Barracuda Email Threat Scanner [EOL] Reviews

I use the solution to protect my email.

The product blocks out a lot of phishing and spam emails that are sent to the employees.

The fact that the product monitors and rates incoming emails is valuable to me. It puts a score against them. If an email has a score we aren’t comfortable with, it'll automatically quarantine or block it. It also does geo-location-based policies that block email from certain countries like Russia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and China. It is mostly based on the data the tool collects around the world from its customers.

The product must improve the features associated with creating a blacklist. Currently, to add a content block, I have to go to a different screen. It seems cumbersome.

The solution sells Impersonation as a separate product. I don’t see why it cannot be in the same product like other vendors have.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. It was easy to learn the product.

I have seen a return on investment in the product.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Barracuda Email Threat Scanner is a hybrid. It is deployed on-premises for devices and has a cloud-based control panel. We use the solution to review threats that might be contained in our emails.

The most valuable feature of Barracuda Email Threat Scanner is the security it provides by delaying the delivery of suspicious emails until they can be reviewed inside the Barracuda control panel. It keeps the mail inside the system unless it is deemed okay, and then can be sent to the client.

The pricing could be improved. Because the price is not affordable, we lease the solution through ISP. If the price were lower, perhaps we could purchase our own.

I have been using Barracuda Email Threat Scanner for five years.

The solution is stable.

Barracuda Email Threat Scanner is scalable. We can add and remove members with ease. We have approximately 350 users.

Overall, I would rate technical support from Barracuda a five out of five. 

Positive

The initial setup of Barracuda Email Threat Scanner is simple and user-friendly.

The solution is a bit expensive. I would rate it a four out of five based on affordability.

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

We are using this solution to filter spam mails. We have taken a rental subscription for 200 users from an IT service provider. We are using the latest version.

The main benefit that I am getting from this solution is that it filters almost 95% of my spam mail. 

• Spam Scoring, with Block or Quarantine actions
• IP Address Filtering
• Sender Domain Filtering
• Sender Email Address Filtering
• Recipient Filtering
• Content Filtering (Subject, Header and Body)
• Attachment Filtering
• Fingerprint Analysis
• Image Analysis
• Intent Analysis

Our most of communication tool was email. phishing mail was the biggest headache for me. So I decided to go with Barracuda email security gateway

Now, our infrastructure is safer, and as an IT person, I feel relaxed.

We had an incident last month where the PCs of one or two colleagues, who were outside of our factory and were using a defined network, got infected by some kind of malware. From their PCs, more than 1,000 mails were produced per hour, causing spamming on our mail server's IP. Barracuda blocked the full mail communication. Only one to two accounts were compromised, and for that, Barracuda blocked all incoming and outgoing mails. It created a great problem for other users and our office activities. Our mail server was partially blocked for three days, which we did not expected and suffered a lot. 

Technically, only one or two accounts should be blocked if those are compromised. When a domain or IP is blocked, communication becomes tough, mails are bounced by receiver server. It may be a configuration issue at our provider's end, where there was a mistake in configuring Barracuda. It could also be a problem related to Barracuda.

I have been using this solution for the last six months.

It is stable. I am very satisfied with its performance. It did block some mails that should not have been blocked. At that time, we had to manually change the list of blocked mails.

It scales well. We have 200 users.

I have not contacted them much.

We did not have to set it up on our premises. We have a rental subscription from a provider. They take the user list and configure the users in their server. We just had to change our DNS routing so that the incoming or outgoing emails go through the Barracuda server. Before using Barracuda, our server IP was the main IP for mail communication, but now the routing has changed. The incoming mails come through the Barracuda server, and the outgoing mails go via the Barracuda server after passing our server.

Barracuda Email Threat Scanner is provided by our IT service provider "MetroNet Bangladesh", who also provides Internet and Data link Support support for us. The licensing fee that we pay to our provider is $60.97 per month, that is, $0.33 per user per month. There is no additional cost.

Before taking the subscription from our provider, I researched the market for Barracuda. The cost is between $9,000 to $11,000 for three years. After that, the same cost is there for renewal. If you have 200 to 500 users, it is better to take a subscription from a provider. If you have more than 500 users, then you can own the Barracuda server through the cloud or on-premises deployments. It is costly for a lesser number of users. If you increase the usage or the number of users, then the overall cost decreases.

They can reduce the cost of Barracuda Email Threat Scanner for a small number of users. We could not and would not have used this solution if we had not got the renting or subscription option.

It works perfectly and decreases the spam counter by more than 95%.

I would rate Barracuda Email Threat Scanner a nine out of ten. I would rate it a ten if the cost was more user friendly for smaller user groups, and they improved on blocking only one or two compromised accounts rather than the whole server.