Forescout Platform Reviews

Our primary use of the Forescout Platform is to enhance network security. It is deployed in an on-premises environment, although there is interest in exploring cloud-based solutions.

Automated policy enforcement is particularly valuable as it significantly reduces the need for manual intervention, thus enhancing efficiency and security.

Customer support could be improved by providing direct assistance from Forescout employees or specialists at customer sites to enhance the support experience and effectiveness.

The scalability also needs some enhancement.

I have been working with the Forescout Platform for two years.

Forescout Platform's stability is rated at eight out of ten.

Presently, there are twenty five engineer architect using the solution. I would rate the scalability a six out of ten. 

The customer service could be improved, specifically regarding direct support presence.

The setup process is straightforward.

Forescout's pricing is noted for its attractiveness, with potential discounts depending on partnership levels.

The comparison with Nozomi suggests a switch due to Forescout's more appealing pricing strategy.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have two main use cases: wired networks and wireless networks. In the wireless scenario, our main focus is on authenticating users to ensure compliance before granting access to our private network.

We use the Forescout Platform for device visibility and control in our network. It's very helpful for tracking malicious or unusual activity. We use it to track which ports are open, which machines are running specific services, and to identify vulnerabilities. For example, there was a vulnerability related to SMB, and we could use the product to determine which machines inside our organization were allowing SMB traffic.

The tool's most valuable feature is its ease of configuring and controlling endpoints, particularly in building policies for endpoint management. Its interface is simple to use and offers good visibility.

When compared with other solutions, the Forescout Platform's standout feature is its ability to integrate with various systems. This capability is particularly valuable as it supports the implementation of a zero-trust architecture. We are currently in the process of constructing our zero-trust architecture, wherein the tool serves as a pivotal component.

The solution's compliance capabilities have indeed been very beneficial for our organization. Unlike other solutions, it allows us to implement controls swiftly. Typically, transitioning to a blocking mode with other solutions would take around six months. However, we achieved this with the Forescout Platform within just one month.

The product needs to improve its support. I know a case that dragged on for about one and a half years. They eventually suggested professional services and closed the ticket. We followed their advice, engaging the account manager and professional service team, only to discover that the issue was a bug. After reopening the case, it's been about six months, and the problem still hasn't been resolved.

Forescout Platform's support often takes a long time to respond to tickets. Even after we reply, there's another lengthy wait for feedback, and their responses sometimes seem to delay resolution with unnecessary questions. For instance, they might ask for details about previous issues. Meanwhile, competitors may offer temporary solutions but often lack or are unsatisfactory regarding technical or research and development support from Forescout Platform's team.

Another area where it can improve is when dealing with multiple sites and overlapping subnets. While it works well for individual sites, it struggles when managing several sites with overlapping subnets, especially with authentication portals.

I think the Forescout Platform could use some extra features or improvements in the future. Specifically, it could be better at working with other security tools. For example, when it connects with VPNs or security scanners, it could work a bit better. The tool has already made some efforts in this area, but I think it could do even more to make these devices work together

I have been working with the product for two years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has 800 to 1000 endpoints and approximately 500 users. I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. Forescout Platform is fully operational in our company, managing all our devices. We plan to use it more in the future because we're setting up a zero-trust architecture. This will allow our staff to work remotely, even from home.

I have used Cisco before. When deciding which product to switch to, we picked the Forescout Platform because it was more stable and easier to upgrade.

I rate the tool's ease of deployment a ten out of ten. It is easy to manage and implement. With the help of our partner, it took about one to two weeks at most to deploy this solution. This includes setting up the policies, implementing them, and ensuring the product is operational. Building the policies initially took around two to five days. However, refining and enhancing the policies took approximately three weeks in total.

We required a team of one senior engineer and one regular engineer to deploy this solution. The regular engineer was primarily responsible for implementing the Forescout Platform. In contrast, the senior engineer was involved in specific areas, such as integration and troubleshooting issues during deployment.

We currently only need one engineer for maintenance. The solution is mostly up and running, requiring minimal intervention. On average, the engineer spends about five minutes daily checking for issues or addressing complaints.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use the Forescout Platform for radius authentication, as well as visibility control and enforcement. Such as discovery, classification, control, and orchestration for all possible use cases.

This is clearly the best product for the NAC use cases in this field for Forescout. It is difficult to implement. I wouldn't say it's complicated in that sense. It all depends on who is using it. 

If people don't understand the product, it's obviously complicated because it has multiple components that are difficult to mix and match and bring into the environment, which we faced a couple of years ago. But now that we know how the products and different licensing models work, we can bring in the right components, such as modules and all. It's kind of like once you know the product is simple.  Otherwise, you must understand that this is somewhat complicated.

The product is excellent. As a product, there is nothing to complain about. However, they should improve their overall support.

Let me provide an example. Assume you are in the United Kingdom, and you are also familiar with the cars in your neighborhood, and any manufacturer you have heard of. And let's say Forescout is one of the niche products, similar to Rolls-Royce. You know that Rolls-Royce is good, but you need some kind of information accessibility to use that.

The comfort is good, and you can obviously drive it, but you need to understand all of the features. You need that level of knowledge, that level of information is clearly not available.

First and foremost, that information is not accessible. 

The second point to mention is that once you purchase the later support and services. That is, they will continue to charge you for every service.

Things they should have told you ahead of time are that if you run into problems during the deployment, they will keep asking you to engage the product's professional services, which they will charge you for.

And from the standpoint of support, they should be adaptable. When they are aware that customers have made significant investments in these expensive licenses. And it is expected that they will receive adequate assistance. That is where they are falling short.

You own a Rolls-Royce, but you are having trouble making the most of its features and functions.

I have been working with Forescout Platform for five or six years.

I am working with the latest version.

Forescout Platform is a stable solution.

If you do it correctly in terms of configuration and deployment. If you know the necessary prerequisites, yes it is very stable.

The Forescout Platform is scalable.

We are using it, and we have currently rolled out this solution to 55% of our organization.

We have approximately 400,000 users.

We also use Cisco ISE. I am working with the latest version which is version 3.1.

It is expensive and there are extra costs for the support.

The price depends on your environment. We do get a discount.

It is expensive because you have to pay for their CSM, the customer's access manager, and their professional services on top of that, and they charge you roughly $400 per hour, which is overhead. I find it to be expensive.

It is purely based on the use case. If they have any issues with OT or IoT, this is the best solution. Otherwise, they can rely on other products if they are a typical non-manufacturing or non-healthcare organization.

ISE is also extremely expensive. They can look for anything cheaper than this. It is dependent on the use cases.

Because IoT and OT products are widely used in healthcare and manufacturing, and Forescout is the best.

I would rate Forescout Platform an eight out of ten. They mostly fail to provide support during and after deployment.

We use the Forescout Platform primarily for asset management.

The federal government's continuous diagnostics and mitigation programs are the focus of the current project I'm working on. 

It's one of the tools that has given the federal government visibility into network devices and everything.

The most common complaint I hear about Forescout is about their technical support.

Some sort of highly scalable platform, such as a private cloud, that can be distributed across a network quickly and grow rapidly, would be beneficial.

I believe that the overall user experience has not always been preferable.

I have been working with Forescout Platform since 2018.

I haven't had enough direct experience with the current project to know, but I know the federal government has a variety of various stages of Forescout deployment, but I believe it's just different versions of the CounterACTs appliances and such.

It has a place in terms of stability. I believe Forescout is likely to compete with other NAC tools used by agencies, such as Cisco ISE and new EDR tools that are entering the market. I believe, will be considered. But, overall, the asset management, is effective.

In terms of our deployment, it's basically just buying more CounterACT appliances whenever we need to scale up. It can be done, but it's not scalable in the way that a cloud deployment is, it's somewhere in the middle.

We have a large number of users, in our organization. 

It has been implemented in a large number of federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and the Treasury. It's quite large.

I believe that the current state should be maintained. I don't believe there are any major plans to increase our usage. Maybe just upgrades or future license upgrades, or something like that.

Technical support needs improvement. They are not very responsive to existing customers.

My interactions with them have been satisfactory, but I've heard from federal agencies that they had difficulties because they brought it to us.

When we arrived, Forescout was still in the process of being deployed. I don't believe they had the kind of capability that Forescout provides prior to our arrival. If anything, they had different NAC tools.

Because of the way it is deployed, the initial setup was complex.

I would rate the initial setup a three out of five.

It took a long time to complete. It's a massive deployment, depending on the agency, it could take at least six months to get it up and running and collect the data we require. Some of it is still ongoing.

To my knowledge, Forescout did the majority of the deployment.

We are Forescout Platform integrators, consultants, and partners.

Most agencies, I believe, have NAC engineers who manage it, and they most likely have training skillsets for it. I would say that most shops require two to three, three to four people to maintain.

In terms of ROI, I've never seen any data.

I don't have pricing information.

There are no additional costs that I am aware of.

They evaluated other solutions before choosing the Forescout Platform.

Before you begin deploying it, I would suggest that you define how you intend to use it. Just have an end state in mind so that you can build towards it and ensure you have all the functions you need for the design in place. Whatever you want to do with the data that comes out of it, try to define it first.

I would rate Forescout Platform a six out of ten.

I use the Forescout Platform for different customers from the enterprise, banking, and telecom sectors.

The solution's implementation and operation are very easy. The solution's GUI is very user-friendly. It doesn't have a lot of components. It has only one device or a few devices connected to one management with only one agent.

The solution's customer support is bad and should be improved. When our customers try to reach or discuss with the support team, they don't even answer.

I have been using Forescout Platform for two years.

I rate Forescout Platform a seven out of ten for stability.

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

The solution’s initial setup is very easy.

Overall, I rate Forescout Platform an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for network admission control. It manages the admission of endpoints to the networks.

Firstly, I like the stability. Secondly, the ease of deployment— it's not complex. Thirdly, there's a great support team that becomes actively engaged whenever we encounter issues. Their technical support is amazing. Fourthly, good documentation is available. We have detailed information about the product.

For sales purposes, the product has limitations. It does not support the TACACS+ protocol. This creates a need for another product to work with.

I have been using this solution for the past two and a half years.

The product is stable. Once you deploy it, you don't need to touch it again.

The solution is highly scalable. I currently use it for corporate use within my company and for other clients. We have three to four engineers for deployment and maintenance tasks.

We have rarely contacted customer service and support, as the website is straightforward.

The initial setup was straightforward and not complex. The deployment process took six weeks. It's shorter than the typical six months for similar products.

The deployment process involves an initial assessment, checking the security policy against the required tasks, preparing the network for deployment, and then the deployment itself.

I recommend using the solution because it gives verified control over the environment. It has a great visibility feature. Also, it gives visibility on what's happening on the network. Proceed with the prerequisites, particularly the initial assessment. It has to be conducted properly. Otherwise, the solution might not follow a straightforward path.

The first step is the initial assessment, followed by the second step of collecting clear requirements. Clarity in requirements is crucial because the solution can be directed in any direction you tell it to go. Therefore, you need to know exactly what you need to do. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

It enhances cybersecurity by allowing us to monitor and manage all connected devices on our network.

The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches. In addition to its comprehensive feature set, it focuses on AAA for enhanced security and network control.

Incorporating additional features such as NetFlow DLP, would serve as valuable add-ons. Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions.

I have been working with it for seven months.

I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

Scaling it poses no challenges or obstacles. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The deployment time varies based on the customer's network and its complexity. It could range from as little as five to seven days to one or two months, depending on factors such as the number of switches involved. I oversee a maintenance team comprising over 35 skilled individuals dedicated to network and security solutions. Our technical staff is well-rounded, with three experts specializing in Mac solutions, while others are adept in various network features such as routing and firewall management.

The pricing structure should be enhanced.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We're a financial institution with about 30,000 users. 

Forescout has a feature that blocks the endpoint at the point of collection. It sets preconditions and will block the system if those aren't met. 

Forescout needs to improve its cloud management and remote connectivity.

We have been using Forescout since 2018.

Forescout's scalability isn't robust or straighforward enough. You need to plan ahead and purchase the correct appliance before scaling up. You will be limited if you buy a smaller plan. 

You often need in-person support, so Forescout should invest more in training its customers. Customers need to be confident that they can service the solution themselves because it's often hard to get a technician to show up on-site. 

We also use FortiClient, depending on the use case. Both solutions are good.

Deploying Forescout is complex and takes about four hours. You have to configure the devices before you can send packets. If you miss any of those devices, the application endpoint security will be compromised  In other solutions, you don't need to start the configuration before you can access the network advice. It pushes a policy based on the outcome of the process.  

The price could be reduced. During COVID, many offices switched to remote work, but you still need to pay the same cost to renew the license even though workers are connecting remotely through one VPN.

I rate Forescout Platform six out of 10.