I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a six. It has an excellent performance. But its customer service needs to be improved.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We use the latest version of Skyhigh Security. Currently, a team of ten people are involved in the maintenance of the solution.

We are currently using Skyhigh Security in combination with another product, and we're trying to use the best features of both products. I prefer the other product we're using, which has similar capabilities. This other product is fully cloud-based, has more efficiency and performance, and gives more insight into the environment than Skyhigh Security.

Overall, I rate Skyhigh Security an eight out of ten.

I would advise others to understand which of their use case has services that have direct integration with MVISION Cloud. The service is working very well.

I rate MVISION Cloud a nine out of ten.

There are a lot of testing requirements and things that people have to go through to create in the CASB industry. Netskope didn't get a leg up as they were like the CrowdStrike of the EDRs. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'm not using Skyhigh Security daily because I just propose it to my customers. I'm involved in presales and consulting activities for the solution, but I get feedback from my customers and I also understand how Skyhigh Security works.

I've known McAfee products for a long time, including Skyhigh Security, and I've worked with McAfee products for about ten years. I've had interactions with McAfee since 2009. I have Skyhigh Security in my portfolio, and I do the implementation, transition, and transformation for it. I also do these for other McAfee products.

I don't propose the latest version of Skyhigh Security to my customers. What I propose is the latest stable version that could be N minus one or N minus two. The previous version is more stable than the latest version because, in the latest version, there's always a bug. Product vendors do testing in their environment, but real-time scenarios are quite different, so you will always have issues in the latest version. N minus one or N minus two becomes more stable because you have the four fixes factors, everything applied on top of it for the unexpected or unqualified or untested bugs and that becomes more stable, so that's how I go about it. I never propose the latest version, though McAfee will say it has many functions.

For one hundred users of Skyhigh Security, only one resource is required. One person can manage all those solutions, but it would still depend on the number of products you're onboarding. If you have four products in the basket, it would require more than one resource, for example, in your core product, I would say 0.5 to 0.25 FC is the maximum required for four hundred users.

You'll also not get a lot of tickets for Skyhigh Security. You will mostly get tickets from users because of virus alerts and some performance issues. I have not seen the latest ENS version, but there is a performance issue with the ENS. It's not an issue with Skyhigh Security itself, but the ENS part. I hope that has been fixed.

McAfee is good and has been in the market for fifteen or twenty years, but the products are not innovative. Security has been evolving and there are quite a lot of products on the market. CrowdStrike is younger than Skyhigh Security and started the business after McAfee, but it's capturing the market. Products such as SentinelOne and Cybereason also belong to the same niche and are endpoint security or EDR products, and AV products as well. They are so innovative and very efficient. Based on the latest Mitre Attack Evaluation result, which is a simulation or study that talks about the efficacy and efficiency of the product, and is not something theoretical, rather it is lab simulated, so all the latest versions of APTs or advanced system threats are selected in the lab and the products are tested against those, and if you look at that report, the products that come in the first place are Cybereason and SentinelOne, while McAfee in terms of efficacy is somewhere in the third quadrant. The efficacy is thirty to fifty percent only. If I have one hundred TTP, McAfee is detecting just fifty TTP, and the remaining fifty TTP are missing. I'm talking about the efficacy of the product. Cybereason and SentinelOne have an efficacy that is above eight five to ninety percent, and have one hundred percent detection or visibility on the ATP, while McAfee isn't reaching that percentage or level. That is where McAfee is losing the market. McAfee products are not innovative and stuck in the old ways, while the threats are ever-evolving. McAfee products are not at par with the rest.

From a technical point of view, I would rate Skyhigh Security eight out of ten.

We are just a customer and an end-user. We do not have a business relationship with McAfee.

We really like the company, however, and have used them for a long time. We've used them on-premises and recently moved to the cloud.

Next year, we are preparing to use a new feature of McAfee - an EDR feature.

Overall, we have been extremely satisfied with this solution. I'd give it five stars. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at a ten.

My company is currently using two products for security, McAfee Web Gateway and Skyhigh Security.

My rating for Skyhigh Security is an eight out of ten because I haven't fully tested all of its features. If I was able to use the product more extensively, my rating could even be higher in the future.

My company is a customer of Skyhigh Security, providing support for it. My company purchases Skyhigh Security through the client.

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.

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.

I rate McAfee Web Gateway a seven out of ten.

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.

No.

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.

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.

I would rate this solution as a whole an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. I would recommend this solution to other people.

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.

Be prepared to involve management and your HR department. The data presented by Skyhigh, will most likely warrant change, both in terms of company culture, as well as adding restrictions to company policy. Once you have discussed policies and compliance, create some automation flows or workflows to ensure that all unwanted services or risk attributes are added to the block list on a regular basis.

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.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are resellers. We have clients using the product.

I'd recommend the solution to others. I would rate it at a nine out of ten overall.

I will recommend the solution to other users. However, I would suggest having a deployment team assisting with the installation. 

I rate McAfee MVISION Cloud a seven out of ten. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to use a hybrid model, rather than just something for a specific use case. Otherwise, you won't have a full 360-degree view. Integration with Active Directory is critical, as is the log integration with your SIEM solution. These are key factors that you need to consider.

If I were rating the on-premises and cloud-based features separately, I would give it a nine out of ten on-premises and a seven out of ten for the cloud.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would advise someone considering this solution to configure it the way the OEM advises you. You should have a list of customization.

I would rate it a seven and a half out of ten. 

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

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate McAfee Web Gateway a nine out of ten.

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.

There are three other good products: Carbon Black, CrowdStrike, and SentinelOne. I think Carbon Black is the best, and I would rate MVISION Cloud at nine on a scale from one to ten.

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.

Use this product in conjunction with others. It has good coverage in terms of monitoring, but other commercial products were used to mitigate threats to the network.

This is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's the perfect tool for investigation of malicious IPs, and I rate it at ten on a scale from one to ten.

I would definitely recommend this solution and would rate it a 10 out of 10. 

It is an innovative, dynamic tool.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. We are pretty happy with its capabilities and have no complaints. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

Needs stability and additional new features.