External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
I use Cisco Secure Access for Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), which provides me with secure identity-based access to applications and the internet from anywhere. I don't have to rely on traditional VPN architectures. Cisco Secure Access provides Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), Secure Web Gateway, Cloud Security Broker, and Firewall as a Service all into one platform, which is beneficial.
I use it for firewalling, security, and Zero Trust Network Access.
I have worked with Cisco AI Defense product and Cisco AI Access, focusing on control access and data protection for data in transport and stationary states.
I have used the AI Assistant, which is a Cisco feature where AI helps to automate redundant tasks so that I don't have to configure each small detail manually. It is a bulk configuration feature.
I have used Cisco Identity Intelligence, which provides User-ID and Content-ID based network access control. It uses protocols such as LDAP to authenticate with products such as Active Directory to authenticate users. It is a good feature and is already integrated.
From a feature perspective, I have not experienced any issues, drawbacks, or shortcomings. However, the cost of Cisco's products and licensing is high. My clients usually prefer cheaper options if possible. Mid-size or smaller businesses typically cannot afford Cisco Secure Access. Additionally, there is a steep learning curve, as it is very intensive. Someone with significant knowledge can work on it, but a new professional would have to spend considerable time to get accustomed to it. It is hard to find engineers who can work on it. Overall, we get what we pay for, as it is a pretty good feature and service.
The pricing of Cisco's products and licensing is higher than competitors. If they could be more reasonable, that would help. The support offered for two years also has higher costs. Overall, the client's IT budget gets affected.
I started using Cisco Secure Access when I was in the US, which was approximately five years ago.
From my experience, Cisco Secure Access is very stable and has not crashed. Cisco is renowned for their reliability, and their products perform well under high data usage. It is very resilient, and I have not seen it go down, crash, hang, or experience any other issues.
Cisco Secure Access is very scalable. It has high availability, so it can be deployed in pairs and scaled quickly.
The quality and speed of the support are very good. Cisco is excellent with their support. When I create a TAC case for any issue, they respond quickly and schedule a call. They help resolve issues as soon as possible through screen sharing. Cisco TAC is very competent.
Positive
I have not worked on the same offering from Palo Alto, so I cannot compare what is better there or here. What I appreciate about Cisco is that everything they do is precise and works well without any issues. I found that there are not many bugs. I have heard that Palo Alto has many bugs that need to be fixed and require a TAC case to resolve. In my experience with Cisco, I haven't had issues with bugs that I had to escalate. On the few occasions when there was a bug, the solution and patch usually fixed the issue, which they had already posted on their website indicating which patch version would resolve it. That is the advantage, as it works flawlessly.
I have not used Palo Alto's offering, so I cannot make a comparison. I have only used Cisco's.
Deploying Cisco Secure Access on the machine is very easy. If we follow the steps, they are seamless and run smoothly.
Policy verification is done before deploying, similar to Juniper's approach. With Cisco switches, if we put a command, it applies immediately without asking for confirmation. With Juniper, we have to put the command and then only after we hit commit does the command apply. Cisco Secure Access has the same feature where before applying the configuration, it verifies and checks if it would cause any issues and provides results based on that.
One person can complete the deployment.
It was challenging to learn because, as mentioned, it has a significant learning curve and requires considerable training to become proficient.
Cisco Secure Access regularly requires patches that need to be installed. During downtime or after hours, patches need to be applied. The system gets rebooted occasionally to clear caches and improve CPU performance.
I am not certain what VPN as a Service or VPNAaS means. I have not heard of this term.
Multi-organization might be a feature on Cisco Secure Access, but my clients are private companies that haven't merged with any other organizations, so they have their own devices and networks. I haven't used those features.
I would rate this product an 8 overall.
Cisco Secure Access provides application-level access. Usually, it's full network access, but with this tool, application-level access can be given. It removes the dependency of VPN, and then user authentications are continuously based on identity, device, and risk, which is an add-on there.
The Zero Trust Network Access feature is being used.
The integration of CASB functionality for exposing shadow IT within the company is smooth. Technical skill and knowledge are needed to evaluate, analyze, and deep dive on those things. From the tool's response, it is very good, and there is visibility on everything that is needed or necessary.
The integration of Cisco Talos influences threat detection and response capabilities. The integration of Cisco Talos is similar to every Cisco Umbrella, and the experience has been smooth. The knowledge, their KB, and FAQs are very good, and their support is very good. When in trouble, readily available documents or information are accessible.
Positive
I support the US government. From a customer perspective, the use cases tend to be where we are guarding edge devices that we don't have necessarily 100% positive command and control. The devices have data transport that traverses in some cases ISPs, so we can't really control who's adjacent to those networks. We often deploy in those types of environments. Where we can use dark fiber, we prefer to, but that's not always an option.
I'm probably pretty agnostic with respect to that. We have a federal mandate to reach these next-generation firewall requirements. Stateful packet inspection and things of that nature are the things that we're interested in. We have some programs adjacent to us that definitely do that, but my programs don't require that.
We get a significant discount with Cisco, and their support is definitely top-rate.
Cisco does a decent job with logging. Sometimes you may need to tweak a few settings, but with their more recent products that support Python and Java among others, you now have more programmatic control in the latest versions of IOS.
If the FTD devices themselves, the Firepower Threat Detection system, those are the firewalls themselves, the individual appliances, weren't so tightly coupled to FMC, I'd probably appreciate them as a product more. The learning curve was a little higher just because it's a large departure from their original ASA devices. If they could be managed individually as easily as they can be managed through FMC, I'd probably be a bigger fan.
I have used Cisco products for decades at this point. With respect to ASAs and FTDs, FTDs are fairly new, but I have used ASAs for the better part of a decade.
It is definitely top-rate. In fact, I know that my particular group didn't even have a service agreement in place for the better part of a year and those guys were still very responsive to emails and communications.
Positive
We've been using them so long, it's hard to remember being a newbie, but I don't find their products particularly hard to set up. They have great documentation.
In our deployments, all of our web-based access to any of those devices is actually cut off. We do everything through a secure socket. The only situation where we are compelled to use a web interface is for the FMC, specifically for configuration; however, our management is primarily conducted at the console level whenever possible.
We don't find them hard to manage, especially as a group. The bigger challenge was managing them outside of their FMC product. They prefer to be federated to some extent, and they really weren't designed to be individually managed. They prefer to be managed from a central location. But if you have an environment that lends itself to central management, for the most part, it's not an issue.
We acquire through an organization, and we are the ones that implement.
Price-wise, we get a significant discount with Cisco. I actually prefer Juniper products. From a professional perspective, I prefer Palo Alto and Juniper probably more than I do anybody else. But I can't make the argument when we get 50% and 60% discounts, which we don't get from Juniper or Palo Alto.
Because we operate with what could only be called a skeleton crew, a monitoring solution to the extent possible is dependent heavily on logging, which these applications allow. We do a heavy amount of logging and we do a great deal of log parsing through ELK stack and SolarWinds and Splunk. Any tool that provides telemetry through logging is a particularly good fit for us because we have to really automate our monitoring. We don't have the manpower to sit there and look at multiple applications and things on a regular basis. It all has to come to a central location and has to be pretty automated, red light, green light type stuff.
If you have the budget, make sure to get a solid understanding of what's out there. There might be some other products that you might prefer, but if your budget is constrained, you can make it work with Cisco products for sure.
I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.
For Cisco Secure Access, my main use cases are the DNS functionality. Previously, we used Umbrella in the DNS stack functionality, and currently, we are using Cisco Secure Access.
Cisco Secure Access benefits my company by being a platform that integrates more than one solution, making it possible for us to have other solutions in the same platform, allowing us to manage SWG, the DNS part, and firewall.
The feature of Cisco Secure Access I appreciate the most is the DNS functionality. It's the main function that we are using currently.
The impact Cisco Secure Access has on protecting my company from threats such as phishing and ransomware is significant.
We utilize it extensively, especially the DNS part, which is very important. Even when we educate our users, the attackers become more advanced each day. They sometimes can use emails and other methods to attempt to attack our company, and Cisco Secure Access can help us protect our users, especially with the incredible DNS part.
The best part of managing Cisco Secure Access through its single cloud management console is that we can purchase as needed and add more products to this platform as necessary, within our budget.
My perception of Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally the QUIC protocol, is that the platform is very complete, and the objective is to deliver a full stack of resources regarding security. We are offering this solution to our clients, and the adoption rate is incredibly high. They are very satisfied.
I have noticed that in recent years, particularly over the last year, Cisco has significantly improved the platform by consolidating more solutions within the Cisco Secure Access ecosystem. It is important for Cisco to bring more products. For us and our clients, it is easier to have a single pane of glass to manage all the solutions when discussing security. The platform being in the cloud also makes it easier as we don't have to have something on-premise in our environment for the solution.
We have numerous integrations, including Splunk and other solutions that can be integrated into the same platform. This is particularly beneficial when discussing the solution's benefits.
The worst part was the migration from Umbrella to Cisco Secure Access; we experienced some difficulties during that process.
Improving Cisco Secure Access is difficult for me to discuss in detail as I'm not the administrator of the platform.
I have been using Cisco Secure Access for more than two years, since it was launched.
Regarding the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access, at least in Brazil, we don't hear about availability or stability problems. If a client has issues with the internet connection, it might not be the best way to deliver the solutions, however, this is a worldwide situation. We don't have problems with internet connections, especially in the offices, so it is not a problem.
Cisco Secure Access scales effectively with the growing needs of my company because we are talking about a cloud solution. It is easy to scale as necessary, especially when we discuss the DNS functionalities.
We turn the traffic to the Cisco Secure Access cloud, and we can manage and apply the policies that are necessary, making it very easy to scale the solution.
I don't have direct experience with customer service and technical support, as I don't work in the administration of the solution. TAC is a worldwide service recognized as fantastic. We also have experience with other hardware and software, and my understanding of it is good. It provides good service.
Positive
My company did not consider other solutions before choosing Cisco Secure Access. We are a Cisco partner.
However, our clients always evaluate other solutions. We work extensively to show the value of the solution since we have competitors, however, Cisco Secure Access has the advantage of delivering multiple solutions in the same single pane of glass.
We had a migration from Cisco Umbrella. There were some problems. However, the process now is easier as the solution is in the cloud and we can add more solutions and activate them in the portal. It's easy now.
The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is consolidating multiple solutions into a single pane of glass. We have competitors offering alternative solutions; however, they don't deliver the same level of integration as Cisco, which consolidates all solutions simultaneously through a single console.
Regarding pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Cisco Secure Access, being from Brazil, the cost for us is a very important point. Sometimes we show the solution for our clients, but the price can be problematic.
We try to overcome this challenge by presenting the value and importance, especially for today's infrastructure to have more security, avoiding downtime, loss of data, and similar issues. The Cisco products are amazing, but especially in Brazil, when discussing the price, it remains a challenge.
We're a Cisco partner.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Secure Access a nine.
Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access are security and managing access.
Zero Trust Network Access has helped my organization in securing standard applications because it's mandated to have it. It provides peace of mind knowing that we have that deployed in our network.
Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally, QUIC protocol is good. It complies with the new standards.
The impact of Cisco Secure Access on protecting my organization from phishing and ransomware threats has been good so far. We've been doing well with no threats.
The features of Cisco Secure Access that I most prefer are easy management or manageability, and overall security. Cisco Secure Access has benefited my organization by allowing people to connect 24/7, ensuring reliability. Managing Cisco Secure Access through its single cloud-managed console is easy.
Cisco Secure Access can be improved with more integration; the more integrations, the better. There are always third-party products that you might have, such as Carbon Black.
I've been using Cisco Secure Access for a few years now. They changed the name, though I'm not certain when the name change occurred. I would estimate at least a few years of usage.
I would assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access as overall good. I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues.
Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of my organization. It adapts each year as more people and devices are getting connected. The process of increasing usage is smooth.
I would rate them an eight out of ten because it's always hard to get very good resources immediately. It always takes escalations to get someone who really knows how to help out. I feel good about the customer service.
Positive
We switched from Palo Alto.
I was not a part of the deployment.
We have seen ROI with Cisco Secure Access. We had to switch from a different product, and there was a significant cost reduction. We're able to get many of the licenses down compared to the previous product that we used. We had many more licenses before moving to Cisco Secure Access.
For what you get, it's a fair price in comparison to other products.
We are, in general, a Cisco shop. We went for it because it integrates with the rest of the Cisco products that we have. We didn't consider other solutions.
My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Access is that they should definitely give it a try. It's overall a good product. If you have other Cisco products, it integrates efficiently, and if you need any visibility or easy manageability, it's a very good product.
Cisco Secure Access overall is a great product. I would rate it an eight out of ten.
Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access include everything, such as all of our switching and wireless.
I mostly work on the level one switching side. I deal with all the Catalyst 9300 switches and 9280 wireless routers.
It's pretty streamlined. Everything you need to find is in the GUI interface, and if you have any trouble, it's easy to navigate and get around.
Cisco Secure Access has had a positive impact on protecting our organization from threats such as phishing and ransomware. It provides security and adds additional layers.
I perceive Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally QUIC protocol, as great and secure.
The licensing is confusing.
I have been using Cisco Secure Access for only a year since joining the company last year. However, the company has been using it for almost ten years.
We have not had any downtime.
Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of my organization. It works effectively for our needs.
I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten. They are quick to respond and generally quick to find a resolution and figure out what's wrong.
Positive
I have not used another solution to address similar needs in another role.
It was already in place when I got here.
It is confusing. When you look at the prices, you have different licensing and years of licensing that you have to purchase. Additionally, it's unclear what service you get from those licenses regarding end-user support. We have a representative who has to walk me through it every time.
The advice I would give to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Access is to implement it as it's pretty straightforward.
I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine out of ten.
The main use cases for Cisco Secure Access involve secure access to the network, as they've had some history with malware, ransomware, and things like that. They are focused on better control for remote users and access to the network.
The ease of use for end users is always a big deal. We don't want to make it too hard for them. We're currently working on an end-to-end secure access solution. We are invested in Cisco, but there are other vendors involved as well, and trying to develop a holistic strategy has been a challenge for us. We have to avoid over-securing to the point where it becomes problematic, as too many hoops for users to jump through is always a challenge. It has to be easy because if it's not easy to use, they won't use it or will find back doors to it, which is a problem. That's where we're at with it.
It works well. It hasn't broken. While I don't know enough about all the features yet, it hasn't caused us any problems.
This is my first time in healthcare after being in commercial space for a long time. It's always a challenge because we can't just turn stuff off as we could in the commercial space, since it may interfere with patient care. It takes longer to understand what's going on, so anything that could help give us a faster understanding of what's happening, why it's there, and if it's a risk to us would be helpful. We don't have any good tools right now, which is a problem.
I have been using Cisco Secure Access for two months or so.
Cisco Secure Access has been good for stability and reliability; it hasn't crashed in the two months I've been using it.
We have a dedicated account team, so we've got all the people we need to engage with if there's an issue. It makes deploying in a larger enterprise a very easy choice. Having that backing is a comfort because, for more point-specific products or vendors, if you don't know who's going to stand behind them after you turn the lights on, that can be a concern. Cisco ensures support for the technology you use.
Positive
You have to have a good ROI and a compelling story with finance; I've definitely seen that. I came from Amazon, so it was a complete 180-degree turn. Not to say that there were unlimited funds at Amazon, but you didn't have to tell the story as richly. I was on the fulfillment side. Even if it didn't seem fully vetted, but appeared to make sense or had potential to improve speed and delivery, they bid on it pretty early.
It's different here. They want it thoroughly vetted with a deeper ROI. We need to understand the cost of an hour of outage at a hospital, which, at least here, they don't know. However, at Amazon, we knew exactly how much it would cost if a fulfillment center was down for an hour. We have to do a better job of that in our organization, and once we can clarify those points, we will achieve some of the wins needed to get things done.
Cisco is a rock-solid company and a leader in the network space, and I believe they will always provide the right level of support.
I would rate Cisco Secure Access an eight out of ten.
Our business is in energy. We are using it to provide protection for different remote energy sites and for all the data that we transfer from the solar, wind, and hydrocarbon sites.
Cisco Secure Access interacts pretty easily with another platform that we have in place. The interaction with other platforms has been pretty easy. This was the reason for implementing this product.
Cisco Secure Access has protected our company against threats such as phishing or ransomware, as we have seen it successfully address various cybersecurity vulnerabilities. In the next couple of years, we are aware of an increase in attacks or other risks, with Cisco continually improving its protective measures for customers.
The integration with Cisco Talos has influenced our organization's threat detection and response capabilities positively, as we collect different data information not only for operations but also for purposes such as VIPs and information detection records that we have in storage. We have seen it interact pretty well with the data that we use for different purposes.
The firewall section for IDP is the most used for remote sites. It fits better with all the data we're collecting from the protection site and the information that we provide to another customer.
We have implemented the Zero Trust Network Access feature of Cisco Secure Access in our OT environment, which is the operational section or protection network. From my perspective, Cisco Secure Access has helped our company in securing standard applications with a rating of nine out of ten.
In my opinion, Cisco Secure Access could be improved by potentially incorporating features that other brands have been using. I see benefits from features offered by competitors, which could enhance the Cisco experience if adapted thoughtfully.
I have been using Cisco Secure Access for around seven years.
The stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access are very stable.
Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of our company. If Cisco continues to offer improvements every year with its products, we would be inclined to renew our solution each year. However, if we feel that the product doesn't meet our expectations, we are open to change.
My experience with customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Access has been good. We deal with different products in the US, Europe, and Latin America. We believe that the level of customer support has met our expectations.
Positive
We used another brand previously, which offered protection at a level but had its limitations, leading us to elaborate on choosing Cisco for the better offerings it provides.
We have third-party vendors. It is a good option to get implementation support from Cisco.
We have a hybrid deployment model with the AWS cloud.
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is the security it provides, and I believe the best word to describe it is best security, ensuring our protection.
The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access have been very competitive compared to other platforms. I believe that if Cisco continues to improve costs or offers something similar to a Cisco credit, it would attract more customers.
We have been implementing different tools over the past months for protection and security against AI and new technology coming from the cloud.
In terms of Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2 and optionally QUIC protocol, I expect that Cisco will improve these features and protocols over the next couple of years. I expect that Cisco will continue to prove itself as we see other technologies doing similar work.
Overall, I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine out of ten.
Positive
Positive