Trellix ESM Reviews

The most valuable feature is that if the scanning does find something, it quarantines it. Then you can decide what you are going to do with it. It doesn't just stop everything but actually tells you there's a quarantine, that these files are in quarantine. You have to deal with them. That's good.

If you don't keep up with updates, they pop up until you actually do something. That's a good thing because we want protection.

There are a lot of things that could be part of future editions. One would be to speed up the scanning of email. As emails come in, it takes a lot of time to scan through them, whether you're on your computer or on your phone. If it were a little quicker doing that, that would be helpful. That's not a new feature but speed always counts.

The only issue I have with McAfee is the amount of computer resources that it takes. When you're running the program it really is heavy on the computer resources. It only impacts staff productivity when it's running the updates. However, it's definitely impacting some of the other applications that are running on a computer at the same time.

McAfee has been around for so long. It's a stable product. They've worked out a lot of glitches, a lot of bugs. There are always new bugs introduced with any product, but it's a stable product.

They do pretty well with scalability because McAfee has so many different solutions. There's a personal edition, then you have a small business edition, and there's an enterprise edition. It can be scaled, and I think they've done a good job.

The setup is pretty good. The only problem is when you're trying to remove a certain version It takes a long time because McAfee keeps a lot of files in the source, on the computer, so you really have to make sure that you delete everything when you're removing the software. When you install a different version of McAfee you need to make sure that you grab all the files and clean the computer out.

Using it, I haven't noticed any difference in the mean time it takes us to detect and respond to threats.

We've been happy with it so far. McAfee is a company whose products we've used quite a bit in the last 20 years so I'm familiar with them. McAfee is a very strong company; it's used around the world.

We use it for malware detection and authentication or login failures.

It hasn't been helpful. McAfee is not investing much in this solution to improve it. It cannot cope with the advanced feature that we require, and that's the reason why we are migrating to a new solution.

It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy. 

It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM.

The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console.

They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee.

I have been using this solution for more than six years.

Sometimes, they have been helpful, and sometimes, they drag their feet, and it takes days to fix an issue.

I have worked on Splunk.

It is easy to implement and not complex. It can be done in a week if the information is ready. Its integration, however, can take a long time depending on the requirements.

McAfee is the right choice for a low-budget solution.

It is suitable for a medium-sized company but not for a big company. A medium-sized company that has less than a thousand data sources and doesn't need to correlate different use cases with different scenarios can go for McAfee because it is user-friendly and doesn't require many skills. McAfee will also be the right choice for a low-budget solution.

We are almost done with using this solution, and we are not going to use McAfee going forward. McAfee ESM is not able to cope with the advanced features. An army cannot do anything without good weapons in hand, and that's the issue with McAfee. They do not have good weapons to investigate.

McAfee ESM is no longer a leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant. They should improve its performance and invest more in new features. After that, they will come back to the top position.

I would rate McAfee ESM a five out of ten.

By having access protection in the policies on the machine, it helps in real-time behavior scenarios, where the policy captures stuff, quite a lot.

VirusScan Enterprise provides protection against real-time malware attacks. 

We use it for logging the network traffic, when required.

It blocks the things which are not to be allowed. It has an adaptive mode where it learns for itself.

There are always multiple bugs in the product. For example, the console page was hanging multiple times. Afterwards, they released multiple upgrades for the same, multiple patches from McAfee.

Also, there's no software support from McAfee.

It seems McAfee does not test its product before releasing. When we - not only us, other companies also - deploy McAfee, we face multiple issues from the customer side, after which, McAfee reacts and fixes the bugs.

After the upgrade, it is stable now. 

It has good scalability.

Tech support is not good. They don't respond to issues in a timely manner. We need to call up the account managers, and then the engineers will work on it.

We have to wait fairly long. Until we escalate the issue, the call will be still in the pending state, or the hold state.

We switched to them because of the pricing.

It is complex, not straightforward. 

For examples, concerning an upgrade, the pre-installer check provided to us before the upgrade was showing the result was "all requirements met." But when we ran the actual installation, it was different.

I would advise others, before upgrading, to make sure they know the product that they're upgrading to.

I would rate this product at six out of 10. To bring it to a 10, the most important thing is - given there are lot of bugs, and I understand that - there should be proper support from the vendor site.

We use McAfee ESM for log storage and audit purposes. Security is the base reason, and we do build content for them.

The most valuable feature in ESM is its search and reporting feature. It's really nice.

Cloud integration has room for improvement because they're not full-fledged to integrate with the cloud solutions that come. They use different integration platforms to bring in data, and that needs to be improved.

In general, every SIEM product has that sort of glitch, some partial development. It's like the enrichment of logging level understanding for a SIEM. More enrichment leads to more understanding and use case improvement. That's the gap there, and you will have technical issues already there with all of the products. They keep on fixing that. It's not a problem. They are fast on that point.

I would like to have some sort of automation module and some sort of SOAR module in the next release. 

I have used McAfee ESM over the last 12 months.

Stability is good. I can say that because of the way their reporting is running right now. The reporting, dashboard, or their use cases are running in the field of security in the scope of data centers. In the scope of data centers, they're very stable. There isn't a problem with that.

Scalability is good. You can increase their EPS module as EPS is about events per second. The cost goes to the customer if it wants to charge them. It's very scalable. At any point in time, you can scale it up, and you can scale it down. That's not a problem. 

The tech support is great. The engineering team helped us well at one point, and they're very good.

The initial setup is straightforward. SIEM isn't a single module component. They have different modules, like the receiver and the console, and the two modules switch. Right now, we have a complex module, and it's compatible. It's not a worry to implement it. 

When it comes to infrastructure deployment, it won't take more than two weeks. The first stage would be procuring the software. If you want to deploy it in your own mediums, or if you want to bring in your own box, it could take a few more days. But once the software and the license are there in your hands, it doesn't take more than a week to get it implemented.

The price is good. It's moderate. We follow a pay-as-you-go model. There are different models available, and they can also be monthly. You can choose monthly or yearly. It's very flexible. If our existing customers exceed the current plan, you can just call McAfee and get it extended.

I would tell potential customers that ESM has a feature called all in one box. If a customer is full-fledged on an in-house data center model and has extensive products running on Windows, Linux, and Cisco and it's all sitting on-premises, this is a great option to work with all of them. They have a good set of use cases, reports, and dashboards prebuilt.

Right now, people are migrating to different solutions, and security generation is growing very vast, and it's going a step ahead. Everything is coming to the cloud. Everything is fast, and everything is a hybrid network. Because of COVID, everyone is working from home, everyone is accessing data with their own internet line, and everyone is outside the network.

McAfee will fall back a little in this scenario because the cloud integrations aren't extensively available. In this data center, most of the customers will fall back from ESM. They will come and withdraw their existing accounts, and they might move to different SIEM solutions. This is how it could be in the future. If the existing integrations come with the upgrade and if they're able to upgrade, then they might stick back with ESM.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give McAfee ESM a six.

The security can't be compromised. The security features on offer are the most valuable feature and are why it's really worth having as a product like this in our organization.

The user interface could be more user-friendly.

Technical support could be improved.

I've been using the solution for two or three years.

The solution is 100% stable. We really have had a great time working with it. It hasn't let us down.

We've been satisfied with the level of scalability the solution offers us.

We've had some issues in the past and have had their Pakistani representative here. We've also communicated with foreign branches of technical support. The solution offers okay assistance. It's not a mature solution like Fortinet or Watchguard, but it's still providing okay service. I'd say the help we've received is largely mixed. It's been 50/50 in terms of resolving our issues.

It's a fairly low-cost solution, so the pricing is pretty good.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it was more user-friendly, I'd mark it higher. Right now, technical people working on the solution don't understand what it is are trying to communicate in its tabs. As a company, you need to have a certified or experienced McAfee engineer there or on staff to guide you.

I'd recommend the product, however. It's a nice, robust product.

As a bank, we have different cases use cases that are typical for the industry.

On the security side, it reduces the time needed to make changes in case of an attack. We have to work on it in real time. If we didn't have the tool, the amount of time would be double or triple. The main reason we have it is that it makes it easier for the engineer who works on the site to realize what is happening. It helps with productivity.

McAfee has always been there for us and it helps with the maturity of our security program.

The most valuable feature is the capability to correlate different events from different platforms that we feed into it. It makes it easier to engineer the box on our side so that we can realize what is happening and do something about it. It gives us the tools to know what's happening and make a change in one of the downstream platforms to reject a connection or the like.

Although we're a South American bank, our products are pretty much the same as North American banks. The types of things they would install in North America are what we have here.

But there are some banking and transactional cases that are local, South American transactions. I would like to see them add features that can be used locally, to make those transactions more reliable.

The stability is really good.

The scalability depends on how much you want to pay for it. If I need a bigger solution, the vendor is going to be able to add more features to the machine, or even change it. It all depends on how much are you willing to spend.

For technical support, we work in two ways. We have a partner that is looking after the platform, and we have the vendor as well. If we have a problem with the partner, we can call McAfee. So overall, support is good.

They should double check what they are doing with customers. I have had some trouble trying improve the use case. I was hoping that they help me with that, show me the way.

The vendor, McAfee, works with a partner and the partner sells to us. We use a partner.

Our company looked at Splunk three years ago. Every couple of years we look around at what's in the market. For us, it's quite difficult to try other ones, because of the time and costs involved. That's why I'm not sure if McAfee is the best solution, but it's good enough for me.

We're always looking to make improvements and if the products we have are not good enough, or we see that another brand is making something better, we will migrate.

To make a decision you have to really know what your budget is, how much money you have to buy a solution, and what the main reason is that you are looking for a tool like this. You can always find something cheaper for a small company. Everyone has pretty much the same tools. But if you're going to play with the big ones, like McAfee, you have to be willing to spend a lot of money and, obviously, you'll get the service you need. You have to know your company, what your needs are, and then go shopping. Look around. It's important to look at the tools, how they are deployed in your architecture.

I would rate the solution at eight out of ten. It's good enough to do the things that we need done, but I'm not sure if it's the best in the market.

We use this solution to provide managed security services. We use loggers at the client site to generate logs for monitoring their devices. We handle the monitoring, administration, and troubleshooting of their endpoints.

For some customers, we manage everything, while for other customers we only monitor their critical devices.

We are using an on-premises deployment model.

This solution helps us to provide services for our clients and integrates well with their other technologies.

The most valuable features of this solution are the logging and the dashboards.

This solution integrates easily and very well with other technologies. We are creating custom connectors for some of the technologies that our customers are using.

We are having trouble migrating our data sources from version 10 to version 11.2. We cannot add new data sources to the most recent version.

I would like to see the Active Response function enhanced.

The stability of this solution is good. So far, we have not faced much downtime. The issues that we are currently experiencing, moving versions, did not happen the last time we upgraded. This is really the first trouble that we have had.

This solution is very scalable.

We have four or five customers that we are performing monitoring for. Their user-base varies, with some having fifty users and some having more than one thousand users.

We do plan to increase our usage and have had meetings with McAfee as a partner. We would be offering this solution exclusively to our clients. 

Technical support, as well as their online knowledge base, has helped us a lot. However, our current issue with respect to not being able to add new data sources was reported two weeks ago and it has not yet been resolved.

I think that technical support can be improved in terms of providing quicker resolutions to problems.

We did not previously offer a different solution to our customers. We are currently onboarding Splunk to work concurrently with this solution, but it depends on the customer. Splunk is a little bit expensive.

The initial setup of this solution is easy. There is no problem with it.

Our deployment took about one week. It involved upgrading to the new version and adding the data sources. Integration of the new devices was not complex.

Two people are required for the deployment, with one being from our side and one from the client's side.

We hired consultants to assist with our deployment. We have had a good experience with them and they are still supporting us to deal with any issues or errors.

The cost is dependent on the customer's environment and requirements.

We have experience using ArcSight, but it is very difficult when it comes to creating the connector to integrate with different technologies.

We spend time evaluating each customer's business model and offer them the appropriate solution.

From my perspective, for anyone with a small or medium-sized business, this is the best solution. It is easy to deploy and it is less, from a cost point of view, than others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.