Trellix Endpoint Security Reviews

The product is fairly reliable. I have been using the DLP functionality a lot. It blocks all USB-connected devices but still allows charging external devices like phones. It keeps out any malware. It does a good job of protecting our network as an enterprise solution. I mainly use it as an antivirus and DLP solution.

The product is not easy to use. Moving around in it is cumbersome. I have heard other users saying that it is cumbersome to find things. Creating and deploying policies with DLP can be really cumbersome. It can be difficult if we don’t know how to use it. Sometimes, we have difficulty in communicating with clients. Sometimes, we have to go through troubleshooting to fix it.

I have been using the solution for 17 to 18 years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

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

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

It's pretty straightforward to deploy the product as an enterprise solution. I create a System Tree, and I break everything out between VMs, workstations, servers, and VLANs.

We have seen a return on investment.

I would definitely tell people to try the tool. They must go through and test out different solutions. Trellix Endpoint Security is fairly easy to use and manage for an enterprise solution. I'm in the process of getting more visibility for my service desk. The ability to lock it back down and only give what I want the service desk to see is valuable because it gives it a little bit more visibility without affecting what I've done as an enterprise admin. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

In my company, we use Trellix Endpoint Security for its endpoint security capabilities. Wherever there is a need for someone to comply with ISMS, we deploy Trellix Endpoint Security over there and support them in maintaining it.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it allows our company to opt for single management for multiple products. The tool also supports DLP encryption or proxy can be managed by a single management console, which is a major advantage.

Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't support Mac devices. Trellix Endpoint Security doesn't offer full-fledged support for Linux.

In the future, I would like the product to support Mac and Linux.

When it comes to classification, Trellix has its own DLP solution. They do provide classification in Trellix Endpoint Security, but not at a full-fledged level. It would be good if Trellix Endpoint Security provided a full-fledged classification.

The solution's technical support should be improved since we faced a lot of issues with the support. There were some delays in responses from the technical support. Technical support also lacks in providing proper solutions to issues.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for ten to twelve years. I use the solution's latest version. My company has a partnership with Trellix.

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

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I rate the technical support below five out of ten.

Neutral

I have used different products in the past. Since we are a consultant, we have to work with multiple vendors.

The initial setup of Trellix Endpoint Security was straightforward.

The solution is deployed on the hybrid cloud. Trellix Endpoint Security provides its tool as a SaaS product.

The deployment process can be done in around two hours.

Our company has around 40 engineers to deploy and manage the maintenance of the product.

There are some extra expenses for using the product, in addition to licensing related to the maintenance of the product.

The product is good, but that doesn't matter if the support is not proper.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use provided the support is good. If the support is not good, our company will have to state both the pros and cons of the product to its potential users, after which the customer can choose it if they find the pros to be favorable.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We build our own use cases and those provided by the vendor for specific upcoming attack scenarios. Configuring the rule set using Trellix Endpoint Security is very much flexible based on the IOCs.

Trellix Endpoint Security is good for doing containment immediately. We can get visibility of processes or services running all over the enterprise, where the agent gets information on a particular end-user system. Since Trellix Endpoint Security keeps the data for three months, we can get a complete picture of the files downloaded from the end user mission. So Trellix Endpoint Security is very helpful when you do forensics. The only drawback is that we cannot change its format, and there is no workaround currently.

The most valuable feature of Trellix Endpoint Security is containment, which takes less than a minute. It also has a dual containment feature. Trellix Endpoint Security is also useful for taking the triage image, which takes roughly thirty minutes. So it's pretty fast, and we have multiple configuration sets. We can precisely take a triage image based on what you want, like endpoint logs, antivirus logs, or the RAM.

Currently, Trellix Endpoint Security can't find the running mutexes, while other open-source products can do it. Mutex is something like a malware user. Secondly, the solution should support multiple output formats for the triage image. Currently, the solution has only Mandiant format, where you can't use tools like volatility to analyze the memory image.

It would be good if Trellix Endpoint Security had a good visualization like other products, such as SentinelOne and Carbon Black.

I have been using Trellix Endpoint Security for one year and six months.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a seven out of ten for stability because it crashes frequently and requires a lot of maintenance.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for scalability. We have plans to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security an eight out of ten for ease of initial setup.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for pricing.

I am using the latest version of Trellix Endpoint Security. Using Trellix Endpoint Security depends upon the user's organizational needs. If their only concern is containing and taking the triage image, and if they are comfortable doing forensics with a deadline, then they can use Trellix Endpoint Security. But if some companies want to integrate their in-house or third-party tools, Trellix Endpoint Security is not a good option.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten.

The solution has three primary uses for us. 

Our environment is Windows-based. We don't have Mac and very little space for Linux systems. We use the solution on all of our Windows devices as a basic antivirus protection. That's our first use case.

The second use case for the solution is to be able to have USB restrictions on my endpoints. 

And the third would be the protection of machines when, especially now in this COVID-19 climate, users connect from home. There are a lot of network-based attacks. When users are connecting from other networks, they're protected from dangers with this solution

The manageability of the product itself is its most valuable aspect. You have the underlying EPO, and on top of it, you can deploy the various components as you require. This is unlike other solutions like Symantec where you have to deploy everything or nothing. With this solution, you can choose to only deploy antivirus or only deploy a firewall, or only something else. I choose the components and that deployment is done through EPO. It makes manageability very flexible.

There are two main areas that require improvement. One is the size of the packages. Although I'll admit manageability is good, if I want to deploy, let's say just the antivirus or just the firewall, each of those package sizes are quite large. They are sometimes as big as 200MB or 250MB. When I have operations in remote areas where connectivity is always poor, it's difficult. To deploy such a package in a remote location over the internet or something like that is always challenging. 

The second improvement I would like to see would be to make the speed of the updates much faster. I've seen other vendors that have already released an update for new ransomware and yet McAfee has not. They seem to generally delay releasing an update to protect against something, which can be dangerous as it gives malicious content time to spread. 

I've been using the product for almost two years at this point.

I would say on a scale of one to 10, the scalability would rate at an eight. It's not perfect and there's room for improvement. However, it's generally been stable for us.

We've seen some versions of McAfee not functioning correctly. Then, suddenly, we had to put in a patch. Occasionally, the notes are not there and when we raise a ticket with the support they came back and say, "Oh no, no, this version has a bug, you guys will need to move to a new version."

The scalability of the solution is good. We've actually scaled up, so we can speak from experience. We initially rolled out to a smaller set of users and then eventually to our entire base. We've scaled up to about 15,000 users at this point. There were no issues in doing so. It's quite straightforward to expand outwards as needed.

Technical support I would say is average. A lot of times we've gotten standard responses from support. They don't really offer a solution. The responses that we have gotten from support is something that we have already tried or they'll simply tell us to move to the next version. That requires us to deploy to 15,000 users. They don't go out of their way to be helpful. 

We've always used McAfee. There never has been another solution that the organization has tried out.

I personally have worked with a few other solutions. I'm not talking about next-generation products, like a CrowdStrike or a Carpenter due to the fact that they are a different league altogether. However, I would say I've had extensive experience with Symantec also. 

In terms of Symantec versus McAfee, the two big differences are that on McAfee I am able to scale quite well and now, especially with users who are connecting from home, I can see users' statuses over the internet. That way, we can check the health of the machine and update machines remotely. That isn't the case of Symantec. Unless the user connects to back to the office VPN we will not be able to do as much.

However, where McAfee falters is the size of the modules, which are quite large.

The initial setup was simple and the deployment itself was straightforward. The was no complexity in terms of the architecture or the initial deployment of the solution.

I came into the organization when McAfee was already deployed. However, I've set up some other packages. For example, although McAfee was already deployed, the USB blocking features module, took about two months I would say to deploy across the network.

We have a team of approximately four people the deploy patches and updates and generally maintain the solution.

We deployed the solution ourselves and continue to deploy any ancillary modules on our own as well. We don't need the outside assistance of consultants or integrators. We have a team that manages these items in house.

I would advise, if somebody's looking at buying a brand new solution fresh or have a solution coming up for renewal, to look at the next generation antivirus products. The next-generation products are far more sophisticated. They might be a little higher in price, but in terms of manageability, updates, and the packet size, they are far superior. 

McAfee has released something called Envision. It's a next-generation antivirus. In this other solution, they have incorporated a lot of next-generation technologies. It's a different license and a higher-priced license altogether. 

Overall, I would rate this solution seven out of ten.

Customers use Trellix Endpoint Security as an anti-malware or antivirus solution that provides AI and machine learning features. The solution provides DAC (Dynamic Access Control) and HIPS (host intrusion prevention system) functionality in its firewall module. It also has a web control functionality, wherein we can allow, deny, or choose the category part and work it out.

Trellix Endpoint Security provides a single umbrella kind of architecture. A lot of different solutions come under a single umbrella and a single console. The most valuable features of the solution include DLP (data loss prevention), CASB (cloud access security broker) functionality, endpoint encryption, and cloud workload security. The solution also has features like application control, device control, and cloud DLP.

The solution's documentation is not streamlined and is in bits and pieces, which should be in a single format.

Trellix Endpoint Security should include the virtual patching feature in the next release.

I have been working with Trellix Endpoint Security for one year.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security a nine out of ten for stability.

Trellix Endpoint Security has good scalability. Our customers for the solution are most enterprise businesses and government entities.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

I rate Trellix Endpoint Security ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment on the cloud is very fast because we give the requirement and get the solution. On-premises, the basic initial setup of the server takes about half an hour or one hour.

Trellix Endpoint Security is neither a cheap nor an expensive solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a four out of ten.

I am working with the latest version of Trellix Endpoint Security. We provide our customers with on-premises, on-cloud, and hybrid cloud deployment models for Trellix Endpoint Security.

Overall, I rate Trellix Endpoint Security 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 product works in the background. It does not slow down the computer, which is good. If we put the USB, it automatically asks us whether the device must be scanned. We can scan it or postpone it. If anything goes wrong, the tool informs us that a file or website was blocked. It might be because the IP is on a blacklist. The product is simple. We do not have to do anything. The product is easy to use.

The tool could provide more advanced protection. It should do a deeper analysis of the files.

I have been using the solution for eight years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

The tool is scalable. We can choose when and how to scan. We can even choose to exclude certain folders. Ten people in our organization use the solution extensively.

I have used NOD32 and Kaspersky. I started using Trellix Endpoint Security because my company decided to use it.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took us 10 to 15 minutes to deploy the solution because we had to go a bit deeper into the settings.

The product can be deployed in-house. The deployment process is quite easy and fast.

The solution is worth the money.

We have a yearly subscription. We have bought the solution for ten stations. The pricing is more or less the same as the other tools in the market.

Some tools use a lot of memory, so it's really difficult to use them, especially when we are scanning something. We mostly work on documents on the cloud. We do not get many files on the computer. We do get some spam. I would recommend the solution to others. So far, we've never had any problems. Nothing gets through. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The solution is specifically used at the endpoints. We do a lot of integrations with various clients. 

A single agent can cover multiple units.

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can integrate into other products.

The solution is not really stable. 

Every time we open a ticket with McAfee, their response differs and they are not consistent. For example, they might say the issue will be addressed in the next release. Then, the release comes, and it is not available. Basically, we don't get a resolution from support.

This version is not very effective in our region.

The functionality of the product needs to improve the way it addresses zero-day threat levels.

We've been using the solution since 2003.

The stability isn't so great. We've had issues with it in general and have reached out to technical support for help. 

We have three to five people that use the product right now. In Pakistan, we have three offices in all three major cities and set up the solution for clients. We also use it in the offices.

Technical support is ineffective. Instead of dealing with the issue head-on, they tell us that the problem at hand will be fixed in the next release. They do not help at all.

However, our organization also offers technical support to our clients and we have a good experience - almost 20 years with McAfee and other solutions. We're good at troubleshooting.

We started using Symantec, then we adopted different technologies including McAfee and SSP, which includes Microsoft Defender. We keep changing based on the price structure in the market.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's pretty simple and rather straightforward. 

That said, I didn't handle the installation myself. We had a team that did it.

We did the installation with the main product that integrated with McAfee Endpoint Security. Between the two, the installation took a whole day, however, just the McAfee section takes about two or so hours. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's not a good idea to try and get a pirated copy.

We've looked into and worked with McAfee, Trend Micro, Kaspersky, and Symantec.

We, at one time, were the official service partner for Symantec. We still provide support to the Pakistan market on behalf of Symantec.

While the solutions we use are on-premises, the latest upgraded services that we use are moving into the cloud, and the endpoints are on-premises. Now it's sort of a hybrid solution.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

I'd choose McAfee as maybe the third-best option, based on the experience I've had with it and the issues we've faced.