the next release of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is the ability to use it with a newer security platform. This means that the information you get from network parameters such as IPS and firewalls can be pumped back to the tool, so we can match all the information to do better threat hunting. Threat hunting is only on the endpoints, so if McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response could cover everything, that would be good.

We've been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response for a year, and we're using its latest version.

The stability and performance of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response are quite good, especially because it's still using the same agent. It doesn't require hardware, as long as there's good internet connectivity, for example: the bandwidth of the customer in the office is quite good, so the tool seems okay. I don't see anything lacking in terms of its performance. It's quite a good tool.

Because McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is deployed on cloud, scalability is not an issue. You have to look at scalability in terms of the endpoint agent. If the endpoint control panel is good enough or is large enough, scalability is good enough, so it won't be much of an issue.

McAfee technical support has been not that great in the past two months, and it could be because they just merged with another company. Their level of support was high previously, but now it's not so good, and it's not on par with what I expect. On a scale of one to five, I would rate their support a three.

We already have the baseline for the current endpoint, so deploying McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response was simpler.

I was the one who did the deployment for a customer, and it was quite straightforward. Because we already have the baseline and we used the same engine and the same integration, deployment of McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response took less than two days.

Pricing for McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is not that expensive, but it's not something that a startup could buy. Pricing for it is for midsized businesses.

There's an additional payment if you want data retention for more than thirty days. They gave us data retention for thirty days. Then if you want longer data retention, they have the paid option for a three-month data retention period and for a one-year data retention period.

We don't use any backup protection, but previously, we used Commvault for backups.

In terms of maintaining the tool, you don't have to do a lot of fine tuning, because the fine tuning will happen on the endpoint protection, in particular, the tool will do all the hunting. What we just need to do is to monitor the data location and the database.

My rating for McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is eight out of ten.

We're looking at the logs, and the customer defines the solution's use cases.

Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response is a user-friendly solution. The biggest strength of the solution is that it's an integrated product that includes EDR and antivirus. It's not like you have different technologies for different solutions.

Some modules that are doing machine learning and artificial intelligence are blocking our processes.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response for one year.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response an eight out of ten.

The product provides a one-click recovery of encrypted files. Threat hunting is marvelous.

The product must improve the ability to work with different operating systems like Windows and macOS. The CPU utilization of the product is quite high compared to its competitors. The agent file size is higher. The number of services that run on a system is quite high. Other EDR solutions have only a single service running on it.

I have been working with the product from the day of inception. I am using the latest version of the solution.

The stability is good. I rate the stability a nine and a half out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. The solution is suitable for small, medium, and large enterprises.

The support is great.

Positive

The initial setup is simple. It can be done in a couple of days. The solution is cloud-based.

The product’s aggressiveness in competing with the competitor's pricing is almost nil. The pricing is always high. I rate the pricing a three and a half out of ten.

We can compare the tool with SentinelOne and CrowdStrike. Kaspersky and Trend Micro cannot compete against the solution.

People must always evaluate the product first. They must see the difference in manageability and flexibility of the licenses. They must also consider the manageability and flexibility of the software before making a decision. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company's clients use the solution to detect the early stages of attacks and to react to the strange things that happen on the endpoints.

Visualization of cyberattacks is one of the most valuable features of the solution.

It is tough to comment on what needs improvement in the solution. At the moment, it is difficult to recall and comment on what needs to improve in the solution.

The solution lacks the ability to integrate with external platforms. In future releases of the solution, I would like to see the solution increase its integration capabilities with external platforms. At this moment, I want the solution to integrate with more XDR tools. The solution should provide its users an ease of administration in future releases.

My company has spoken to McAfee about their solution being on the pricier side. So, McAfee is aware that there is room for improvement in its pricing strategy.

I have been using McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response for over two years. So, my company has a partnership with McAfee. Though I don't remember the version of the solution I am working on, it is the latest one since it is a common security practice to use the updated version of the tool.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I won't be able to comment on the solution's scalability since, at the moment, we do not need to consider scalability or expansion. However, it is probably easy to scale up since the solution is deployed on AWS. My company has clients who run small, medium, and enterprise-sized businesses. The number of uses using the solution depends upon the company or business size. So, there have been times when a client using the solution has over 1000 users using the tool.

I rate the solution's technical support team a nine and a half or ten out of ten.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was easy and straightforward. On a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is very easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a ten out of ten. The solution is usually deployed on the cloud platform.

The solution is usually deployed on the cloud platform. Though unsure, I feel the solution is deployed using AWS since I am referring to the users in Europe. The deployment process took place over a few days. The deployment process is covered by the client and distribution services team. The deployment process involves fire and forget, wherein the agent is sent to the user. All the settings are within the agents, and only the installation needs to be done for the deployment process to be completed.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is high, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten. McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response is pricey compared to other solutions in the market.

Though I cannot remember the approximate licensing cost of the solution, it would definitely depend upon the customer, the overall pricing of the solution, and the additional features.

One needs to incur retention costs in addition to the standard licensing fees paid for the solution.

I would tell those planning to use the solution in the future that if they already have McAfee products, then they should go for it since the solution integrates well with other McAfee tools and with some endpoint protection platforms or DLP that are deployed on-premises.

The software will have bugs in them at some point, and bug-related issues are to be taken care of by technical support. Our company reports such issues, and the technical support team tries to resolve them. Presently, this process works well for us. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

The product works as a preventive tool. It checks for signatures as well as behaviors.

If there is any malicious behavior in the workstation or server, the tool stops or isolates it automatically and generates alerts. It creates reports on the incidents and provides the details to us. The product is very easy to scale and implement.

The product must focus on improving the appliances. The console has a lot of bugs, and it creates many issues. It is very tedious to troubleshoot the issues sometimes. The support team does not help. We solve our problems by testing things we find on Google and other forums where people give suggestions about the product. The product has very limited options for creating policies. The product could provide more options for creating policies. The options must be customizable according to the user’s requirements.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

The tool is scalable. We have implemented it across the organization. I would recommend the tool for both small and large companies.

The support team is the worst. The support team must improve its knowledge.

Negative

We used an anti-malware solution before we started using Trellix.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. The initial setup was simple.

The deployment took nearly a month. Trellix’s team helped us deploy the product. They were helpful during the purchasing and implementation process. Four or five people in the organization manage and maintain the solution.

The product’s pricing is reasonable. However, we have to have a minimum contract of three years. The licensing model is not so good. Advanced threat intelligence features are very expensive.

We are planning to change the vendor. We have one more year of contract on the product. Companies must use EDR, but they must research before choosing vendors. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is used to search the IOCs. We use it in our company when we are unable to search for multiple hashes at a time for a particular file. Without Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), each hash needs to be executed individually in the search parameter. 

The investigation and rule detection feature of the solution has proven most useful for our company. 

The searching capabilities for the IOCs can be further improved in the product. 

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) for one year. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a five out of ten. The solution sometimes functions quite slowly, and at our company, we face multiple issues around which we regularly need to contact tech support. There are more than 1000 users of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) in our organization. I use the product daily in my company. 

In my previous organization, I used to work with Cybereason instead of Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). My present company prefers to use Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), so I switched. 

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. 

Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) handles security incidents but generates multiple false positive alerts. If the solution is fine-tuned from time to time, then true positive results can be expected accurately. 

After implementing Trellix Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) in our organization, we have witnessed great security efficiency. 

I would recommend the solution to others as it's very easy to use. I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.