Cisco Duo Reviews

We are still implementing the solution and are not in full production mode yet. We implemented Duo Security in comparison with ICE, and we use it to secure our environments. It helps us authenticate users that use our network devices.

We hope to increase our security posture with Duo Security.

I like the set time that users can log into devices during the day and how many times they can do so. I also like the ability to restrict the regions from which the user can get in. Users outside of our country or even the town cannot log in.

I would like to see Duo Security increase the time that the users have to log into the devices. The maximum time interval is 15 minutes at the moment, and I would like it to be 60 minutes.

When you try to log into a device and have to authenticate yourself, sometimes it's not very pleasant. It's not the best thing particularly if you have to do this every 15 minutes, which is the maximum time that Duo gives. This makes it difficult to use and does not save time.

I've been working with Duo Security for six months.

So far, we haven't had any issues with stability.

My experience with technical support has been generally good, but sometimes, there is a delay in getting answers. I would rate them at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Positive

Duo Security was easy to set up. It took us almost a week to read the manual and understand what we have to implement to go into production.

Duo Security is very helpful and fits what we were looking for to satisfy the requirements of our security office. On a scale from one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate Duo Security at eight.

We have implemented it in our organization, and we also implement it for our clients. Duo Security is used to push multi-factor authentication while signing onto computers. We have integrated it with on-premises Active Directory, Azure Active Directory, and Office 365. We have also integrated Duo Security with Mimecast and Mac devices. We have a couple of other use cases, but predominantly, it is for multi-factor authentication. It verifies the identity of a user through a token or a mobile phone app.

It is pretty seamless for establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from. There is logging everywhere. So, if something did happen, you can see everything. In terms of getting conditional access in Azure AD, once you have it set up properly, it just works as expected. They have a huge application inventory that you can integrate with to get that established. They're one of the top vendors.

It is seamless with an easy-to-use portal. It has a lot of automation in there to onboard users and get them to talk with the Duo system. Once they're in the Duo system, it really comes down to what applications they need to get access to, and they're off to the races. They do a great job on that.

It helps support hybrid work. It is very important to have something like that in place because when you are in a hybrid environment, you lose some visibility and control. Having Duo Security in place, you can analyze all different authentication logs and anything else that applications might be interacting with. You can quickly pinpoint and troubleshoot something if an issue comes up.

It is seamless in maintaining network connectivity. In terms of its uptime, in the last couple of years, I can't think of how many times it ever went down. It has to be a very high SLA. It is consistent in maintaining network connectivity across all workplaces, such as campus, branch, home, and micro-office environments.

It helps to remediate threats more quickly. With application logs, it definitely starts to point you in the right direction to figure things out instead of hunting in a bunch of different directions. In a single pane of glass, you can very quickly see which IP address it was coming from and who was trying to initiate that and on which device. It definitely speeds up the process.

Documentation is the most valuable feature, and if you ever have to reach out to them with a question, their support is also fantastic.

Its ease of use is also valuable. From start to finish, you can get the whole environment set up within a couple of hours. Everything is easy to follow. The UI is good, and the process is very straightforward.

More automation and device insights would be helpful in achieving a seamless single pane of glass. Having the additional capability to streamline processes would also make things better.

We have been implementing Duo Security for about four years. 

It is very stable, and they constantly update the documentation to make it easy to integrate with. The SLAs have been very good when working with them where it is not going down or there are constant problems or anything like that. Overall, it is a very good experience for anybody who is using it.

Its scalability is great. There are tons and tons of applications that you can integrate it with. It could become a key piece for the organization for authentication.

There are probably more than 20 customers who are using this solution.

We seldom had to use their support. Most of the time, we go to their FAQs or review their documentation, and we are able to find the answers that we are looking for.

We had an agent that wasn't installed properly on a Mac device, and they could quickly identify the issue and give us recommendations about what we needed to do to fix it. Once or twice, they've taken a little bit longer to get back to me. They've helped me in solving the issue, but it wasn't a seamless experience. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I haven't yet used another solution, but that doesn't mean that I won't. Microsoft is another multi-factor authentication provider. Duo Security is a much more streamlined implementation. If you want easier management, Duo wouldn't meet that need. It is an additional layer of cost that has to get factored in versus a Microsoft solution that may already come included with your license.

It is very simple to integrate. You do need to have an understanding of how it integrates with all potential applications, and Duo documentation is fantastic and helpful in getting it implemented.

Its implementation takes as little as a few hours. Your bigger challenge usually is onboarding end-users into the Duo environment, which comes down to:

• How many users are part of the project?
• How easy is it to get in touch with them?
• How well can they follow the directions to get it fully set up?

We implement it for our clients. We are like an integrator. Our clients may purchase the licensing through Duo, and then they sign a statement of work with us to install and get it provisioned for them. Inexperience and not having the time to do it are the two primary reasons why clients ask us to implement it. Sometimes, they can set up the basic pieces of Duo, but they need help with integrating it with Office 365. That's because there are things that need to be set up on that side, and they may not know how to do that.

Most of the integrations are cloud-based. There are a few clients who want to have a user sign on to a remote desktop, which needs integration with on-premises Active Directory, but most integrations are with Mimecast, Office 365, and Azure AD, and all these are cloud-based.

It is affordable for what's coming to the table with it, but in this day and age, the cost is looked at under a microscope, and companies need to very finely define what is needed versus what is critical. In some cases, it might not be cost-effective for a company to have it. In a lot of other cases, it is the cost of doing business.

It is somewhat of an uphill battle to get users to buy into it, but after it gets implemented and they see how easy it is, it is a pretty seamless experience.

A big challenge with end-users is that they see it as another layer that they have to remember and worry about. It is very easy to set up the application to get authenticated. Once you break that curve, it gives end users a sense of security where they know that if they're trying to sign on to Office 365 or some other application, they need to authenticate with Duo to make sure that they have the multi-factor authentication. If they saw a request come in and it wasn't them, they can deny it.

Duo Security has had minimal impact on our organization, but we do have an increased feeling of security. Knowing that you have to have a certain device to authenticate into whatever you need to authenticate into gives peace of mind.

It hasn't eliminated trust from our organization's network architecture, but it has added efficiencies to it. There are other things that we might put in place to make sure that we get towards a zero-trust model, but it obviously aids in achieving that end goal.

It doesn't really provide single-pane-of-glass management. In terms of the security posture of an organization, Duo Security is not a one-stop solution for everything. You still need a combination of a lot of different security measures to develop the full posture, but as far as authentication is concerned, in that one layer, you get the authentication logs and easy integration with all different applications, and you also get some device insights and things like that. All of those together definitely give it points towards being a single pane of glass, but you need other security applications to make that holistic environment very security agnostic.

It is one of the many key pieces that all organizations need, especially if they want to integrate with many applications. There are other solutions out there, such as from Microsoft, for multi-factor authentication.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. There is always room for improvement, but for end-to-end authentication, it definitely provides a great mechanism for organizations in getting that single pane of glass.

Primarily, it was used as remote access for VPNs. It expanded our security posture, due to the increase in people working from home.

It certainly gave us a much more confident security posture as far as users coming on. 

Having all resources be external is reasonably important for us. Zero trust is certainly a target. Not that we are there yet, but we would expect everything to be considered mostly untrusted.

It eliminated trust for remote access, but not from inside our organization.

It was a simple way of providing two-factor authentication for remote access when we hit the COVID pandemic. It was very easy and quick to get it going.

Simple authentication for VPN was our primary function, and it worked well for that.

As far as remote access, simple access, and authentication to gateways, it was perfect.

Distributed access for ISE has been pretty strong for remote access and works very well.

It has very strong network connectivity, which works reliably and well. It was very easy for people to connect and the app worked as it should. Just once people connected, they typically had to use a different tool from that point on.

Duo applies and maintains well network connectivity across campus and remote locations. Remote access from people's homes and branches is also strong. Network connectivity is its strength and does that well.

We found it difficult to integrate it into our broader product family of Microsoft tools and other applications used across our organization. So, we have pulled back from this solution a little bit. It was easier to use Microsoft MFA, which integrated with everything and still did the two-factor authentication that we needed. 

There is nothing wrong with the product, as far as its functionality. It was just the breadth of support. It got harder and harder to integrate.

For what it does, it is fantastic. Once we started hitting Microsoft Office stacks, we then began to find its limitations.

It is not so good for securing access to our application and network. We found it harder to integrate, particularly with the Office stack, which is our primary application stack. We did get it working with a few other cloud applications that we were working with as part of our single sign-on story. However, it certainly wasn't easy to integrate in-house.

It created another step for users who don't know about the benefits, as far as the corporate benefits. I wouldn't consider having another app on their phones and having another thing to deal with a positive for our user community.

My organization has been using it for about two and a half to three years, since around the beginning of the pandemic.

Stability was good. It was well-designed and simple to implement. Its cloud interaction went very well. We never had any major stability issues. Yeah. We had nothing to complain about regarding its operational functionality.

We are a relatively small shop. It was well within our sizing. We never saw any issues with scaling. Obviously, the indications would be that it will scale very well, but nothing we had to experience with.

We didn't encounter the technical support much. Things worked very well. Functionality and reliability were never a problem. 

We asked a few questions about integration and so on. I think we got good answers back. We have had no big complaints, but we didn't have a lot of interaction with them.

We did not previously use another solution. We brought Duo in as a tool that we could rapidly and easily deploy. It did that job. We actually removed it later, as our primary tool, because we could achieve what we needed with a more integrated single multi-function tool (Microsoft MFA).

Duo brings in another application for users to deal with. Whereas, Microsoft integrates with their single authentication stack, allowing us to handle their own personal banking accounts and personal two-factor authentication needs in one app. This isn't Duo's strength, and it's not what we see Google and Microsoft doing out in the cloud.

Single-pane-of-glass management is important for us, but not critical, because fewer management points are better. Duo didn't provide a single pane of glass because of our different application stacks. Whereas, at least Microsoft Authenticator has allowed us to deal with most applications as well as their deep integration with Office.

Duo needs to adopt the same kinds of concepts that we see from all the major authentication tools, such as Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, third-party password tools like Bitwarden, and Secret Server from Delinea. All of these are beginning to incorporate more functions into them as a single security tool,  protecting me with authentication codes and six-digit codes that interact with Google, Microsoft, and any of those vendors as part of the tool. There are more functions, fewer tools, and less user impact, which are all benefits. I don't think Duo showed us that as a single tool. Duo did its job really well, but there are many jobs that have to be done.

Resilience security is all about business continuity. Resilience is an expected function of that, which is necessary and not optional.

For businesses wanting to build more resilience, I would say, "Keep it simple," and fewer moving parts is better. That is one of the reasons that we ultimately moved away from Duo. Not because anything was wrong with it, but we could collapse two functions down into one. I think simplicity is really critical. It reduces the amount of time our staff has to spend on it, making things easier. Simplicity would be my number one reason for building resilience into an organization. It allows you to understand better how you are dealing with threats and more simply respond to threats.

We are a valued reseller who works with Cisco and other vendors. We are primarily a Cisco networking shop across eight locations with 120-odd users who are mostly working from home or at least part-time working from home post-COVID. We have two major offices, a small data center, and five other locations, which are all remote access, using Cisco DMVPN. Microsoft is the application stack that we primarily use, plus cloud applications, and Juniper Mist for our wireless.

I would rate it as seven out of 10. In the world of network security, it is outstanding and very strong. I have a lot of positive things to say. I think that it needs to be much more seamlessly integrated with today's application stack.

We use it for two-factor authentication for end-user and administrator login. We wanted to secure our endpoints.

The single pane of glass management is very important and it is part of the reason we went with Duo. Anything we can do to save time for our administrators, help desk staff, and engineers, is valuable to us.

I wouldn't mind seeing some options for remembering a device for a short period of time or a specific login, particularly for administrative engineering staff, as we may be logging in to four or five different services. We're having to use it a lot. I understand it, it's just part of it. That's not specific to Duo. That's two-factor authentication in general.

I've been using Duo Security for about a year.

It's stable. We haven't had any downtime that I can recall or any problems with maintaining network connectivity.

Any issues we've had have been local to a specific user. Maybe the phone number was not set up right or there was some conflict as a result of somebody changing a device, but it's always been pretty straightforward to get that kind of thing resolved.

We started off with a small deployment and, in one or two steps, sent it out to everybody and it scaled fine. We didn't have to change anything in our setup.

We have about 1,200 users across 60 branches around the U.S. We occasionally have people using it internationally and we're able to handle that fine with our geographic location blocking or allowing, as the case may be. It's a fully virtualized environment. We have a lot of remote users, people who work in remote fields. As long as they have a cell signal, it works.

I have not had to deal with any support for Duo. The less I have to talk to support the better, for sure.

This is our first venture into two-factor authentication.

We didn't have a specific problem we were trying to solve when we got it. We were just trying to add more and more security. We did have regulatory requirements for two-factor authentication and that is what drove it.

The deployment of Duo Security was mainly a project done by our network and security team, but I was involved in it to some extent. I found it pretty straightforward. As enterprise-wide security solutions go, it wasn't too bad.

We got it integrated with Active Directory. There were some struggles there that I don't know the specifics of because our network team was working on that. But once everything was set up, it was pretty easy to add a new user and do whatever we wanted to.

It took a little time for our users to get used to it, but everybody took to it pretty well. The users don't really have to interact with it other than getting their push notifications. For them, it's easy. It requires minimal training. It pops up and it's all pretty self-explanatory.

It's pretty easy to use as two-factor authentication systems go. We evaluated a few others, including the Microsoft two-factor authentication, a little bit, and one other, and Duo ended up being our favorite. Part of that was because we're in that Cisco ecosystem and we were able to integrate it with our other services that are all cloud-based. It fit in pretty well for us, and it would for anybody with a similar setup.

Duo was also the least obtrusive to the user and the ease of administration through the administrative portal was a little better.

Fortunately, we haven't had to evaluate it when it comes to helping us remediate threats more quickly, but we're confident that it will.

Regarding resilience in cyber security, two-factor is definitely a must-have. We're satisfied with it as far as that goes, in addition to it fulfilling our regulatory requirements.

For our use case, for logins, it just works.

We wanted multi-factor authentication across a variety of platforms.

It's improved security by enforcing strong, reliable multi-factor authentication, and it has reduced intrusions across our organization. It makes sure all the user sessions are at least a little more trustful than if we just had single-factor.

In terms of remediating threats, we are able to pick out unsuccessful login attempts pretty quickly on the Duo platform and we can shut down those accounts. It makes us more proactive. That works well.

The ability for users to authenticate via phone, from any random phone number, has been very helpful for managing a distributed workforce. Using it across a distributed network for securing access to our applications is big for us. It works very well, and we have no major complaints about the integration of any of our third-party applications.

We have a high level of confidence in the platform, especially for identifying potential logins from unexpected geolocations. The data associated with logs is very helpful for helping to make that determination.

It's very important for us that Duo Security considers all resources to be external, especially as we lead up to Zero Trust. It needs to be like that.

End-users find it more annoying than anything else. It's tough to manage user perception of the service, especially when there isn't feature parity between Mac and Windows users. There are some challenges in making that user experience the same between platforms and helping users feel the least amount of burden possible while helping to ensure the organization's security.

Network connectivity depends on where users are located. Internally, on-premises, it's not hard keeping connectivity, but we have users who move throughout the world, and their levels of connectivity change. It can be a challenge, if someone is in Bahrain, to authenticate via Duo.

I have been using Duo Security for two years. 

We've had no issues with the stability of Duo. I consider it to be a stable product.

It has scaled to meet our needs. I don't know how it scales if you have 10,000 or 20,000 users, but for our organization, with fewer than 5,000 users, it's been fine.

The technical support has been adequate. They are responsive regarding support for troubleshooting tickets. We haven't had any issues that required escalation, so we've been happy with it.

Positive

We did have a previous solution. The interoperability has been improved with Duo compared to that solution.

Our physical deployment of the solution is in the continental United States, but our users are worldwide.

I don't place too much value on any single product, since placing too much trust in one thing creates a single point of failure. This is just a single piece in a broader spectrum of security products to accomplish our actual goals.

Building resilience is nice, but there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to doing that. Part of my job is to help our leaders understand where that diminishing return is.

The single pane of glass management is desirable, but it's like a unicorn. No single pane of glass is ever really a single pane of glass. That's something that would be nice, but it's not something I expect.

Duo is a very consistent product and flexible in how it can be deployed and has good support. It's a product we're very happy with.

We utilize Duo Security to mitigate phishing and other similar attack vectors in general.

Our phishing attacks have significantly decreased. The number of compromises is almost nonexistent due to the implementation of Duo Security.

Duo Security's self-service portal has definitely helped us save a couple of hours per month. 

Duo Security's ability for establishing trust is great.

The anti-phishing feature is the most valuable.

Previously, we encountered an issue with utilizing the passcode as part of the second factor; however, that has now been transformed into a feature.

I would appreciate it if Duo Security could improve its integrations with Windows Hello.

I have been using Duo Security for five years.

Duo Security is stable.

After Cisco purchased Duo Security, I was uncertain about its scalability. However, it appears that Cisco has granted them the freedom to pursue their own initiatives and has provided the necessary resources for them to achieve their goals.

The technical support is excellent.

Positive

The initial deployment took place five years ago, but during that time, we experienced some growing pains before reaching a satisfactory point.

I was not involved in the implementation, but we did seek external assistance, which proved beneficial.

We have observed a return on investment with Duo Security in terms of anti-phishing and breach prevention.

I rate Duo Security a ten out of ten.

We do not use Duo Security for end-to-end detection and remediation of threats.

Duo Security may not be the only solution available, but it is a fantastic choice.

We use it for user logins for Windows workstations and Office 365. We have certain requirements for doing two-factor authentication.

Duo Security has improved our cybersecurity resilience with two-factor authentication.

Duo Security secures our infrastructure from end to end, especially in terms of what our end users are using. We get an alert if there's something unusual, which doesn't happen often, but it allows us to look at and remediate any issues. Fortunately, we haven't had any attacks that I know of, so it has been good. 

Duo Security does its job in terms of user authentication and device verification for helping to prevent identity-based attacks.

Duo Security reduces the risk of breaches. I haven't seen anything that I would switch to.

Duo Security seems to work for establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from. That's something that we ask of such solutions. I don't want to have to interact with it very much.

It's pretty easy for users to figure it out. We've largely non-technical people where I am. At first, there was a little bit of a speed bump trying to get everybody to understand why we were using it, but it wasn't too bad. Everybody pretty much embraced it. Its adoption happened over a course of a couple of weeks. It was fairly smooth.

We also use Cisco Secure Email and Cisco Umbrella. It integrates pretty well with them. We haven't had any issues.

From an administrative standpoint, I'd love to see it be a little better at remembering a device and location so that I don't have to continually authenticate. That's pretty much it.

We've been using it in our company for two years.

Its stability is good. We haven't had any outages.

Its scalability is also good. We haven't had any issues expanding it to everything. 

When I've had to engage with them, which is occasionally, their support has been good for me. I know our network engineer has run into an issue here and there, but I don't specifically know why. Personally, I haven't had any problems. I'd rate them a ten out of ten. They have solved everything so far.

Positive

I was not involved in its implementation, but I know it was smooth. I didn't hear of any issues, so it was pretty simple for us.

We have a hybrid deployment.

I'm pretty sure we do most of the things through Zones. They are good. I'd recommend them.

We've seen an ROI. We had to have it. It meets our needs.

We evaluated Microsoft's two-factor authentication. Other than that, we pretty much went straight for Duo just because we were in that ecosystem already. We didn't want to embrace Microsoft stuff. This was a better fit for what we needed. We were already in the Cisco ecosystem.

The Microsoft solution was also a bit limited. We were less likely to wire other devices. It was for Microsoft products at that time, but I don't know if it's changed.

Duo Security considers all resources to be external. That was a part of the reason we adopted it. That was the main difference between the Microsoft solution and this one. We've integrated it with single sign-on. It's good.

It's a good product. We've been pleased with it. There are no complaints.

I'd rate it a ten out of ten because I don't know what's better than this.

We use Duo Security for authentication for all of our SaaS applications. We also use it for RADIUS authentication.

Duo Security makes logging into all our applications easy with one stop for all our activity there. We use Cisco across the board for networking, and we love Cisco.

Since Duo Security provides a single place to log in for our SaaS applications, we don't have to manage user accounts and remember passwords for each specific application.

Duo Security should better organize its tile feature to organize applications better.

We have been using Duo Security for about three years.

Duo Security's stability is good, and we haven't had any issues.

Duo Security's scalability is good. We are a fairly large organization but haven't had any scalability issues.

Duo Security's technical support is great. They do a better job on the Duo side than on the networking side for support.

Positive

We've used Okta in the past. Okta has a really good auto-login feature. Duo Security can do the same thing, but Okta might do it a little bit better. It just automatically logs in if it's part of your profile.

We switched to Duo Security because of our relationship with our account reps.

We have seen a return on investment using Duo Security because it saves time.

Duo Security's pricing is good, fair, and very comparable to today's market.

Duo Security Self-Service Portal has significantly helped free up our IT staff for other projects. Instead of managing thousands of accounts across hundreds of SaaS applications, it's all in one spot now. Duo Security has probably saved us four or five hours at least.

I think Duo Security does a great job of establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from.

It is very important for our organization that the solution considers all resources to be external because it frames the activity as zero trust, and that's how we run our network to zero trust across the board. So when you treat all resources as external, we want to lock them down every time and not just have random passwords floating everywhere.

Duo Security will significantly simplify the life of someone who wants to improve cybersecurity in their organization, and they should definitely try it.

Overall, I rate Duo Security ten out of ten.