Cisco Secure Access Reviews

I support the US government. From a customer perspective, the use cases tend to be where we are guarding edge devices that we don't have necessarily 100% positive command and control. The devices have data transport that traverses in some cases ISPs, so we can't really control who's adjacent to those networks. We often deploy in those types of environments. Where we can use dark fiber, we prefer to, but that's not always an option.

I'm probably pretty agnostic with respect to that. We have a federal mandate to reach these next-generation firewall requirements. Stateful packet inspection and things of that nature are the things that we're interested in. We have some programs adjacent to us that definitely do that, but my programs don't require that.

We get a significant discount with Cisco, and their support is definitely top-rate.

Cisco does a decent job with logging. Sometimes you may need to tweak a few settings, but with their more recent products that support Python and Java among others, you now have more programmatic control in the latest versions of IOS.

If the FTD devices themselves, the Firepower Threat Detection system, those are the firewalls themselves, the individual appliances, weren't so tightly coupled to FMC, I'd probably appreciate them as a product more. The learning curve was a little higher just because it's a large departure from their original ASA devices. If they could be managed individually as easily as they can be managed through FMC, I'd probably be a bigger fan.

I have used Cisco products for decades at this point. With respect to ASAs and FTDs, FTDs are fairly new, but I have used ASAs for the better part of a decade.

It is definitely top-rate. In fact, I know that my particular group didn't even have a service agreement in place for the better part of a year and those guys were still very responsive to emails and communications.

Positive

We've been using them so long, it's hard to remember being a newbie, but I don't find their products particularly hard to set up. They have great documentation.

In our deployments, all of our web-based access to any of those devices is actually cut off. We do everything through a secure socket. The only situation where we are compelled to use a web interface is for the FMC, specifically for configuration; however, our management is primarily conducted at the console level whenever possible.

We don't find them hard to manage, especially as a group. The bigger challenge was managing them outside of their FMC product. They prefer to be federated to some extent, and they really weren't designed to be individually managed. They prefer to be managed from a central location. But if you have an environment that lends itself to central management, for the most part, it's not an issue.

We acquire through an organization, and we are the ones that implement.

Price-wise, we get a significant discount with Cisco. I actually prefer Juniper products. From a professional perspective, I prefer Palo Alto and Juniper probably more than I do anybody else. But I can't make the argument when we get 50% and 60% discounts, which we don't get from Juniper or Palo Alto.

Because we operate with what could only be called a skeleton crew, a monitoring solution to the extent possible is dependent heavily on logging, which these applications allow. We do a heavy amount of logging and we do a great deal of log parsing through ELK stack and SolarWinds and Splunk. Any tool that provides telemetry through logging is a particularly good fit for us because we have to really automate our monitoring. We don't have the manpower to sit there and look at multiple applications and things on a regular basis. It all has to come to a central location and has to be pretty automated, red light, green light type stuff.

If you have the budget, make sure to get a solid understanding of what's out there. There might be some other products that you might prefer, but if your budget is constrained, you can make it work with Cisco products for sure.

I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.

On-premises

Cisco Secure Access is used as a security tool within the tenant as a firewall and serves as a cloud-delivered Zero Trust access platform. It is used for Microsoft Intune as conditional access, Global Secure Access, and from Defender for Cloud Apps, working behind before it.

Cisco Secure Access provides application-level access. Usually, it's full network access, but with this tool, application-level access can be given. It removes the dependency of VPN, and then user authentications are continuously based on identity, device, and risk, which is an add-on there.

The Zero Trust Network Access feature is being used.

Cisco AnyConnect is used as a VPN tool for SASE purposes.

The integration of CASB functionality for exposing shadow IT within the company is smooth. Technical skill and knowledge are needed to evaluate, analyze, and deep dive on those things. From the tool's response, it is very good, and there is visibility on everything that is needed or necessary.

The integration of Cisco Talos influences threat detection and response capabilities. The integration of Cisco Talos is similar to every Cisco Umbrella, and the experience has been smooth. The knowledge, their KB, and FAQs are very good, and their support is very good. When in trouble, readily available documents or information are accessible.

Managing Cisco Secure Access in a single cloud management console is moderate in difficulty. Technical skills or an understanding at a base level or moderate level are needed to make it work, configure, and integrate it. The difficulty level is somewhere between easy and difficult.

Cisco Secure Access has been used for one and a half years.

The product has been stable with no crashes or downtime so far, and the SLA is good.

Cisco Secure Access is scalable.

The technical support of Cisco is good and up to the mark.

Positive

Regarding deployment and installation, it is straightforward, but having basics is necessary.

No negative aspects have been observed so far; everything seems good. The review rating for this product is 9 out of 10.

Public Cloud

Microsoft Azure

I use this solution for securing security controls like Secure Security Control (SSC) for local Internet breakouts. It offers a unified security policy across Google sites, providing secure web gateways, DNS and web security filtering, and multi-malware protection. These features are essential for comprehensive security.

The main feature of interest to me and the customers is DNS security and Integrated Secure Web Control (ISWC).

There is a need for improved global coverage since the service relies on the cloud provider's data centers. We are seeking more granular and global coverage to meet our demands. 

Modernization is needed, specifically in the enhancement of security features and functionality. Utilizing AI-oriented features is also important, considering what other vendors offer and their marketing strategies.

According to the vendor's claims, the solution is adaptable and scalable. I would rate scalability at eight to nine out of ten.

I am not able to read their resources, but I understand they have a good support organization. This stems from their original business in networking, integrating router and switch operations, as well as security devices. I assume the same organization now bridges into customer support.

Neutral

Cisco is not well accepted in the market since they are somewhat behind their competitors.

I would rate the initial setup at seven out of ten. The commercial aspects are significant here, primarily the recognition level compared to other dedicated suppliers approaching the market with stronger messages.

I am on the presale side, and the delivery aspect is handled by other people in the organization.

Prices are determined in the Compass. I do not refer to the suggested detail or the suggested list price, however, it is highly case-oriented. In the competitive landscape, they offer some advantages with Cisco deal IDs. However, renewal prices have been surprisingly high.

They have a strong brand and are supported by Cisco's traditional organization. 

I would rate them seven out of ten overall. 

Google

We primarily use Cisco Secure Access based on customer requirements, especially in the BFSI sector. They require Cisco Secure Access for their external branches and remote users. We mostly work with BFSI sectors who need Cisco Secure Access for their network. We have been resellers and integrators for this solution for more than eight years.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the level of security it provides. Cisco's dedication to the security industry is evident with how it remains up-to-date on current situations and recent attacks. Updates are frequent, and firmware upgrades are delivered promptly. It is very easy to stay updated, which is crucial for maintaining security.

The main area for improvement is pricing. Prices are high when compared to competitors, which makes it challenging to position the product with customers. If Cisco wants to enhance its product position in regions like South Asia, it needs to consider its pricing strategies seriously.

We have been working with Cisco Secure Access for more than eight years.

Implementation is very easy. Even if challenges arise, relevant documentation is readily available.

The solution is stable enough, and I did not experience any latency or performance issues.

Cisco Secure Access is scalable. I did not find any issues with scalability, and we did not receive any negative feedback from customers.

Our engineers are very satisfied with the features, technical assistance, and documentation provided by Cisco.

Positive

This solution is very easy to install.

Implementation requires two people. For maintenance, the same number of people is involved.

The main issue with pricing is that it is higher compared to other competitors, making it challenging to work with customers unless they specifically request Cisco. Also, the discount rates provided by Cisco for Asian countries are not sufficient.

Apart from Cisco, we also deal with Palo Alto, Fortinet, FortiGate, and Check Point.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is nine out of ten. Although I could rate it ten out of ten, the pricing factor brings it down to nine. In terms of technical support, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Access is seamless connectivity for users, whether they are inside our corporate network or accessing it externally over the internet. The users do not have to switch on VPNs and reconnect. They can directly connect to Cisco Secure Access using Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) and access all resources as if they are inside the corporate network.

The main feature I appreciate in Cisco Secure Access is the ZTNA feature, which provides excellent connectivity for remote users. We have been using Cisco Umbrella for several years, and this additional feature of ZTNA has enhanced our connectivity experience significantly. Seamless connectivity, whether inside or outside the corporate network, is a standout feature. It eliminates the hassle of switching on VPNs and provides a direct connection to resources via Cisco Secure Access.

At this moment, I am unable to comment on areas for improvement as we are just starting to work with the solution. However, I find that the complex procedure for raising support tickets is a significant drawback. Previously, sending an email would automatically create a ticket, but now it requires accessing specific portals, making the process complicated.

We have been using Cisco Secure Access for only a month since it is not yet fully deployed.

Even a basic IT person can deploy the policies for Cisco Secure Access, making it a very user-friendly and efficient setup. We have deployed it for about one hundred users so far, with a target of one thousand users.

I rate the stability of Cisco Secure Access as ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. There is always room for improvement.

Having been associated with Cisco for more than fifteen to twenty years, I find it increasingly difficult to get tech support these days. Although Cisco is reliable, the process to raise a support ticket has become more complex, requiring specific user accounts and access to specialized platforms.

Positive

Having tested only FortiGate and Sophos before, I prefer Cisco Secure Access based on my experience. I find Cisco provides a better experience.

The setup for Cisco Secure Access is straightforward and can be accomplished easily by IT staff with basic knowledge. The deployment process is smooth and does not pose any major issues.

Cisco is known for being a premium product, and its pricing reflects this. Although competitive, a more flexible pricing model could attract more companies, especially those with smaller user bases.

Solutions such as FortiGate, Zscaler, Palo Alto, and Sophos provide similar security access features. However, based on my evaluation, Cisco Secure Access offers a more favorable experience.

In terms of overall rating, I give Cisco Secure Access a nine. I would definitely recommend it to other users.

Public Cloud

Other

Managing Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud management console will not be difficult if you experience it once. This means once you have hands-on experience, you know how to operate it. In the first time, you might have a challenge because you need to understand the system. However, once you understand it, it will not be difficult anymore.

I find the zero trust approach helpful and beneficial in securing standard applications, which means you are accessing the applications directly instead of giving privilege to access the network itself. This is very beneficial in the context of security and is very effective.

Regarding the threat detection and response capabilities, because it's integrated in the cloud, users don't have to configure it to integrate with Talos. The feed that it has is already there, detecting malware and blocking it by itself from the Cisco Secure Access. The Intel is there, and we do not need to manually integrate with Talos.

My personal thinking about Cisco Secure Access is that because I'm also catching up on this solutioning, I'm not really seeing any improvement because I'm still learning. So far, it's good; I do not have any comment on this.

Regarding features about the UI, the pricing, and the learning curve of Cisco Secure Access that can be improved, the AI is already embedded in the solution. Because I haven't explored much and am not an expert, the features might be there, but I haven't tested them out.

When it comes to thoughts on the pricing, setup cost, and licensing cost of Cisco Secure Access, I cannot comment as I only did SSE for Cisco and did not have experience with other products. In terms of price comparisons, I cannot provide much insight.

The more competitive the pricing for Cisco Secure Access becomes, the better it would be for customers.

Throughout my experience with Cisco Secure Access, I have had some stability and reliability issues, including lagging when accessing the portal. Sometimes the response is fast, and sometimes it's slow, with response information that can be either correct or wrong. However, I consider these minor issues because they recover in a few minutes afterwards, though there are still glitches present.

In evaluating my experience with the technical support and customer service of Cisco Secure Access, during the POC, we did not leverage tech support at that particular moment; instead, we engaged directly with the SE team, the Cisco System Engineer teams.

Positive

Regarding the experience with the initial setup of Cisco Secure Access, it is important to communicate with the customers on the requirements, so they understand and prepare whatever we need to set up the POC. We need to communicate effectively with them and let them know what we need. Once our requirement is fulfilled, we can proceed. The key point is that communication with the customer must be maintained.

Once we have all of the requirements, the setup of the product itself is not that difficult. The first time requires understanding many things, but after the deployment and gaining experience, it becomes quite straightforward.

I give Cisco Secure Access a seven because I did study other products as well. While I haven't deployed any other SSE product, I went for the training. The way of deploying and the solution is quite seamless, but that's my current assessment without hands-on experience with the other products.

As a partner with Cisco, this relationship is more related to the partners agreements, which is why we are selling Cisco Secure Access.

My impressions of Cisco Secure Access on protecting organizations from threats such as phishing or ransomware attacks are based on my recent POC. There aren't many use cases I have shown to the customer, but I can confirm that the solution is effective.

I would evaluate my experience with the Cisco team as an eight on a scale of one to 10, where 10 is the best.

My advice for other users who would like to start working with Cisco Secure Access is to find a good service integrator. As I come from the service integrator background, my advice to end users is to collaborate with a reliable SI that has the expected expertise on the solutions they are going to purchase and enroll.

The overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is 7 out of 10.

We use the solution for authentications and accounting services. 

We use the tool in the Finance and IT sectors. We provide Cisco Secure Access solutions to various clients, including government agencies, to enhance network security.

The most valuable feature is the authentication feature.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for two years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. More than 50 admin users use this solution. I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I received support from the team for Cisco Secure Access related to web services. There were occasional delays of up to two working days. With our live chat options or by contacting a specialist directly, we were able to address any issues. Additionally, Cisco provides resources and lessons that can be beneficial in such situations.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

The tool is expensive. It costs around 25,000-30,000 per year. There is an additional cost for monitoring, setup, or hardware.

In the Secure Access process, we manage authentication for corporate data, resources, and user policies to ensure that transactions are conducted securely. This involves verifying user identities and ensuring access is granted only to authorized individuals.

Sometimes, authentication takes only two or five minutes. Cisco is easy to access and is user-friendly. There is a brand policy, value, and nearability.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

On-premises

It's user-friendly and easy to manage by administrators, and the performance is very good. The security is good.

We can manage security, user channels, and all the functions on the Cisco feature, including VLAN and more. 

Cisco Secure Access have to improve the security points.

I have been using it for the last five years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

There are around 200 people who use it in my company. We use firewall for WANs and Access Points is for the internal network. And there's guest Wi-Fi for guest flow.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The customer service and support are very good. 

Positive

We plan to change Cisco with another vendor.

Cisco Secure Access is easy to install. 

It is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

Its performance is very good, and it's easy to manage. I will recommend it to other people.

Public Cloud