Cisco Duo Reviews

Our web developers use Duo Security as a WordPress plugin to provide security for our websites.

Duo offers dual-factor authentication for our logins. I put in my credentials and hit go. Then I get an alert on my Apple watch, and I approve it. That part is just phenomenal. 

Duo has some issues that we're trying to work through. For example, if I install it on a WordPress site and another admin needs to log in, they can't because Duo hasn't been set up for them. It doesn't appear that I can add permissions on a user-by-user basis. It's not obvious.  

I would also like to see password-free login. There used to be a password-free product where you used your phone and looked at the screen. I can't remember what it's called now, but it was great. It used blue wavy lines that constantly changed, so nobody could ever screen capture and use them to log in. That was by far the best solution. 

Duo bought them out and did away with them. They probably saw it as a threat because it was a better solution. And a couple of companies have tried to mimic that, but they have never come close. If Duo were to go back to something like that, I would be ecstatic. Passwords are supposed to be a thing of the past.

I've used Duo Security for about two years.

Duo Security is stable.

I don't know how Duo would scale. If I've got a hundred websites and I install it on several of them, scalability just means adding it to a new website. It would be as easy as adding it to the first. 

That's not an issue, but I  still haven't figured out how to add new users to a site that already has it installed. I checked their online documentation and haven't found an answer yet,  so we temporarily took it off on that particular site.

We tried several authentication solutions before, but I liked the way Duo works better. 

I rate Duo Security eight out of 10 for ease of deployment. It takes a minute or two to download and install the plugin. 

Duo Security is free.

I rate Duo Security nine out of 10. Duo is a solid solution, but it still has some minor issues with adding users. 

It's an MFA solution, and we mainly use Duo Security for secure access to some of the servers with backup data.

With Duo Security, we can better secure our servers with backup data. It's very good for our customers for cyber resilience.

It can reduce time in case of a ransomware attack and so on. It protects the data but not directly.

For me and my customers, the best feature is that it's very easy to integrate with the existing infrastructure. It takes a few minutes to configure it.

It's already good, but there could be more integration. There could be ready-made integration. Other than that, it's a good product. It already integrates with lots of products, but it can integrate with more products. There should be easy integration with Cisco products because sometimes, it can be quite complicated.

I've been using this solution for around two years.

I don't see any problems. It's very good.

It seems good.

We already have a different vendor's solution, but the way that Cisco works on global security helps us to sell more. That's because customers want one dashboard or one cockpit, and now, all the Cisco projects go through SecureX. For customers, it's an advantage because they only have to know one interface, not ten interfaces. They don't have to know the interface of each product they've got.

I like Cisco Talos because it's a good source of security information, but it doesn't impact the customers as such.

We mainly work with the public sector, so its deployment is mainly on-premises, but we also have a few customers who have a hybrid setup. We don't have customers with a full public cloud, so it's mainly hybrid, and they mainly use AWS and Azure cloud. There is also one local provider called OVH, and because it's in the country, it's easier. 

I don't take care of its deployment. I have a presales role, so I do demonstrations. I deploy it in our lab but not at the customer. It's my colleague who does that.

The deployment process in the lab is very easy. Duo Security is a cloud solution, so there is almost nothing to install on-prem, and there is also lots of documentation. It's very well-documented how to integrate it with an already existing solution. In one day, you can integrate it quite easily. The web interface is very easy to understand.

One person is enough for its deployment. In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require any maintenance. It's a cloud solution.

The ROI is complicated to calculate. It improves security, and improved security is the return on investment.

Cisco's licensing is always a bit complicated to understand, but the price is fair. It could be more expensive than others, but the way they integrate everything, it has a fair price.

You've got a trial version, so just try it, and you will adopt it.

I'd rate Duo Security a nine out of ten.

We are still implementing the solution and are not in full production mode yet. We implemented Duo Security in comparison with ICE, and we use it to secure our environments. It helps us authenticate users that use our network devices.

We hope to increase our security posture with Duo Security.

I like the set time that users can log into devices during the day and how many times they can do so. I also like the ability to restrict the regions from which the user can get in. Users outside of our country or even the town cannot log in.

I would like to see Duo Security increase the time that the users have to log into the devices. The maximum time interval is 15 minutes at the moment, and I would like it to be 60 minutes.

When you try to log into a device and have to authenticate yourself, sometimes it's not very pleasant. It's not the best thing particularly if you have to do this every 15 minutes, which is the maximum time that Duo gives. This makes it difficult to use and does not save time.

I've been working with Duo Security for six months.

So far, we haven't had any issues with stability.

My experience with technical support has been generally good, but sometimes, there is a delay in getting answers. I would rate them at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Positive

Duo Security was easy to set up. It took us almost a week to read the manual and understand what we have to implement to go into production.

Duo Security is very helpful and fits what we were looking for to satisfy the requirements of our security office. On a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate Duo Security at eight.

We use it for two-factor authentication for end-user and administrator login. We wanted to secure our endpoints.

The single pane of glass management is very important and it is part of the reason we went with Duo. Anything we can do to save time for our administrators, help desk staff, and engineers, is valuable to us.

I wouldn't mind seeing some options for remembering a device for a short period of time or a specific login, particularly for administrative engineering staff, as we may be logging in to four or five different services. We're having to use it a lot. I understand it, it's just part of it. That's not specific to Duo. That's two-factor authentication in general.

I've been using Duo Security for about a year.

It's stable. We haven't had any downtime that I can recall or any problems with maintaining network connectivity.

Any issues we've had have been local to a specific user. Maybe the phone number was not set up right or there was some conflict as a result of somebody changing a device, but it's always been pretty straightforward to get that kind of thing resolved.

We started off with a small deployment and, in one or two steps, sent it out to everybody and it scaled fine. We didn't have to change anything in our setup.

We have about 1,200 users across 60 branches around the U.S. We occasionally have people using it internationally and we're able to handle that fine with our geographic location blocking or allowing, as the case may be. It's a fully virtualized environment. We have a lot of remote users, people who work in remote fields. As long as they have a cell signal, it works.

I have not had to deal with any support for Duo. The less I have to talk to support the better, for sure.

This is our first venture into two-factor authentication.

We didn't have a specific problem we were trying to solve when we got it. We were just trying to add more and more security. We did have regulatory requirements for two-factor authentication and that is what drove it.

The deployment of Duo Security was mainly a project done by our network and security team, but I was involved in it to some extent. I found it pretty straightforward. As enterprise-wide security solutions go, it wasn't too bad.

We got it integrated with Active Directory. There were some struggles there that I don't know the specifics of because our network team was working on that. But once everything was set up, it was pretty easy to add a new user and do whatever we wanted to.

It took a little time for our users to get used to it, but everybody took to it pretty well. The users don't really have to interact with it other than getting their push notifications. For them, it's easy. It requires minimal training. It pops up and it's all pretty self-explanatory.

It's pretty easy to use as two-factor authentication systems go. We evaluated a few others, including the Microsoft two-factor authentication, a little bit, and one other, and Duo ended up being our favorite. Part of that was because we're in that Cisco ecosystem and we were able to integrate it with our other services that are all cloud-based. It fit in pretty well for us, and it would for anybody with a similar setup.

Duo was also the least obtrusive to the user and the ease of administration through the administrative portal was a little better.

Fortunately, we haven't had to evaluate it when it comes to helping us remediate threats more quickly, but we're confident that it will.

Regarding resilience in cyber security, two-factor is definitely a must-have. We're satisfied with it as far as that goes, in addition to it fulfilling our regulatory requirements.

For our use case, for logins, it just works.

We wanted multi-factor authentication across a variety of platforms.

It's improved security by enforcing strong, reliable multi-factor authentication, and it has reduced intrusions across our organization. It makes sure all the user sessions are at least a little more trustful than if we just had single-factor.

In terms of remediating threats, we are able to pick out unsuccessful login attempts pretty quickly on the Duo platform and we can shut down those accounts. It makes us more proactive. That works well.

The ability for users to authenticate via phone, from any random phone number, has been very helpful for managing a distributed workforce. Using it across a distributed network for securing access to our applications is big for us. It works very well, and we have no major complaints about the integration of any of our third-party applications.

We have a high level of confidence in the platform, especially for identifying potential logins from unexpected geolocations. The data associated with logs is very helpful for helping to make that determination.

It's very important for us that Duo Security considers all resources to be external, especially as we lead up to Zero Trust. It needs to be like that.

End-users find it more annoying than anything else. It's tough to manage user perception of the service, especially when there isn't feature parity between Mac and Windows users. There are some challenges in making that user experience the same between platforms and helping users feel the least amount of burden possible while helping to ensure the organization's security.

Network connectivity depends on where users are located. Internally, on-premises, it's not hard keeping connectivity, but we have users who move throughout the world, and their levels of connectivity change. It can be a challenge, if someone is in Bahrain, to authenticate via Duo.

I have been using Duo Security for two years. 

We've had no issues with the stability of Duo. I consider it to be a stable product.

It has scaled to meet our needs. I don't know how it scales if you have 10,000 or 20,000 users, but for our organization, with fewer than 5,000 users, it's been fine.

The technical support has been adequate. They are responsive regarding support for troubleshooting tickets. We haven't had any issues that required escalation, so we've been happy with it.

Positive

We did have a previous solution. The interoperability has been improved with Duo compared to that solution.

Our physical deployment of the solution is in the continental United States, but our users are worldwide.

I don't place too much value on any single product, since placing too much trust in one thing creates a single point of failure. This is just a single piece in a broader spectrum of security products to accomplish our actual goals.

Building resilience is nice, but there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to doing that. Part of my job is to help our leaders understand where that diminishing return is.

The single pane of glass management is desirable, but it's like a unicorn. No single pane of glass is ever really a single pane of glass. That's something that would be nice, but it's not something I expect.

Duo is a very consistent product and flexible in how it can be deployed and has good support. It's a product we're very happy with.

We use Duo Security to level up security and access to internal systems.

Duo Security has provided us with heightened security. That's the biggest benefit because, nowadays, security risks are big due to hacking. This solution narrows down a lot of things that we have to go through.

If you have to log in to something, you must go to Duo Security to confirm that you're who you are on your phone. From there, you go back to the app, and it allows you access.

When you come to the push in Duo Security, there are some integrations where you have to use the code instead of the push functionality. Sometimes, you have to go and push from the app, go to Duo Security, and then go back over after you've accepted the push. It would be good if a seamless web comes down, you press the button at the top, and it goes away while you're still in the app.

I have been using Duo Security for about two years.

Duo Security is a pretty stable solution.

Duo Security is a scalable solution. You can easily download the app, log in, and you have access. Scaling is not an issue with Duo Security.

Duo Security's customer support is very helpful, going above and beyond what they normally need to do to get things fixed and resolved. I can always reach out to my reps, who try to figure out what's going on to help me.

Positive

Since I changed companies, I can't remember the old solution, but it was probably some Microsoft solution. It did almost the same thing as Duo Security, except that Duo Security has the push. So instead of going back and finding the code, it can easily just push to the app, allowing you access. So it's a little bit faster to access your systems than having to find these different apps.

We have seen a return on investment with Duo Security because getting hacked once would cost us millions. So investing in a solution like Duo Security saves us all that money.

Most solutions do what we're trying to use Duo Security for. It ensures a person has different access to the system via a different device like a YubiKey.

Duo Security has helped to improve our organization's security posture through reassurance in giving out access. Having something like Duo Security on the back end can help pinpoint who's logging in and ensure there is no random bot.

I highly recommend Duo Security because it's still seamless from my standpoint. I don't know how it would be on the back end, but it'd be a great application for any organization wanting to heighten its security on user access.

Overall, I rate Duo Security ten out of ten.

We use a number of Cisco products specifically, Cisco Umbrella and Duo.

Our primary use case is to enhance our client's security and their digital security model; Secure DNS, malware protection, MFA, and MDM services for their premium devices and their office devices.

Cisco has improved our organization by making the attack vector smaller and improving the security of our customer's networks and by extension, enhancing our reputation.

Using Cisco has saved us time and money. It also saves us from the threat of a loss of money by cyberattacks. It saves us months of technical effort and loss of billable hours.

It has also helped to reduce our operating expenditures.

Multifactor authentication and secure two-factor authentication are the most valuable features. It's been around for a while, but now it's becoming an enforced behavior as opposed to something that you used to do as optional. 

When it comes to securing infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate it, it's pretty good. It's a little proprietary. A lot of it is based around its own ecosystem and we've started looking at other solutions that are more open-source or a bit open to more collaboration. That's something that we're picking up with Cisco.

I have been using Cisco solutions for two to three years. 

Their support is very good, especially at an executive level and account director level. They'll always find you the right person if they're not the right person to help you do something.

Positive

My own company and our customers have seen ROI from using Cisco. The customer specifically does not lose time anymore in cyberattacks, malware, and devices being affected or hijacked.

I'm not a big fan of relicensing products every year or two years, but that's the model at the moment. I prefer to go back to licensing perpetually or permanent licensing.

We chose Cisco because it's very good, very well understood, has a good reputation, and has a strong support community around it. There is good technical expertise if you need it.

I would rate Cisco an eight out of ten. 

We use Duo, Client, and Umbrella. 

Our primary use case for this is for our clients to be secure.

We are at the beginning of using Umbrella. We use a traditional Cisco proxy. Now, with Umbrella, it's easy to administrate. It helps save us time.

Everything is all in one dashboard, so it makes the administration very easy.

Cisco Secure solutions are great for detecting and remediating threats across our infrastructure from end to end. The integration of Talos in SecureX is great. Everything is clear in one dashboard. You have your dashboard and can have one look in your dashboard and see everything. It's on one pane of glass. 

Smart Licensing needs improvement. It's terrible. We have problems with it every year and we need to involve support to fix it. 

Our appliances are connected to Cisco Smart Center but they don't get the license. That's our pain point. But then when they work, they work. 

I liked the traditional licensing. We get the license key, pass it, and it works.

We have been using Umbrella for one month and we just started using Duo. We have been using classic Cisco for seven years. 

The support is fast and good.

The first level of support asks a lot of questions. We have a partner who does it for us. If we have a problem, we send it to them and they contact Cisco.

For the first level of support, they always say it's the firewall or the network and we need to prove that it isn't. It's too much back and forth. It's a lot of emails. Maybe it's faster when it's on a call. 

Positive

Cisco Duo was really easy to implement. 

Umbrella was a little bit difficult because of the documentation. Not everything was documented. We got help from Cisco and the internet. 

We used a Cisco consultant for the implementation. They were great. They know nearly everything. For Cisco deployment, they need to know our network, how it works, and so it's not so easy for them, but they did great. When I have questions, I get answers.

Cisco isn't cheap but it's good. 

Cisco DNA Center is great, but it's too big for our environment, we don't need it in our company. Before we had classic Cisco infrastructure, now, we are switching to Meraki because it's cheaper and it's not big like DNA Center. DNA Center is great, but it's too big. You need a lot of IT to get it to work. 

We also evaluated Unify. Cisco is the leader and we started with Cisco. It's good, so we stay with it.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's not like Cisco Duo. Not everything is on one application. It should be easier to get everything in one application, where you can see everything. I would like to see one pane of glass so that we can plug everything into one application in order to see the performance.

The support should also be improved.