Trellix Network Detection and Response Reviews

We use FireEye to protect our web and email traffic.

The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email. It uses virtual machines to test the behavior of the files and determine whether they are malicious in nature. If there is any abnormal activity then the file will be blocked. The corresponding hash value will then be recorded, submitted to the cloud, and added to the blacklist.

It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto. They should be sharing their threat database and information. For example, if something is discovered by FortiSandbox or the Palo Alto Sandbox, it should be announced to all of the vendors so that they can take action and block these files.

FireEye can be improved in terms of network visibility. Some minor enhancements are needed.

I have been working with FireEye for about three years.

The stability is very good.

Scalability has been okay until now. If there is a major expansion in the future then we will proceed with that as it comes.

I have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be good.

I found the initial setup straightforward.

We had assistance with the implementation.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to fine-tune based on the use cases. Test the solution, monitor the alerts, and be proactive about anything that shows up. If there is any abnormal activity then be sure to take action quickly, and also, ensure that there is policy in place for other departments to act accordingly when malicious traffic is detected.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for endpoint protection. We need the solution to integrate with the firewall so that we could get some threat intel based on the kinds of malicious factors that we are getting on the internet at work. We are working to optimize it with the firewall and the other tools we are using for network protection.

Initially, we didn't have much visibility around what is occurring at our applications lower level, for instance, if we are exposed to any malicious attacks or SQL injections. Now, we've integrated FireEye with Splunk, so we get lots of triggers based on policy content associated with FireEye. The solution has allowed for growth and improvement in our information security and security operations teams.

The most valuable feature is FireEye NX.

Improvements could be achieved through greater integration capabilities with different firewall solutions. Integrating with the dashboard itself for different firewalls so users can also pull tags into their firewall dashboard.

From both a network level and security level it's pretty stable and it satisfies our organizational requirements.

The scalability of the solution is above average.

We implemented through a vendor team. I believe it took a five or possibly six-person networking team for the actual implementation. Followed by an information security team for policy configuration.

On a scale of one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best, I would you rate this product an 8. From a security perspective, it's pretty decent. It's just that I have seen it miss some semi loads or triggers when it's integrated with other products. On the flexibility scale, I think that's where the improvement needs to be achieved. 

Our primary use case is for application filtering and security. 

We use it as a second level of defense for many clients in the telecom field. We use Symantec Blue Coat as a proxy for the web center. We even have a little bit of SSM because we are floating some Symantec traffic on the end for SSM integration. We also use it for oil and gas as a standalone or in remote sites to have a bit of security there.

Application categorization is the most valuable feature for us. Application filtering is very interesting because other products don't give you full application filtering capabilities. 

Based on what we deployed, they should emphasize the application filtering and the web center. We need to look deeper into the SSM inspection. If we get the full solution with that module, we don't need to get the SSM database from another supplier.

They should develop something similar to the feature that Palo Alto has called Traps. Then it will be an all-encompassing security solution.

Stability is fine as long as we don't go deeper into the system. Once we go deeper into the SSM, inspection, and decryption, we get some issues. 

It requires one expert and three technicians for maintenance.

Scalability is smooth. I don't have any issues with the scale. We have the right boxes and the right configuration. For the telecom industry we have around 400 users and in the oil and gas industry, we have 600 users. 

We are also resellers for Palo Alto. 

If you look at the documentation, the initial setup is easy. We had the right training documents to go over and it was simple, it wasn't complicated at all. It took three days for configuration but in total around ten days. 

It requires one expert and three technicians for maintenance.

We are resellers so we implement it ourselves. We got the documentation from Cisco and were able to deploy. 

I was with one of my clients last week and he told me that he's satisfied with the solution because they prevent a lot of attacks and a lot of breaches. 

We're partners with Cisco so we get a reasonable price. It's cheaper than Palo Alto in terms of licensing. We can get cheaper features from Palo Alto though.

The main advice for such product is if you don't have any visibility regarding your application you need to deploy the FireEye solution. Otherwise, you don't have any visibility for the SSM, for the web traffic, and the application solution. If you need security with reasonable pricing, this is a good solution.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

We are using this solution for sandboxing on all channels.

The most valuable feature is the network security module. It is better than other solutions and it can make and find electrical movement.

Also, the attack vector is a feature that no one else offers.

Overall, it's a great solution.

It is very expensive, the price could be better. 

I have been using FireEye Network Security for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. It's very agile.

The scalability is great. 

You don't have to purchase another machine, but if you want, you can add another one. It goes through the cluster very smoothly.

I am part of the professional services with multiple organizations and multiple users.

Technical support is great.

The initial setup was complex because there were some bugs, but the professional service of FireEye was able to resolve them.

It took a long time to deploy.

We are a reseller and the professional services of FireEye.

It's an expensive solution.

We evaluated other solutions before choosing FireEye.

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

I would rate FireEye Network Security a nine out of ten.

Simplified Alert Dashboard is straightforward to navigate.

1. Granular reporting

Need more attributes for each alert; e.g. protocol, time, type of attack, etc. These attributes could be used for report generation or to aid as search criteria.

2. Rule base

Create an option to create/add/edit rules in the existing policy. Most importantly, create room to add exceptions to false positive alerts. 

3. Use one appliance for both Web detection and email detection to reduce the cost of shipping and delivery.

4. Detection of .zip and .rar files.

Stability issues manifested in terms of throughput maximization.

There were scalability issues for the appliance-based solution, but not for the cloud-based solution.

I rate it eight out of 10.

I was not using anything previously.

 Straightforward.

Use cloud solution; pricing is a bit high.

Palo Alto.

I rate this solution at six out of 10. There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management. It would be great if we could create granular reports based on the protocols, types of attacks, regions of attack, etc. Also we would like to easily be able to add exceptions to rules in cases of false positives.

We are using it from the perspective of data protection. We have two types of data that is coming. One is the actual data or the customer data that comes into our premises, and the second is the internet traffic that comes into our organization. FireEye devices scan all the traffic that comes through the tools on which we have configured FireEye, and they also analyze a lot of traffic.

It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities.

I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. 

They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet.

We have been using FireEye for a couple of years.

It is stable.

They are very good. They follow the SLA and have two types of support. Premium support is available 24/7, and it is more customized.

We were using an IBM product.

Its installation is quite easy. It is a straightforward installation unless you are using multiple technologies in your environment. If you are using Radware and other stuff, your FireEye needs to understand all the technologies. It needs to understand the data coming in from the switch and the data sent from the hardware devices and the load balancer. It tends to take a little time to understand the data traffic, but it is easy to implement. It takes about an hour.

We had a consultant. Configuring the device takes about an hour, but we also have the backend configuration related to our environment, which takes a bit more time.

We work across the globe. From the data center perspective, we have about 13 locations across the globe where we have implemented this solution. Two to three people are enough for its implementation.

I would recommend this solution to others. We plan to keep using this solution. We have just migrated to the latest FireEye devices.

I would rate FireEye Network Security an eight out of ten.