If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Cisco Web Security Appliance, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
It is important to be confident in the solution even though it is new because any challenges are minor. The solution is one of the best enterprise-based products in the market and is not expensive compared to others. The solution is not perfect because it has transparent proxy issues so I rate it a nine out of ten.
To be honest, nobody should consider on-premises anymore. It's a different world. There is now a cloud presence, and if Cisco WSA cloud presence matches what I know of Zscaler, you can basically go anywhere in the world and your laptop is forced to use it. Then you have coverage and monitoring. If it meets your requirements, the person who is interested should use it. If it does not meet your personal criteria, they should look for a different solution; today is a different world, and I believe everyone works from home. We are no longer working on-premises. If you work from home, you have two options: force people to connect to the network via VPN. If you force people to use the VPN, you can force them to use a WSA in Cisco on-premises. I'm not familiar with the WSA cloud, but if you could force them to go directly to the cloud from your home, it's well worth considering. That's fantastic, in my opinion. Cloud definitely alters the dynamic here. It's borderless nowadays, with thoughts on everyone flowing through the inside. They need to be more open about borderless, and it appears that they are. I would rate Cisco Web Security Appliance an eight out of ten, because, for one thing, we had issues with the reporting and didn't like the stripped-down version of the reporter. The other is that they were not in the cloud at the time, but I believe they are now.
We're a customer and end-user. I'd advise users to give the solution a try. It's a very easy-to-use product and everything is working without any issue with the appliance. I would recommend others to use it. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
We are a Cisco partner and a reseller. We're integrating with the Cisco ISE as well. We bought the licenses for malware as well and then integrated them with the AD. That's been the new authentication for the users when they go into the internet with a specified group. I’d recommend the solution. The support from Cisco is excellent. Through my years working with Cisco, I would always recommend Cisco, any product that they provide, thanks to my years of experience. I have, for the past six or seven years, deployed different types of deployments and I would say Cisco support is excellent. I have met a lot of good, skilled people in terms of support along the way. Especially on ISE as that's one of the more difficult products. It works very well for what the client actually wants to achieve. You have put the policies in place according to the client’s needs. ISE helps ensure the policies are in place and working. We have logs, we have evidence. As long as you put ISE in, it's going to tell you all the issues that you're having with your AD. If it's not configured properly, even if you’ve been running it for 15 years, you'll know. We can show how things may not be configured properly and how to fix them. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
We have compared other solutions for security such as Forcepoint, Barracuda Networks, Symantec as we are considering moving away from using this solution. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
My organization has been using the solution for over a year now. I think it is a fantastic solution. The selling point was the DNS functionality. I will rate it 8 of 10.
We are using the latest version of the solution, however, I cannot speak to the exact version number. I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's an okay solution that needs better stability. I would recommend the solution to other companies and organizations.
I would recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of six.
Implementation has to be done right, it's very important. It's not enough just to connect it — that won't make the traffic go through. You have to really think about how you want to route the traffic. It's for HTTP and HTTPS. Speaking of HTTPS, you have to consider the well-done proxying, otherwise, you will be breaking internet security because you'll have issues with the certificates, et cetera. So you have to do a very well-planned integration. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. Security-wise, it's a great product.
In the future, we plan to use it in the cloud when there is a Cisco solution available, depending on the market and the purchasing power of the customers. I would rate this solution an eight out ten.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Cisco Web Security Appliance an 8.
Try it. See how it works, it's not difficult to implement and it's not so expensive. I would recommend it. I would rate it a ten out of ten. In the next release, I would like to see reporting to implement more features. The license should also be more flexible.
My advice for anybody who is researching this appliance is to first determine exactly what it is that they require. There are a lot of applications and features but many of the features are useless for the organization. For example, if they do not need the DDoS features then they shouldn't get them and pay the additional fee. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
You need a fair comparison with other solutions to judge and compare others fairly. I have only used Cisco and would not be able to provide a fair assessment. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I use this product and implement it. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate this solution a six out of ten.
I will rate this solution a nine out of ten. I hope to see the next release being more affordable and better integration between platforms.