Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

We use the solution for cybersecurity purposes. The tool helps us to identify anomalies that come from internal or external networks. 

The attack patterns and payloads go undetected in Cisco. We would like to see a new solution with more effective detection of attack patterns. There should be more data analyzing patterns as well which provides useful information. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

I would rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool's scalability is not an issue. We have a lot of people using the product even in our subsidiaries. We have a couple of thousand users for the solution.

We have residence engineers for support. We mainly use level two support. Cisco's support in the local region is up to the level. However, we have issue with country-level support.  

I use Darktrace simultaneously. 

The product's setup was smooth and easy. The implementation was not a big deal and took two weeks to complete.

A Cisco consultant helped us with the tool's implementation. They were competent, helpful, and confident. 

We get cut in price since we use other Cisco products. We have the whole bundle of Cisco solutions. 

I would rate the product a six out of ten. The solution is easy to maintain. We are looking for a solution that is powered by AI which gives enhanced protection and detection. 

We have NGIPS deployed at the edge and use it to filter the point of presence to the Internet or other offices.

NGIPS lets you map web requests to a specific user to determine who is downloading files and what they are accessing. You can use it to identify users downloading malware or track time wasters using Facebook or something like that. It gives you visibility into what your users are doing on the Internet. 

The price is a little high. It's hard to find solutions that are easy on the budget and strike a balance between affordability and features.

I have used NGIPS since 2015.

NGIPS is quite stable. 

NGIPS is scalable. It has well-defined stacks for how much traffic it can handle. You can fully inspect traffic or use SSL decryption.

I rate Cisco support 10 out of 10. We get everything we need from them. 

Positive

I rate NGIPS nine out of 10 for ease of setup. The process was smooth and straightforward. After deployment, it requires some maintenance like updates and creating or changing the policies. We have more than a hundred policy categories now. 

We had help from professional services.

I rate Cisco NGIPS nine out of 10. We always find stuff that could be done better or that we want more of. For example, we've had some issues creating specific rules, and it's challenging to create exceptions or tweak the rules as your business evolves. It's tricky to order the rules to follow the business policies you want. You have to balance security with getting work done. You need to watch how many rules you make because you can get overwhelmed.

Our primary use case is as a firewall segregating networks and defending the perimeter.

I would consider this to be a medium product in its field across the board.

Some features, for instance, are a way for the management console to be able to manage each specific firewall, for instance. Because if we have more than one firewall configured in the management center, we cannot delegate administration, just one of the equipment. I think the part of IPS and everything else needs to be better equated to the real needs or current needs of the business compared to the other manufacturer, because it is not straightforward, a way to configure it compared to the other competitors.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for one year.

It is more or less stable. Sometimes I have some issues normally when we need to upgrade it to newer versions. I think it does the job. The hardware does the job, and the current models do the job.

We have around four thousand users and that would be an example of its scalability.

Technical support is good. If you open a case about the support, it is good. Compared to the other manufacturer, it is very good.

The initial setup was complex and the upgrade took a lot of time with a very big image to download and everything else. We had many versions and patches that had to be installed. The deployment took between two and three hours.

In this case, we did it in-house and I was the integrator.

I think we have to have a good knowledge of the product. It is not easy to set up from the beginning. And I am also using the comparison with the other manufacturer. You need to have very good training before managing the product. I would rate Cisco NGIPS a seven on a scale of one to ten.

We predominantly use this solution to place the perimeter on the firewall, which helps us filter out inbound and outbound traffic.

Cisco is tightly engaged with threat defence called Talos, which has more threat intelligence. In addition, they are dedicated to working on updating their IPS signatures.

We have been using this solution for almost five years. It is deployed both on-premises and cloud, and we are using the latest version, Cisco 12.X.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. We have over 100 clients.

The technical support is sound and clear.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, and it's like a plug-and-play. The graphical user interface is understandable, and their documentations are clear. In addition, they have an SOP document that can be used as a guide.

There is an annual licensing cost. It is not a cheap solution, but it's cost-effective. Aside from costs, Cisco NGIPS provides great security. Cisco is providing more discounts to its end customers to survive in the security market.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. I would recommend this solution. When you compare Cisco NGIPS to other solutions, it is salable and technically sound. Other solutions have very limited services and threat intelligence.

Regarding additional features, they should speed up their technology to the market because, compared with other security vendors, Cisco is a little behind on the Gartner and technical front. In addition, the integration can be more secure.

Cisco NGIPS offers defense mechanism and intrusion prevention for your environment. 

I like the way the tool pushes the packets from the node level. 

Cisco NGIPS' performance could be better. 

I have been working with the product for 24 years. 

Cisco NGIPS is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has over 2000  users for the product. 

The tool's deployment is not straightforward. You need a technical and competent person to do it. A four to five-member technical team can handle its deployment and maintenance. 

The tool's ROI is good. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate Cisco NGIPS a ten out of ten. 

Some of our customers are having DDOS attacks and ransomware attacks.

Earlier in July 2019, I noted that there was an attack. To mitigate future attacks from the ransomware in Columbia Bank and other similar situations, we at Cisco Talent, which is responsible for security intelligence, provided updated security rules. We offered intrusion policies and codes through signatures to help overcome such situations.

It's a good solution.

The solution is not that bad. Next-generation firewalls work from my experience, they work. 

The URL filtering feature and the new locations feature are both valuable additions to the solution.

While the Management GUI and FMC could be improved, the devices themselves function well.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for more than five years.

I provided support for version 6.4, but in our company, we do have Firepower version 7.0.

Cisco NGIPS is a stable solution.

Cisco has great support.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

I am currently working with Cisco NGIPS at home as an IPS device, so I can see what's hitting the firewall and look at the logs. I'm using it as a learning environment. 

The IPS functionality is useful if you have offices all over the place. It's nice to have centralized management instead of going to a separate ASA or FirePOWER device. 

The biggest problem with most Cisco products is that the interface is lagging behind the competition. The user interface could be updated and improved.

Cisco NGIPS is stable. 

Cisco NGIPS is highly scalable. We use it to cover 15 offices.

It requires some background in IPS and IT security to fully understand it, so it is somewhat complex to deploy.

I rate Cisco NGIPS eight out of 10. 

The primary use case is for intrusion prevention. We install the solution between the firewall and the call switches.

The most valuable features are the intrusion detection ones. We channel the intrusion engine to create a policy of prevention. We only use this solution for intrusion prevention, not as a firewall.

There is room for improvement in the policy documentation. It gets confusing trying to understand what all of the policies mean. We need clear documentation explaining what each policy does.

For the Cisco STD, if we lose the connection with the SMC and STD, we can only assist with the STD via the CLI, so we can only do some troubleshooting. I think this is an area that needs improvement. In terms of the architecture, it needs to be more comfortable to change our own managed STD via the UI even if SMC is not available.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for six years.

Some of the engineers within Cisco's tech support are knowledgeable and others are not. Sometimes we have to go back and forth for a week to get an answer.

Neutral

The initial setup is not complex; we only need to define the IP address and add the SMC IP. Both STD and SMC have the capability of SDM. Also if we don't have SMC, we mainly require the anti-SDM in UI. However, after we enroll the Cisco file from the SMC, we can no longer manage the STD from there. Therefore, it is very difficult to roll back if there is a connection loss between the STD and SMC, as SMC cannot manage the STD via the UI. In comparison, if there is a connection loss between Palo Alto Panorama, we can simply lock it with Palo Alto following the file and do some configuration. 

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

We have a Cisco ASA firewall, which is like a standard firewall. We upgraded to Firepower Threat Defense, and it is like a next-generation capability, like NGIPS and NGAV, and has that kind of functionality. It also improves network security and threat defence.

It has helped to improve our cybersecurity and our network security posture.

The FTD has a GUI interface, which is very easy to work around with all the configurations. It is a client-based software based on Java. Now we have the GUI web interface, and it's very interactive and easy to navigate.

Cisco NGIPS runs the backend as a Snort engine, so it is like they customize it with Cisco. So they need to have an engine for threat defence.

We have been using this solution for two years and are using version 9.6. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable. NGIPS is based on our user base, so we have around 2000 users. We require two network and security administrators for deployment and maintenance. We do not plan to increase usage because we have already upgraded.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We updated from Cisco ASA to NGIPS FTD.

The initial setup is a bit complex because it requires a lot of configuration, firewall and zoning. The deployment was done in-house. We just purchased a box and installed it on our own.

We have seen a return on investment in improving security and defending the threats in our network.

I do not have details about the licensing costs. It has a user-based license and a different model license because it is modular software.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. From a recommendation perspective, before deploying the NGIPS solution, you need to work with your internal environment. It can minimize the load on the NGIPS, so you should do your IPS signature before moving to production.

It should have a network and content processor and a security process for additional features. Other OEMs have these capabilities to enhance the throughput and performance.

We use it at the end and the center as the core and apply a lot of policies to the firewall.

Using Cisco Firepower has helped us.

We like the Cisco product, the concept, and the tech intelligence. We are much more comfortable with Cisco products. It's a reputable organization, and we trust the products.

The next Cisco NGIPS release should include more features for production ideas and more intelligence for IDS and IPS features.

We have been using this solution for two years. 

We initially had some difficulty loading pages due to certain rules regarding performance and stability. On some websites, we had to click more than once. These issues were quite easy to fix.

Regarding scalability, the solution is not that good.

They're nice people. We don't have any issues with them. They are quick to respond, but sometimes it takes time to solve the issues.

Positive

We previously used Check Point and Cyberoam. We switched because the license expired.

We initially had some difficulties, but now we have no problems.

A Cisco vendor in Nepal helped us configure the product properly. We didn't have a strategy. The vendors supported us from the very beginning. After working with them, we had no problem using the product.

It took almost a month and a half to install the system.

I would rate our ROI as eight out of 10, with 10 being the highest ROI.

Cisco NGIPS licensing is yearly. 

I would rate the pricing four out of 10, one being very expensive and 10 very cheap. 

I would give Cisco NGIPS an overall rating of eight out of 10, 10 being the best.

We have a department of almost 50 people in our company using Cisco NGIPS. 

We have 10 people to maintain the product.

We want to cover all the systems and networks of our organization.