Symantec Secure Web Gateway Reviews

I find the product to be very straightforward. I just install it and forget it as it continuously monitors traffic. It has a super easy interface for allowing and blocking on the fly if needed. These technologies are designed to work in a particular fashion. Most of the time, it might block a legitimate URL, even if there is nothing malicious in that URL. 

However, there is a facility to raise a request to my IT department to unblock it. IT administrators and network administrators can easily allow a URL temporarily or permanently without much hassle.

Typically, Symantec is more or less like any other platform that performs proxy functions. There is not much difference, except in how they handle threats, which is different from others.

AI-driven security could be helpful, yet how effective it will be remains unclear. I plan to evaluate whatever new features they bring in.

I have used the solution for about five to seven years.

I find that the technical support is mediocre, at least for the Middle East. 

I frequently face challenges when contacting OpenStack through the distribution channel. It should be more straightforward. I notice that customers work with partners, not directly with Symantec, relying on local company integrators for support. 

Symantec becomes the level two or level three support, which requires navigating through a supply chain that is quite extensive.

Neutral

I believe that pricing is on par with peers. Symantec and other vendors offer discounts when cutting a deal with a customer.

Depending on the vendor's research lab strength, some, like Trellix, have fortified labs for threat hunting and research. It's unclear how Symantec compares, especially since it is now owned by Broadcom, which has a different business focus. I recommend it as a cost-effective or budget-friendly product. 

Overall product rating: seven out of ten

We use Symantec Secure Web Gateway to apply URL policies for cloud security, data protection, and SSL.

The product is easy to deploy. It has a faster implementation process compared to other products.

The platform’s data center is not capable of managing most of the traffic.

We have been using Symantec Secure Web Gateway for two years.

Sometimes, our account gets logged out from the data center. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

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

The initial setup process is easy. The deployment time depends on specific firewall rules and IT and data requirements.

Symantec Secure Web Gateway is less expensive than Zscaler.

I rate Symantec Secure Web Gateway a six out of ten. If you want a budget-friendly product, I recommend it. However, if you have a strong financial budget, I recommend Zscaler and Netskope.

We use it on our user's computers at home and in the office. We do not use it on servers, clouds, or our secure development environment.

Some of the features have been inconsistent since Broadcom bought it. For example, online user interfaces and licensing management have gotten too complicated.

It's not user-friendly, and we end up making too many phone calls to get things fixed. Furthermore, rebuilding machines and managing the licenses is an immense pain. In addition, the website is not very good.

Another issue is that they force us to go through dealers. We used to be able to pay directly, and we can't do that anymore. In addition, you can't go to Symantec Secure Web Gateway, which adds another layer of complexity.

We have been using this solution for more than ten years and simultaneously use it with Comodo. We use Symantec Secure Web Gateway's latest version but only Comodo in some systems. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

We don't use it on our servers. We have about 42 people using this solution in our Swedish office. Everyone except our secure development and security teams uses this solution. Our IT group manages the maintenance.

Our IT team deals with the technical support team.

We've always used Symantec Secure Web Gateway and started using Comodo after. We also have other antivirus and security software products that we use. The reason we simultaneously use Comodo is that it does virtualization. If it identifies something suspicious, it contains it, but Symantec Secure Web Gateway does not do that, so we use Comodo to boost it.

We can push it out easily, so that's good. Once we get it set up, we have to do a system rebuild, and the licensed recycling is the problem. We like to use it on web browsers to do safe URL tracking. The installation goes into a standard image and is not a problem. We did the installation in-house.

I do not have specific details about our licensing costs.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten because of the usability issues and the cost of extra IT time to deal with the problems. The product is good, but I wish Symantec Secure Web Gateway would fix its web portal and license.

As a proxy, there are many features are available that benefit the customers. This includes caching, the security appliance, the cloud of service, and many other features.

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The reports could be better. For example, the report is installed on the VMware Virtual Appliance. It must support other things like HighBar RE, et cetera.

The cost has risen and it is more expensive than it used to be.

There is not any reporting on the central appliance. If a new developer can add basic reporting, and real-time monitoring, it would be ideal. There is no real-time monitor. It'll be a great enhancement if Symantec can add a real-time monitor to the appliance. Other competitors have a real-time monitor on them. 

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it for ten years. 

As of implementation, we have not had any issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable and stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is friendly. Once we open a ticket we get a quick response from the team. 

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

We have our technical teams that do all the implementation. We are investing in them as well in order to handle future implementations.

After the new pricing and licensing model, it's very expensive.

I'm a reseller. We are a Platinum Partner.

It's a very good solution. I've used it for a decade and am overly pleased with it. 

For bandwidth management, I'd rate it nine out of ten. However, for security, maybe seven or eight out of ten.

One major use case is to allow internet access for some specific sites for all users without authentication. Normally, in our environment, before you go to the internet, we need to grant internet access to your account.

Another use case is where there are some sites that people can go through only from inside the office, but they should not authenticate. We don't want to grant them internet access, but we want them to be able to go to the site. We could easily configure those sites, and the users do not require authentication for them. 

We also used it to block or restrict some sites during the day so that these sites are not able to affect people during their work hours. We were also able to exempt some users from any restriction. People with the manager and higher roles could go to the internet, whereas the access was restricted for people who were not managers.

It is easy to manage. The graphical user interface is quite easy to navigate, and we don't have any difficulty in using it. It is a good solution.

The major challenge is their support. The support from Broadcom is quite poor. It takes forever for them to get back to you, and when they get back to you, they ask you for so much information, which makes it more difficult. That's the only problem I have with Broadcom. This is one of the reasons why we are switching to another solution. Another reason for switching is that we have a plan to adopt solutions in the cloud so that we can offload the administration efforts to the vendor.

In future releases, they can improve its reporting and the process for rules creation. They can also improve Broadcom on things such as security information and event management so that from my same platform, I can carry out functions and probably block websites. Such a feature would be nice. Currently, Broadcom is integrated with McAfee to block access to certain sites automatically. It would be nice if they can expand their integration to IBM Resilient Security Orchestration and Automation Response.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable.

The plan that we bought can support a significant number of users. Our number of users has not grown significantly over time. We have a license for 2,500 users.

I am not satisfied with their technical support. The support from Broadcom is quite poor. It takes forever for them to get back to you, and when they get back to you, they ask you for so much information. With other vendors, if you have a problem, you raise a ticket, whereas the Broadcom support team will have a remote session with you to get the information they require. They will ask you series of questions and want you to answer them. Some of them are difficult to answer. 

We used to use a Microsoft solution. We switched because it was not meeting our requirements.

I wasn't a part of the initial installation.

I would rate Symantec Secure Web Gateway a seven out of ten.

We use this product on all of the traffic that is going outside of the organization. It is used for the blocking of websites, as well as SSL interception and authentication for HTTP and HTTPS requests.

The most valuable features are the website blocking capability and SSL interception.

The interface could be made more user-friendly. As it is, we have trouble when we want to do certain operations, such as choosing when and what we want to block or allow. For example, we don't want to block WhatsApp, but we do want to block uploads. This means that we have to enter some codes. It's not like you can just drag and drop, as we have seen in other security solutions.

Another example is on the main page. When you're logged into the device using HTTPS, you still have to go to another link to access the policy manager. When you are redirected to another function, it loads very slowly. 

We have been working with the Symantec Secure Web Gateway for one year.

Stability-wise it is okay.

Although we have not had specific problems with scalability, it could be more straightforward in terms of administration. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten and I think that it is an area that could be improved.

There are three or four people in the company who operate this device administratively, and the traffic for all of the users go through it.

I have not personally been in touch with technical support. One of my colleagues has spoken with them, but our support is with a partner and not Symantec directly.

I was not on the team when it was deployed but my understanding is that the initial setup was straightforward.

There is an additional charge for advanced security features.

We are planning to replace Symantec with another product, so we are currently in the process of evaluating others.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to check the market because traditional proxy servers are becoming a thing of the past. Most web security servers are already in the cloud so I think that the normal flow of web traffic will not be examined internally. Also, for remote users, I think that it is better to use virtual, cloud-based platforms.

Overall, this product is okay and it does that job that it is supposed to do. At the same time, I think that other products that have comparative features and are more user-friendly. They are outdated when it comes to presentation.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is deploying the product as a web security gateway in conjunction with the Symantec client.  

There are definitely considerable problems with this solution. Most notably, compared to Cisco Umbrella it was a lot more difficult to deploy. The deployment process should definitely be significantly simplified.  

The service pack file system should also be improved or even abandoned. The way the packed files are set up could definitely be better and maybe they do not have to be deployed that way at all. There are better solutions which is demonstrated by the fact that other products and companies no longer handle updates this way. They do it in a way that is easier to handle.  

I have been using the Symantec Complete Website Security solution for about six months.  

The stability so far for the solution is very hit-and-miss. It has required a lot of fine-tuning over time.  

Scalability is not really any major issue. It is quite scalable. If we need to do more deployments, we just add them.  

I, personally, have not contacted the Symantec technical support for this product, but my colleagues have. I think the technical process is a bit long-winded and drawn out. The reason for that is that each time there is an issue we have to go through our supplier first and then we get to speak to Symantec. Obviously, in that chain there is a bit of unnecessary delay when we might be better off getting straight through to the source without an intermediate step.  

While we are currently using this tool from Symantec, I prefer Cisco Umbrella which we use with our guest and staff wifi. Cisco Umbrella is very easy to deploy. All the user has to do is point a service to Cisco's DNS service, and the deployment is pretty much complete. You can have it up and running in 10 minutes.  

The deployment process is ongoing as we are still finding problems with it. I would say we are looking at about a couple of months to really complete the process of setup. That is with four people involved in the deployment process. It was entirely too long.  

My advice to anyone considering this Symantec product as a solution is to first do a proof of concept. Do not roll it out completely. Doing the proof of concept makes you sure that you can target all of the different devices and complete the setup for your environment.  

The biggest lesson we have learned from working with this solution so far is that I now think the idea of a service pack file is a bit antiquated and Symantec needs to come away from that mindset. There are existing products that do not use it. That is where we have the biggest issues with the product when we do have issues with it. When we do have those issues, we have experienced complete outages within the whole organization. So I would definitely not recommend it over Cisco Umbrella as we have not experienced any similar issues with Umbrella.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a six-and-a-half. If I have to choose a whole number I would round it down to the lower end — or a six in that case.  

To become better rated — at least nine — they definitely have to start with the idea of changing the service pack file concept and resolving that issue while moving into something more fluid. If they will fix that, the product could be rated at closer to a nine. But that it causes catastrophic issues is unacceptable. If they got rid of the service packs completely and use technology similar to Cisco Umbrella, that would likely resolve those issues.  

It is a web-based proxy - it's a cloud proxy.

Its use case is mostly for customers who need URL filtering, who need a proxy for blocking access to different websites, and ICAP if the proxy supports it.

The functionality is exactly the as same as ProxySG, Symantec's Blue Coat on-prem proxy, but the benefit is that the infrastructure doesn't have to be managed. You don't have to patch it, you don't have to do anything.

In terms of the most valuable features, I like the ICAP capability and URL filtering the most - these are what most people look for when they look at a proxy, whether on the cloud or on-premise. The authentication is also valuable. 

They should have a tool to help with the deployment. It is needed to point all the clients to the proxy.

I don't think either vendor has a deployment tool as such.

Also, Zscaler has something called the Zscaler Internet Access which also acts as a signin box on the next-generation firewall. WSS doesn't do this.

For website security, I worked with it for only a year when I was in Symantec. We supported a few customers who had purchased this product.

In terms of stability, it's fine. We have never had downtime because availability is AWS' responsibility because it is hosted on their servers. So availability is not an issue.

I have never had any issues with scalability or availability because both are using a good back-end infrastructure.

I used to be a part of Symantec so I did work in tech support. Even as a partner, I've been contacting them.

Their technical support is okay. Depending on the severity of the issue, I think they can be a bit slow - a few days for the low severity cases, but for the severe cases normally they contact you back in a couple of hours.

The configuration is pretty straightforward for both vendors. It's plug and play. Because they give you access to the cloud console, as soon as you log in you can get started. If you have all the clients pointing to the cloud proxy then it's just plug and play.

Symantec Complete Website Security works similar to Zscaler, but I think Zscaler is better. For a web-based proxy, I think Zscaler would be my top choice, based on the feedback I have personally received from my customers. The problem with Complete Website Security is with the dot com transition and dealing with Symantec is becoming a problem right now. I think it will be okay in February but for now, I think Zscaler is the best cloud proxy.

On a scale of 1 - 10, I'd rate it a six or seven due to a lack of features compared to its competition.

We manage it through the cloud and it's deployed that way too.

Our primary use case is for our signature-based tool for antivirus. It adds value. 

It's nice to have it in the cloud where we can pull the reporting together for it so we can see what's happening in machines at different locations. That's the most valuable feature. We have it all over so we can see if something had gone wrong with it.

One of the problems with using Symantec is that it's widely known and the people who are making malware have designed to circumvent it. You have to keep that in mind. The other thing that I find is a weakness is that it doesn't give you a statement so you don't have an ability to really test something to see if something's suspicious because if it is, it might have a payload that could disable Symantec and get through it. I'm always more concerned about that. This is one of the reasons we separate it from our Comodo.

It needs to be easier to set up rules for what sites it should allow or not allow us in certain areas of our computer for programs. It would also be nice really nice to have it give you better information about what it's finding. A lot of the alerts we get are very difficult to understand what it's actually telling you. It's too generic.

It is stable.

We don't have any problems with scalability. We have around 40 users. The IT department of three people is responsible for deployment and maintenance. They are a network admin and in security. 

Their technical support is so-so. 

We have used a few different solutions before, like McAfee. There are several that we're using concurrently. Even right now we have some different sections in the company that use different products. We switched because we wanted to standardize our business administration and corporate functions.

We used IT people for the deployment so we didn't have any problems with the setup. The deployment doesn't take long. You just click on a link and it's pretty much fine.

For general business purposes this is a good product. It works on Windows platforms. If you need something on other platforms, you may need to look for something else.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Our company is both a partner and a reseller of this solution. The primary use case is for endpoint security for our customers. We have lots of security devices, but for the host itself or PCs in general, this is the best solution. Especially since we have a sizeable customer base.

There have been several incidents in which our IPS system or sometimes our firewalls, haven't been able to stop endpoint device attacks. Thanks to Symantec Endpoint Security it has actually quarantined and stopped many of these threats and potential attacks on the local PCs. Especially because that's from the end user side.

The most valuable feature is the endpoint security.

There's a need for increased firewall functionality and capabilities. I'm not seeing a competitive Symantec cloud product. Specifically, functionalities with security as filtering from the cloud. I am aware that there is a product, a proxy in the cloud but I have compared it with other vendors and I don't find it that powerful.

I think the worst thing that we're experiencing is very poor and inadequate technical support. It seems to me that tech support engineers aren't qualified to fulfill their job duties.

The major requirement is a firewall. That's the only thing we're lacking now.

There are too many bugs.

The scalability is poor. Nowadays a cloud solution is considered scalable in most respects. Our finding is Symantec still has a long way to go to achieve a good cloud solution.

The technical support is not that apt and not that good.

We've tried other endpoint security solutions but this tool seems to be the best when specifically comparing the endpoint security features.

The initial setup depends on the complexity of the project.

The maintenance of the equipment requires about thirty techs.

Pricing and licensing is stunted and licensing is expensive. We have many customers who are now thinking about other solutions due to the cost.

On a scale of one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'd give this solution a six out of ten. Primarily because of the lack of flexibility with technical support and because of the out-of-date features resulting in missing functionalities.