Cisco IOS Security Reviews

We use Cisco IOS Security for security functions like firewalls and IPS in specific remote branches.

Cisco IOS Security enables communication between our network nodes. The solution provides authentication like policy enforcement, QOS, and intelligent routing. We use Cisco IOS Security for administration purposes.

Cisco IOS Security increases the overall security of our network, performs authentication, and provides level 15 access and privileges.

Cisco IOS Security should improve its functionalities.

I have been using Cisco IOS Security for more than four years.

I rate Cisco IOS Security a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the solution's technical support eight and a half out of ten.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is straightforward.

We have seen a return on investment with Cisco IOS Security.

The solution's pricing is very good.

Overall, I rate Cisco IOS Security a nine out of ten.

We employ a firewall to safeguard our secret clusters within our infrastructure. Additionally, we utilize panels such as Internet panels, which handle a substantial amount of security traffic, including handheld products. This setup extends to our routers and connector switches as well. 

There is a positive impact on security, particularly the intrusion feature, which helps keep the solution concealed and secure. It's a valuable aspect of the solution that we find favorable, and it enhances overall security across the board.

We’ve implemented the Cisco firewall along with additional security licenses. These licenses have been configured and the system is adequately protected. The entire process takes some time, but the most time-consuming part is creating the region and applying the necessary security policies to it.

I have been using Cisco IOS Security for some time.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support is good. 

I find their configuration somewhat complex, which has led to some challenges on our end. Additionally, there's an issue with false positives. While they aren't major, they do have a significant impact and contribute to higher costs. We aim to minimize or optimize these aspects of the solution. It takes less than one day to deploy the solution. 

It is worth it.

We need to pay for the license and it is expensive.

If you want to improve our infrastructure, you should consider implementing Cisco with appropriate configuration, along with a software-defined network and architecture.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

Cisco IOS Security helps us with splitting the DNS between a specific perimeter.

The product has valuable features for business intelligence. It enables intrusion detection for the network.

The product's technical support services need improvement.

We have been using Cisco IOS Security for more than ten years.

Cisco releases new patches and updates, whenever required. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten. We have three users for it in our organization. We might increase the usage depending on the business requirements.

Cisco has a lot of support partners. However, it takes a long time to replace some equipment.

Positive

I have used Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) before.

The initial setup requires specific training. I rate the process an eight out of ten. The deployment involves setting up a bot for Buffalo with the management IP address. After that, I deploy the data center and access it remotely to complete the process.

I rate Cisco IOS Security's pricing a ten out of ten.

We evaluated a few products. Later, we opted for Cisco as we already have experience working with it.

It is a good product. It is valuable in terms of availability. Once configured and installed, the equipment runs for years. I rate it a seven out of ten as its support cost is high.

We use Cisco IOS Security to segregate IT and OT environments.

Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well. Once set up and operational, very limited human interaction is required with the device to run it for years. We deployed the solution, activated certain features, and forgot about it. We didn't have the necessary tools to monitor and maintain the solution actively.

Cisco IOS Security's monitoring is rather rudimentary and could be improved.

I have been using Cisco IOS Security for around 15 years.

I rate Cisco IOS Security a ten out of ten for stability.

Less than fifty users were using Cisco IOS Security in my previous organization.

The initial setup for Cisco IOS Security is relatively straightforward compared to other firewalls. We had two people, including myself and a network specialist, for the deployment and maintenance of Cisco IOS Security.

We implemented the solution in-house.

Cisco IOS Security got the job done. The solution was secure and stable. So we got a decent return on investment.

I look at companies and what they specialize in, and Cisco never really specialized in security. Other companies have security as their core focus. I will not be deploying any Cisco security devices in the near future.

Overall, I rate Cisco IOS Security a seven out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is firewall protection.

The most valuable feature is endpoint protection.

The security of the solution has room for improvement.

The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly.

The stability and scalability can be improved.

I have been using the solution for over one year.

The solution is not stable.

The solution doesn't have the proper bandwidth source to be scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment takes about two hours.

I give the solution a six out of ten.

We have over 1,000 people using the solution in our organization.

We require around ten people for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I do not recommend the solution because it is not secure and is complex.

Our company uses the solution as intrusion protection for customers. It fully integrates with the BMA and ISE. We manage all traffic in data centers to protect them from internal users and outside traffic.

The solution effectively integrates with Umbrella which has an intelligent background and is very helpful in tech analysis or discovery. 

The solution is not user friendly and it is hard to manage the GUI interface. This is an ongoing CISCO problem. 

The solution needs Active/Active firewalls to have good load balance with high availability. The firewalls should work simultaneously, not just as failovers. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution is very stable if configured properly. I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is very highly scalable and other products really don't compete with its scalability. The solution can easily be used for small companies or big enterprises with thousands of users. I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

Technical support does not have a broad knowledge base, so I rate them a six out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is better than before but still not easy or clear like Palo Alto. If you want to configure the solution, then you need to study how to do it. 

The setup is difficult so I rate it a six out of ten. 

We implement the solution for customers on our own unless we have an issue or bug. It takes one expert staff person for deployment. Depending on the customer's policies and the network's complexity, deployment might take from three to seven days. 

Our process includes verifying the license and setting up the firewall, hardware, FMC, and the failover when there is more than one firewall. We then define or set up the configurable interfaces and the IP addresses. Finally, we define the VLAN of the customer and policies for each VLAN. 

The solution does not require ongoing maintenance if it is configured properly. 

Our ROI is that the solution saves time because it reduces attacks and helps with ongoing protection. The subscription model is also very helpful for ROI. 

I rate ROI at 1800%. 

The pricing is average and includes all features with support. I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

Palo Alto has a better GUI interface for handling all features and is easier to configure. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten. 

My organization is an ISP using IOS Security to secure enterprise resources. We previously had it deployed on-premises, but we have switched to the cloud. We prefer AWS for latency purposes because it's based in South Africa. 

The VPN was valuable for us because more people are working from home. It has a lot of reporting and easy-to-use management tools.

The configuration and reporting interfaces need a lot of improvement. It needs to be more accessible forsolide without a strong technical background. If you had a simplified dashboard, the lower-level techs could manage the solution and provide services. Cisco IOS Security requires someone who is highly trained to operate it. 

There is central management, but reporting could be more centralized too. You can have a lab module. However, we need to see some es, and that will help you deploy without breaking the live system. There's no way for me to have a live system to test my new configuration. If it breaks, I have to deploy it and reverse it to the previous configuration. 

It would be nice if I could create an online lab on the fly to test for 10 minutes to an hour without messing anything up. That would be great, especially for things that we do on our live network appliance.

I've been using Cisco since the late 90s.

The stability is great. It takes a bit of time for them to introduce new features that I want. 

All Cisco products are scalable. The scalability is there, but the pricing model isn't straightforward. 

I rate Cisco support four out of 10. Dealing with Cisco support is complicated. First, there's a time difference because we are in the GMT+2 time zone. It sometimes takes a while for your ticket to be assigned. Today, I find that other cloud service providers respond much quicker than Cisco, even though they are smaller. They need to improve on response time.

Neutral

It was the first solution I've used, and I've stuck with it because I'm comfortable with it. I haven't used other products, but I'm evaluating some because Cisco is becoming more complicated in terms of licensing, features, and other stuff. 

I wouldn't say the deployment was complicated, but I wouldn't use the word "easy" either. It's straightforward if you know what you're doing. However, it can be complicated if you don't know what you're trying to do. You need a bit of training before touching it. By contrast, FortiGate is easier to get started, but Cisco solutions require training before you start messing with them. 

It wasn't much of a challenge for me because I've been working with Cisco for a while. Initially, there were some painful moments where you thought these things would break.

We were doing everything by ourselves at first, but we ended up using an integrator at some point.

In IT services, we don't calculate return on investment. It allows the business to grow, so we don't calculate the return. We just look at the IT cost. 

I rate IOS Security six out of 10 for pricing

I rate Cisco IOS Security six out of 10. For someone who wants something that works, they can be sure that Cisco will be there in the next five years. Cisco products have longevity because the company is secure, and you know the product will be supported for many years. 

There is longevity if you can afford it. At the same time, you'll need to invest in learning the product. The most vital aspect of Cisco is that it works, and the company is there for you. You are sure it'll be there tomorrow.

The product is quite mature. Cisco is well known within the industry.

The solution's most valuable aspect is that it is extremely integrated. The product basically comes with the firewall features including IPS, URL filtering, malware, et cetera. The integrated features are great.

The functionalities of the product are pretty good.

Cisco has always been a premium product. There's a lot of other entry-level solutions. This is more robust.

The solution offers a good mix of features. You can always add more modules as you need to if you need even more features.

The pricing of the solution can be improved. It's not cheap. It's quite expensive.

The company needs to make its solution more affordable to make it more accessible to larger markets. Otherwise, it's seen as an enterprise-level solution that small or medium-sized organizations can't afford and therefore they won't even look at it.

I've been using the solution for quite a long time. It's been ten or 15 years. I have well over a decade of experience under my belt.

The solution is stable. We find Cisco to be very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches that disrupt its performance. It's good. There's never been an issue.

The solution can scale. It's designed more as an enterprise-level solution, so it's good for larger companies.

The customer support is great. We're quite satisfied with the level of service Cisco provides. They're knowledgeable and responsive.

Overall, we find that they have the best technical support in the business. Their support is quite competent in terms of their technical skills, more so than other competitors. If you face any issues, you can call them at any time and get the answers you need to resolve whatever is going on.

I've used a variety of other solutions. I've used Check Point, Palo Alto, and Juniper as well.

We primarily like Cisco due to the fact that their technical support is great. By far, it's the best I've ever seen.

The solution's initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex at all.

The solution's costs are quite high. It's a turn-off in terms of actually using it. It's more of an enterprise-level solution. It's not ideal for smaller organizations as the cost to run it would be out of their budgeting capabilities.

We use a few different Cisco solutions. 

We're a Cisco partner. We have a business relationship with the company.

We're dealing with the latest version of this particular solution.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

The value for money it should be there. Which means good features, good functioning things are there, but they need to make it more affordable for big market. If they were able to price the solution to make it more affordable for more clients that may not be enterprise-level, they've have a bigger footprint.