Skyhigh Security Reviews

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.

McAfee Web Gateway is used as a proxy gateway in our company.

The most valuable features of McAfee Web Gateway are anti-malware, reports, and powerful categorization of web pages.

McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve.

I have been using McAfee Web Gateway for approximately five years.

We have approximately 7,000 users using this solution in my organization.

We implemented McAfee Web Gateway with a partner.

There is an annual licensing cost to use McAfee Web Gateway. The purchasing of licensing can be difficult for the government sector. 

There should be a hybrid form of a license model. For example, if I have a user working remotely and another one on-premise, it would be wonderful to have control in the cloud and on-premise.

I rate McAfee Web Gateway a seven 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.

• Shadow IT monitoring 
• Sanctioned Cloud App Security

• Shadow IT reporting capabilities
• DLP integration
• Encryption

It has given us visibility into our employees activities and access to cloud apps.

Support for securing more cloud apps.

Two and a half years.

Some issues, but many had to do with the complexity of our deployment and they all have been worked through. 

The Shadow IT portion would sometimes stop processing our proxy logs, but these issues seem to have been fixed.  

No.

It is excellent and top-notch.

No previous solution was used.

For Shadow IT, it was straightforward. 

For Sanctioned App Security deployment, it was a bit more complex. This was primarily due to the amount of integrations we decided to do with the existing technologies we owned, like DLP, SSO, etc., and because of the size of our cloud application.

An in-house team.

Very good.

I don't deal with pricing. Thus, I cannot answer this.

Yes. Netskope, Bitglass, Adallom, and Skyfence.

Make sure you plan your deployment carefully. Break the project into phases. This makes for more wins sooner, which you can report to your upper management. Develop a good rapport with the team who owns the cloud application, so you can get full cooperation from them.

We use this solution for web filtering.

I integrate and manage the solution. It's deployed on-premises.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We haven't had any issues with the product.

It's easy to configure. It's not hard to manage day to day.

They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise.

Perhaps in this year's configuration, something that could be added is the SSL inspection.

I have been working with this solution for eight years.

The scalability is fine. We work with Fortinet too and Fortinet doesn't work like McAfee. McAfee does more than Fortinet.

Technical support is really great. I would rate them 4 out of 5.

Setup is a little bit complex but I think the environment is complex. We needed help from McAfee and another integrator.

I would rate the complexity of setup 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

My advice is to discuss your goals before you install the solution because you can do a lot with McAfee Web Gateway.

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.