Cisco Secure Endpoint Reviews

I use the solution in my company to protect our Windows and Mac devices.

The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use, simple management of dashboards, and constant updates.

It cannot currently block URLs over websites. From an improvement perspective, I want the tools to have the ability to block URLs over websites from a threat prevention point of view so that everything stays protected.

The product needs to offer better integration capabilities.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for two and a half years.

It is a totally stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Around 20 to 30 people use the product in my company.

The product is used extensively in my company.

The plan to increase the solution usage depends on the company's decision.

The product's initial setup phase was very simple.

The solution is deployed on the cloud model.

In terms of the time needed for the deployment process, my company requires one or two hours to upgrade the tool on our twenty machines.

One or two people who are engineers are required to deploy and maintain the solution.

The return on investment is fine. My company only looks at how the product can offer security.

You must make monthly payments towards the licensing charges attached to the product. There are no extra charges apart from the standard licensing fees associated with the product.

In the past, I have used ESET and Symantec in my company. The protection offered by Cisco is much better than that offered by ESET and Symantec.

I never used the tool's threat-hunting capability to see its impact on our company's security posture.

I have integrated Cisco Secure Endpoint with other security tools from Cisco, and I see that it has been great.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

The product is reliable and stable. It also provides up-to-date security based on ongoing trends.

The benefits from the use of the product revolves around the fact that it helps our company to be secured, especially in a scenario where constant attacks happen on other companies.

If I consider the current trends in the cybersecurity world, I can say that the product offers main features that provide functionalities of an anti-virus solution.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

Emphasizing robust prevention and comprehensive security measures, it offers stable functionality. There are several valuable features including strong prevention and exceptional reporting capabilities.

The pricing policy could be more competitive, similar to Cisco's offerings. Cisco recently introduced the SecureX platform, where all the different platforms are consolidated. This means you need a single account to access all the platforms, simplifying the process. However, it can still be a bit frustrating because the access isn't straightforward. There are different links for logging in, and depending on which link you use, you might encounter issues with admin rights, even if you are an admin. It seems there are some access problems during the transition and migration process, which has affected my system as well.

For instance, we had the Cisco Mail gateway, and I used to have specific links to report and configure guardian and spam checks for emails. Now, all of these have also been moved to the SecureX platform, which doesn't always function smoothly when logging in. Sometimes, I still have to log in using my old links. It's a bit inconvenient, but that's how it is.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for the past two years. 

I would rate the stability nine out of ten. 

It is a scalable product and I would rate it eight out of ten. 

They have separate support departments for different products, and the experience can vary depending on the product. For instance, Cisco Meraki Support is notably excellent and quick. In contrast, the support for some other Cisco products may be slightly less effective or even more outstanding. They tend to be slow when responding to inquiries. Personally, I have had a good experience with Cisco.

Regarding maintenance, we receive the latest updates automatically. I handle tasks such as installing the updates, assigning licenses, and installing the agent. Additionally, I check for insights on the computers where the agent is installed. These insights provide reports on various aspects, such as the computer's Windows update status and whether the antivirus is on the latest version, among other things.

It is a subscription-based product. 

I would overall rate the product an eight out of ten and recommend it to fellow users.

We use Cisco Secure Endpoint as an antivirus on computers. That is one of the important use cases that we have, as an antivirus.

[It has helped our organization] tremendously. First of all, because we are always on-point in terms of our solution. We are proactively looking into the alerts and Cisco Secure Endpoint is already taking care of looking into it, provisioning it, and fixing it. All those three stages are done by the software itself. We are only looking at in terms of what the statistics look like. That really helped us. 

Because the solution is taking care of itself, we get the chance to research more on the other side of it rather than focusing on the problem. The moment a problem is there, Cisco Secure Endpoint is already working toward fixing it. That really helps us. I can go home and have [peace of mind] at home, not thinking about whether the next attack is coming and I have to wake up in the middle of the [night] to figure out what's going on. That really helps in a tremendous way.

It has easily [helped us save] hundreds of hours in a quarter. We are definitely saved because of this solution.

Definitely, the best feature for Cisco Secure Endpoint is the integration with Talos. On the backend, Talos checks all the signatures, all the malware, and for any attacks going on around the world. Cisco Secure Endpoint gets the information from it. We do get knowledge about all the attacks going across the world. Because Secure Endpoint has a connection to it, we get protected by it right then and there. Rather than our looking for it, and finding out the information, the software does it for us without our having to get in between. That is really an easier way of fixing a problem. Before, we would manually have to look into it. That really helps us. It's taken care of in a way.

Because the software is doing such a good job, we barely have any recommendations in terms of what can be changed. [However], at this moment, in terms of integration with other software, that could be helpful. 

And in terms of the user experience, if the UX design could be much simpler [that would improve things]. Because I'm an engineer, I understand what I'm looking at and [for me it's] intuitive in terms of what is there and what is not. But [if] another engineer or someone at the management level or C-level is looking at the portal of the webpage, if they could make it more intuitive for someone who is not an engineer so that they still can read what's going on in their webpage and understand, that would be something. If they could improve [on that], that would be great.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for more than four and a half years. It's been quite some time.

The stability of the solution is definitely a 10 out of 10. I have no problems with that at all. It's consistent across the board and that's perfect.

The scalability of the solution is really good with SecureX, which is an integration platform. All the other tools are coming together, and that really helps us to scale. I don't have to jump through to different windows. I can see everything in one place. That has really helped a lot since SecureX launched a couple of years ago.

Cisco tech support has been really good because they have a chat tool in the portal itself. If there's an issue, we can reach out to them right away. It's pretty quick and easy because the support itself is built in right then and there. I can connect to it whenever I want to, which is really nice.

I can't rate them at 10 out of 10, nothing is perfect. I would say nine for sure. We all can improve.

Positive

In the beginning, we had previous software. It was like the old way of seeing it, looking for the signatures. By the time we faced a problem and were trying to fix it, it was already too old. We were just not on top of it. It was becoming more of a reactive solution, rather than a proactive approach to fixing the problem. That was the main, driving force for us to find a solution that can be more proactive rather than reactive.

The antivirus software we used previously was facing a lot of issues with the signature downloads. Antivirus is looking for the signatures, to see if [there is] the respective problem, and trying to match those signatures. This is such an old way of doing it, which was [being done] for quite some time. 

Secure Endpoint has become a real game-changer in that field because it's a cloud-based approach, and we are already talking about getting signatures, not only for our organization, [but for] attacks [that have] happened to other organizations. We also get that information and we get protected already, without even having to intervene in the process. That really helps in many ways.

Previously, we were using Sophos antivirus and we replaced it with Cisco Secure Endpoint, which was previously called AMP at the time.

I believe we first we did it through our management console, our deployment software that we use to deploy it, for the first stage, to reach our different computers. And once that was done, we are managing the updates to the respective software through the cloud.

The deployment was easy. But the only reason it was easy was because we already had a deployment solution ready for it. If a new company wants to get this product, and they don't have any management solution they can use to deploy this software, that can be a challenge. 

A recommendation [for Cisco would be], if they can come up with some deployment process—I understand that's not the priority of the tool itself—but if that can be done, that will be good. 

But if a company already has a deployment solution that can be used to deploy the software across other computers, then the transition is pretty easy.

Honestly, [the deployment] is a one-man show. That is also a really good point about it because it can be done by one person all the way. It does not take too many people for you to get the ball rolling, which is a great part. And that really helps us because one person can handle the whole process.

I'm a senior network engineer with a security background, so I do know what I needed. But a senior help desk engineer can also get this thing done. You don't have to be a senior network engineer or [have] any higher degree in software to understand the product. That is really good about it. Any new person who is just trying to get into the field can learn about it and get going with this process pretty quickly. It's pretty user-intuitive.

Because we do see the value of what it's bringing, I think they have priced it well. I understand we have to go through a different licensing process to get this solution, but at the end of the day, the headaches [associated with that], if you were to put it into some kind of a number, it's priced completely reasonably and well as a product. You cannot contemplate the amount of time it takes, sometimes, to fix a problem, and that's already too late. I feel the value of the software is reasonable for what it does.

We looked into McAfee back in the day, and Windows Defender, and all different [kinds of] antivirus software, but we end up landing on AMP because of that connectivity with the cloud and instant connection to other resources. That really helped as the driving force to select this as our tool.

Our primary use case is general antivirus protection.

This product was deployed to a number of Windows machines, and we also have a VMware environment.

The product gives greater visibility of malware being downloaded by my clientele. In a more general fashion, Cisco Secure Endpoint has helped to prioritize threats. It has allowed us to make more effective use of our security team members.

Another advantage is that it has improved the effectiveness of our security options. We now have better response times when dealing with outbreaks.

We have decreased our time to detection, although it is difficult to say by how much because we weren't detecting all of the malware in the past.

It is reasonably easy to remediate issues using Cisco Secure Endpoint. In part, this is because I don't have to visit the physical machines to remediate them. As such, the time it takes for remediation has been decreased. 

This solution accelerates threat hunting by automatically promoting endpoint incidents to the Cisco SecureX platform, which is something that is fairly important to us.

Our systems are monitored by this product, and if threats are detected then the systems are shut down before problems arise. This is something that is fairly important to our organization.

This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports. Especially when updates are released for Chrome, many detections report a virus when it really wasn't.

Another problem that I notice is that Outlook 2016 creates cache files of attachments, and when this product detects them as malware, it can't delete them. I assume this is because Outlook still has the file open. This means that I get notices about the issue but I can't do anything about it until later, after Outlook has closed them. This may not be Cisco's fault as much as it is Microsoft's fault.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Endpoint for less than a year.

In my experience, this product is very stable.

This is a fairly scalable solution.

We deployed it to all of our Windows devices. A team consisting of fewer than 10 people receives alerts from the product when there is an issue. The team will follow up on the incidents and any remediation.

At this point, we have no plans to increase our usage.

I have not needed to use Cisco technical support for this product. I am usually happy with their support, so I'm assuming that for this product it will be roughly the same.

Prior to using this product, I did not have other agents in place to handle the same job. We had implemented Microsoft Defender for Endpoint but that doesn't really have any reporting tools.

We switched away from Defender because we needed better visibility. There really wasn't any.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. It might have been complex for somebody that hasn't been doing this type of thing for as long as I have. For example, not a lot of people understand deploying things via group policies. In my case, however, I have a lot of experience and it wasn't complicated.

The deployment was done in-house, by me. I did not use any external help for the implementation.

We purchased the product through a reseller, CDW, and our experience with them was straightforward. There were fairly easy to deal with.

It does not require regular maintenance or monitoring. I receive alerts when they happen but I don't actively monitor it. When an alert happens, an email is sent to a small team of fewer than 10 people.

The pricing and licensing fees are okay. As a school, we do not have quite as much funding as a private business might. I wish that there were more of a discount available for educational uses.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Endpoint, we didn't thoroughly investigate or evaluate other options. We are a Cisco shop and we generally lean toward using Cisco products.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that all of their security products should come from the same vendor. This way, your dashboard can be set up to monitor all of them. In my case, because we're a Cisco shop, this product makes sense for us.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Endpoint, often paired with Firepower and Cisco Umbrella, is primarily used for perimeter security and DNS protection.

The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with other Cisco products, such as switches and routers. This integration allows comprehensive coverage of security parameters across the customer's entire network. Customers find it easier to manage because they already know Cisco products. The cloud-based management is another valuable feature, enabling customers to manage their security from anywhere with an internet connection.

Cisco Meraki could benefit from AI assistance or intelligent assistance features. Compared to competitors like Juniper, Cisco Meraki currently lacks a digital network assistant, which is an area Cisco is reportedly working on.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

The solution is very stable. I don't hear complaints from customers about it not working right.

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. 

Palo Alto has a portfolio similar to that of Cisco. 

Setting up Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex, primarily because it needs to be tailored to each customer's specific needs and network configuration. Factors like whether the customer has a segmented network or uses VLANs affect how the solution is implemented.

While it's straightforward for a customer with ten branches, it becomes more complicated with 30-50  branches - not due to technical issues, but because of logistical challenges. 

One or two people are enough for deployment for complex cases with 20-30 branches. They're network or security specialists with Cisco certifications like CCNP or CCNA. The number depends on how complex the project is, but most times, it's pretty easy to deploy. We also typically need one or two people for maintenance, depending on how many branches there are and how complex the project is. If there are more than 50 branches, it can be complex to manage. Our solution architects often have CCNP certification, which helps manage the customer's network across branches.

The solution's price is about the same as that of Palo Alto solutions.

I recommend Cisco Secure Endpoint to others. It has been around for a long time and knows its stuff. Their Talos intelligence tool allows customers to see and secure their networks. I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

I implemented the solution in my company to use its managed endpoint protection in my company's use cases. Most of the users of Cisco Secure Endpoint in my company are unaware that they use the product. Our company only uses it to isolate possible malware on the endpoints. Our company uses the solution in collaboration with other software protection tools we have so that it helps us to look into cases where possible malware or attacks can happen.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support. In most cases, it's very difficult or complicated to incorporate Cisco Secure Endpoint in the IT environment, and most of the messages that appear are not very clear. It is a reliable tool. After the setup phase, I realized that it is a reliable tool.

The initial implementation of Cisco Secure Endpoint can be a pain and is an area in the solution that needs improvement. After the initial implementation phase, a person gets support from Cisco, making it a solid tool.

The solution needs to improve in the area of the specific details of the threats it provides to its users.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for three years.

After the presence and use of the solution in our company for three years, I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

Since we haven't had any expansion in our company's infrastructure, I won't be able to comment on the solution's scalability feature.

All of the employees in the back-end processes of our company are users of the solution since the product is implemented on all the PCs and servers. From an IT perspective, only two people use the solution in the company. One person looks after the maintenance of the solution, while the other person looks at the messaging part of the solution.

My company has chosen an outsourced option to get technical support of the solution since we don't get any technical support internally. 

The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex.

Speaking about the deployment process, during the initial phase of using Cisco Secure Endpoint, we were getting a lot of false positives in our company, making it pretty hard for us initially since we had to cut endpoints until we could stabilize the solution.

My company does make annual payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. Cisco Secure Endpoint is a little bit expensive. The pricing for licenses is pretty expensive for the moment, but it is a good solution.

My company wants to stop using Cisco Secure Endpoint and opt for another solution.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

I rate the overall solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We secure the laptops down, making sure that where we build the policy, every policy is consistent on every laptop.

It has greatly improved my organization from a security standpoint.

The most valuable feature is being able to push a policy. Whenever we update a corporate policy, we update it in one place, push it down, and it updates the policy on every laptop.

Secure Endpoint is good for creating actionable alerts so we can detect and remediate threats. If somebody does get infected, we don't have to wait for them to say, "Oh, I can't use my email." We immediately know about it. We would absolutely know about the problem before the person did. That was our biggest impact.

Secure Endpoint decreased our time to remediation. Where it used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected.

Cisco Secure Endpoint has helped improve our cybersecurity resilience. We only have about two IT guys. So it just makes them better at what they do. It saves them time, so they can focus on other things.

It saves them time so they can focus on other tasks.

It does a great job for what it is. The user interface face could be slicker. It does not have to be flashy, but the user interface is dull.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for two years.

The solution is rock solid.

The solution is really easy to scale.

I have engaged with tech support and I think they're great at what they do, two thumbs up. I recommend them.

We were using Avast and Norton. We felt it was time to switch to something Cisco branded that we could trust because we are a Cisco shop. All of them are proactive, but identity services was a big reason we switched to Secure Endpoint. You cannot really hook Norton into a Cisco ICE. We chose it for the integration abilities.

I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We use a lot of Cisco products to integrate into our services for about 160 customers in healthcare, local government, and social housing.

We are using tons of Cisco products. Besides all types of firewalls, we are using IronPort for email. We are using a lot of networking products as well, in which security is also embedded. We also use the SecureX platform to leverage our security automation.

We have about 160 customers, and each of these customers has its own compliance, set of rules, and governance. So, the use cases might vary, but it's all about keeping them safe on all levels; on a technical level, on a tech framework level, and also on a personal level. We try to prevent our customers from doing things that they didn't intend to do as well. The use cases vary, and we embed them in all our services and also in our security operations center.

Most of the customers don't even know that they are more secure. It's like they expect to be secure, but the moment we have a big threat from the outside, they will see and they will know that we are far faster and better able to protect them and react to threats from the outside.

Cisco Secure has saved us time, especially the SecureX platform has helped us to automate certain processes and do analytics. That prevents us from taking each individual part of the logging. They have the intelligence in there to do the first check for us, and that saves a lot of time.

There is a reduction in operating expenditures but not only from the Secure perspective. Our full stack is based on Cisco, so we leverage the full integration part of that. We have our compute, we have our networking, and we have our security, and that makes it easier because you have less interfaces with different products.

From a technical perspective, I would rate it quite high for securing our infrastructure from end to end. From a behavioral perspective, in terms of the end customers leveraging it, there's still a little bit of work to do because we need to help the end customers to be more aware of what they're doing. On the endpoint for a user, they don't exactly see what is happening. From a visual perspective, you also want to have a feeling that you're safe or you get some tips or tricks to be safer, but for the most important part, which is the technical part, I would rate it very high. We really trust Cisco.

The best feature that we found most valuable, is actually the security product for the endpoint, formerly known as AMP. It has behavioral analytics, so you can be more proactive toward zero-day threats. I found that quite good.

I'm also a big fan of Talos, which provides us with a lot of insights to react faster. We also created our own toolset to embed Talos input to the Cisco products, which was not a native function, but it's being enhanced right now in the new Secure and SecureX platform.

On the firewall level, they were lagging a little bit behind, but they are running up again. I have full trust in the new 3000 series of firewalls where we would also be able to look more into the traffic that we're monitoring and get more security layers in our services. That would definitely be a big step.

We have been using Cisco since we started the company in 2002. At the time, it was not branded as such, but security is embedded in every Cisco product.

I'd rate them a nine out of ten because we still had to do things ourselves. After they had done them for us, if it was just one click on a button, then I would've given them a ten. 

Positive

We were using different products before, but we made a strategic choice to use the endpoint protection part. We're very happy with this part because it works on all types of devices and all types of endpoints—not only the user endpoint but also the networking endpoint and a lot of server platform endpoints as well. That was a primary reason, and obviously, the cost or OPEX was a part of the strategic choice to do so, but the most important part was that it had the behavior analytics part in there, so we could be more prepared for zero-day attacks.

I was only indirectly involved in its deployment. As a board, we do look at the choices that we are making, but the real firm choices are made by our chief technology officer, our corporate information security officer, and the people in the operations. However, at the board level, we always look into what are the benefits and what are the costs, so I was involved indirectly, but I was not the one who made the decision.

The deployment of Cisco Secure solutions is a little bit in the midst. Because we had such a big install base, we took a lot of time. It was a program of approximately one and a half years. For us, it was a tough project. Was it tough because of Cisco? I don't think so. It was tough because it was such a big install base.

We handled it as a project. At first, we had to explain to our customers that we are going to use another product and why. We had to do a lot of marketing and communication beforehand. We had to train our people and our resources. We had to fix our automation. We also had our implementation plan per customer because it does impact the performance at first because it has to get to know the infrastructure and it has to get to know the services. After that, it all worked out well, and we are continuing to do so because this is a never-ending project. There are still new releases and new features. It's embedded continuously in our organization now. It's sort of cyclic maintenance.

We do not measure that on a product basis. We have a growth rate with a company that lies between 15% to 30% each year in our services and profits. It definitely adds to that as well. It's year-on-year, so we're doing quite well, and it's partly because of Cisco.

It can always be cheaper.

We only had one real runner-up, and it was Microsoft Defender, which is also a good solution, but it's less integrated with our Cisco infrastructure.

Don't take it to light and implement it with your customer in mind, and don't only implement it as a technical project. It's all about mitigating risks for your customers, and it might not always be technical. 

Be aware that implementing such a new embedded technology might also cause an impact on performance. So, keep informing your customers about the benefits and say that it might be a little difficult at certain times, but when we're finished, they are far safer than they were ever before.

Open Line has a big customer base in healthcare, local government, logistics, and social housing. Societal responsibility is quite huge in the Netherlands. Cisco might also be aware of the impact that they have. They shouldn't just look at us as a managed services company or a partner; just be proud that their social reach in the Netherlands is so high. They're part of that as well. At certain times, I don't think they're aware of that. They can be far prouder than they are right now.

I'd rate Cisco Secure an eight out of ten because we have a high ambition level. Perhaps with the new Cisco 3100 series firewalls, we'll go up a little bit because that will also help us in a risk-based security approach.