Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Reviews

We use this solution, in conjunction with the Cisco Firepower 4000 series, for security in our data center. We also use it with a Cisco Firepower 2000 series for our VPN and internet access firewall.

The most valuable feature of this solution is support for everything in the same box, including IPS, High Availability, etc.

This solution needs to be more customizable.

The customization of the rules can be simplified.

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution that I can apply to any rule I want.

We have approximately five hundred and fifty employees who are protected by this solution.

We contacted technical support many times during our deployment, but none of them were directly related to Sourcefire SNORT.

Prior to this solution, we used McAfee. We switched because we replace our firewalls every five or six years.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

The deployment took approximately two days, which included applying the IPS rules in the Sourcefire policy.

One person is suitable for deployment and maintenance.

A support company assisted us with the deployment.

We have a three-year license for this solution.

We evaluated Fortinet FortiGate and Palo Alto before choosing this solution.

We are satisfied with this solution. The whole solution is very good, and stable.

There are three modes that can be configured. The first is collectivity over security, the second is security over collectivity, and the third is a balanced mode. We have implemented a balanced mode, and it works just fine.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as security on either side of the VPN.

The ability to roll out the services is an excellent aspect of the solution. They have advanced malware protection for URL filtering. I like working with both of these features.

The pricing needs to be improved. We have lots of low-budget clients around us. Budget constraints are always a deterrent in our market.

The solution has a considerable amount of stability.

The solution is very scalable.

Cisco technical support is unbeatable. It offers a premium service every time.

We typically work with the on-premises deployment model.

Cisco Sourcefire is a great solution when it was packaged into the AMP giving it the ability to do URL filtering. However, Meraki seems to be going in the cloud direction. If the cloud is not interesting, then Cisco's firewall, Sourcefire, is great a great on-premises solution when it comes to advanced malware protection, URL filtering, etc. It's a great product.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use for the solution is security, mostly in intrusion prevention.

With Cisco Sourcefire SNORT, we've been able to prevent and detect intrusion in our network and actually decrease our SLA (Service Level Agreement).

For us, the scalability of the solution is really useful. We were able to rebuild our network recently and we plan to add another 500 nodes throughout South America.

One addition to the current product that I think would be helpful is if it was integrated into the Cisco DNA Center. Between their security side, their routing, and the wireless side, they kind of have a gap. If they could bridge the gap and integrate all those in the DNA Center, I think that would be a good goal and something useful to users.

We haven't had any problem with the stability of the solution so far. It's been a solid platform and considering how quickly we scaled without any major issues, the stability really speaks for itself.

When we recently upgraded our network the scalability of the product became obvious. We're planning to add about 500 extra nodes throughout South America and we're able to scale the platform to be able to utilize the solutions.

I honestly haven't had to use technical support that much because we haven't had that many issues. I guess that says something about the quality of the product when you don't need to use tech support in an installation as large as ours.

The main reason why we switched to this solution had to do with growth. We were growing at a very high rate at the time so we needed a solution that could handle a much larger architecture reliably. This was just one of the options that we were looking at and we really thought we'd benefit from the top-notch solution that the platform was.

The initial setup was fairly simple. We did it a couple of years ago but I remember it went well. It was, I think, a three-month project and rolled over pretty easily into our expansion.

The initial implementation was done with the assistance of a consultant. I don't remember the name of the group but it was a good experience. We enjoyed their experience and assistance very much.

There were a couple of other products that we considered at the time. None of them made it very far in the process because they just didn't have a lot of the capabilities that we were looking for. Cisco came out on top.

I'd give the product a nine out of ten because it is excellent in scalability, ease of management, and ease of use.

The only reason it isn't a ten out of ten is some of the gaps in integration. I think if they could improve integration with other platforms to make it more fluid to connect between the different platforms and platform management, that would make it a much better solution. The integration issues are probably the only knock off I have on the product so far.