Cisco Secure Access Reviews

Cisco Secure Access serves as a major replacement for traditional VPNs with a VPN-as-a-Service offering. This is particularly useful for clients with aging VPN architectures who face challenges in scaling out.

The product also optimizes firewall capabilities for geographically distributed operators and enhances proxy-based architectures with Secure Web Gateways and CASB for cloud or SaaS applications. By integrating with identity providers like Azure Entra ID or Okta, Cisco Secure Access facilitates the transition from VPN to ZTNA while ensuring compliance with principles like least privilege access.

Additionally, it incorporates identity and device risk scores for dynamic access policies to respond to varying risk thresholds. The service is particularly useful for managing old VPN infrastructure replacements, firewall optimizations, and bridging the gaps between old and new secure access technologies.

The product also addresses unique geographical challenges, such as ensuring secure internet access for oil rigs in remote locations. Furthermore, Cisco Secure Access's multi-tenancy and Policy Verification features are crucial for managing multi-organization environments and ensuring policy accuracy, respectively.

Hybrid Private Access is particularly useful in regions where replacing existing gear isn't feasible due to cost concerns. Lastly, the product's AI-driven features like AI Access and AI Assistant ease policy management and triage, reducing the time and efforts needed in these processes.

Cisco Secure Access offers numerous valuable features. The VPN-as-a-Service replaces traditional VPNs, providing global secure access without installing solutions at each location, allowing geographically distributed operators to benefit from scalability and optimization.

The integration with identity providers facilitates this transition and aligns with Zero Trust Network Access principles. The platform offers capabilities like Secure Web Gateways, Firewall-as-a-Service, and CASB for enhanced cloud-based functionality. Its Policy Verification runs checks to prevent policy misconfigurations, a necessary feature for managing multi-organization environments.

Moreover, the product's AI-driven capabilities streamline policy management and triage, enhancing operational efficiency. Hybrid Private Access and multi-tenancy capabilities make it resource-efficient and particularly useful for unique geographical challenges. The product is scalable, adjusting to new requirements easily, and is backed by robust technical support.

Despite being a value-for-money product, there are a few areas for improvement. Transitioning for customers from Palo Alto to Cisco Secure Access has its challenges, primarily due to previous infrastructure setups and migration paths. Cisco Secure Access may not seamlessly integrate into such settings, although it performs well in a Cisco-based environment.

Furthermore, while the AI capabilities of Cisco Secure Access are useful, they are not seen as major differentiators compared to competitors such as Palo Alto.

Additionally, though the existing threat intelligence is sufficient for most use cases, extending the integration scope with other tools, especially concerning AI supply chain risk management, could enhance its functionality.

The first time I came across Cisco Secure Access, it used to be called a different solution. It was a combination of multiple solutions. First they started with Cisco Duo, and then they expanded into Cisco Secure Firewalls over close to three years. They conducted a lot of branding changes and naming convention changes after that.

While the product offers strong overall stability, there were occasional issues, particularly involving Linux devices. However, these hiccups were more related to endpoint-client interactions rather than being vendor-specific problems. Overall, the solution is stable, but improvements could further enhance reliability.

The scalability of Cisco Secure Access is a strong feature. Initially driven by the need for improved scalability over traditional VPNs, it has proven to scale seamlessly alongside infrastructural growth. Effective collaboration with account teams ensures a robust and flexible solution designed to meet future scaling requirements without significant issues.

The technical support from Cisco is exceptional. They provide geographically distributed, responsive support with strict SLAs. The purchase of premium support ensures rapid response times, upholding high-quality service delivery across the board. The commitment to excellent service reflects positively on client experiences.

I used to work for Deloitte until six months ago. Currently, this is about managing our own internal infrastructure and then managing that of a couple of our operators and partners. Reselling is not something I am doing currently. I used to do that until June of this year.

Installation and deployment of Cisco Secure Access are straightforward. Comprehensive and publicly available documentation supports this, backed by assigned account managers and optional professional services. Despite anticipating complexities by procuring external services, they were unnecessary due to the clear and simplified setup process offered by the existing resources.

We had an account manager who was assigned to us and then we also purchased some professional services for day zero and day one, in case we got stuck.

The integrated capabilities of Cisco Secure Access deliver significant ROI through reduced mean time to detect (MTTD) and mean time to respond (MTTR). The resource efficiency is notably improved as fewer personnel are needed for triage and system management. The AI features further contribute by expediting threat detection and incident response, ensuring tangible returns through operational savings.

Cisco Secure Access offers good value for money. Existing product relationships provide cost advantages, ensuring reasonable pricing without overcharging. Although the solution is cheaper than premium options such as Palo Alto, existing Cisco licenses facilitate replacing previous solutions with Cisco Secure Access smoothly and affordably.

If you were a Cisco house in the past, I would certainly use that. If you are coming from something with a Palo Alto firewall infrastructure, I would prefer going with Palo Alto. It is more about the widespread adoption. When ten different people are doing the same thing, then I guess the other five people would do the same thing.

While client-based solutions serve corporate employees, clientless options cater to third-party contractors and onboarding procedures without equipment. These options ensure seamless transitions to full client-based systems for long-term corporate users.

Regarding the multi-organization management capability, it is akin to multi-tenancy, helpful for service provider infrastructures with multiple clients or single customers with diverse business units. It brings intuitive infrastructure management without providing unique features compared to competitors.

AI supply chain risk management, while theoretically beneficial, may not give an edge unless thorough integrations with additional tools are pursued. Furthermore, the choice of not implementing low-cost workflows was based on a need for higher security enhancements.

I would rate this review overall at a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

My use case for Cisco Secure Access is to replace our on-premises, not site-to-site, remote access SSL VPN as we are going from on-premises to cloud service.

The second use case is to replace our Umbrella service, as we currently use Umbrella and will migrate to Cisco Secure Access as well, along with all the policies.

I consider the most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access to be that it merged everything into one dashboard, the Cisco Secure Access dashboard. Previously, we had web access in one location and remote access in another, and we could not link them to each other. Now everything is in one place, and we can base the access control on usernames because we have the Azure Active Directory integration. We can also build policies based on that and can see or identify the impacted users.

Cisco Secure Access benefits our organization by offering Points of Presence close to our employees because we are spread across the world. Until now, we had only European gateways, so traffic had to go from India, for example, over to Europe and then sometimes back, which was delaying a lot. With Cisco Secure Access, we have a presence close to the user.

What we really find challenging is that we do not have granular role-based access control models. The only options we have are full admin or read-only. We have different departments in the company that have different responsibilities. While we as a networking team are full admins, we do not want to manage the policies regarding which websites are allowed and what is not allowed. That should be managed by our compliance team.

The granular access issue is coming from the product limitation at the moment, as it does not offer us the option to tell it that a particular role can only manage websites, allowed sites, and blocked sites. Categories or something similar are not possible.

If I had to improve the product, that would definitely be role-based access control. Though from another point of view, this limitation may also be a benefit because it forces us to implement our own front-end to use API calls. Using API, you can limit the access to that particular key.

I would rate Cisco Secure Access as very stable until now. We have not seen any service degradation during the maintenance activities that Cisco performs, which seems to happen frequently because we receive notification messages. However, we do not experience any service degradation, so that feels stable at the moment.

I find the scalability of Cisco Secure Access is working well at the moment. The main benefit is that we do not need to care for hardware anymore in the future, such as lifecycle management. However, the migration is a little challenging because the technical background that we had, such as the routing and what happens there, is not really visible to us in the cloud service. Those are the challenges, but we are working with TAC and onboarding people that are assigned to us at the moment from Cisco.

My experience with Cisco's technical support is good because the person assigned to us is guiding us. He understands what our use case is and he is guiding us on what we should configure and what we should not configure.

Before, we were using Cisco Firepower as SSL gateways.

I would describe my experience deploying Cisco Secure Access as working well, though we are hitting bugs. I have the feeling that whenever we explore a new product from Cisco, we hit a bug. At the moment, we are dealing with challenges because a new feature that was implemented is to support multi-tenancy. When we originally started, that feature was not available, so we had only one organization. Now we have a multi-organization feature, so we were migrated to it. However, we feel that with this migration, something was left behind that is not working properly. In our original organization, we have issues applying permissions for users, and we always have to raise TAC cases with the people who help us resolve it. They are currently working on that.

I have not seen a return on investment yet, as we are still building. We are in an extended pilot phase at the moment, where one country, India, is migrated to this solution, and we are deploying one by one, starting with less critical sites first, and then we will see.

We did not evaluate any other solutions before. It was basically a move recommendation by Cisco since we stuck with Cisco, as we had a subscription before. With the contract renewal, Cisco pushed us in a direction where we could keep using the old environment for free as part of the renewal, but we decided to go straight to the new product and migrate.

We use VPN as a Service for our users to remote access our company, and web browsing is going through Cisco Secure Access as well. I am not using the AI Assist feature in Cisco Secure Access yet. I am not aware of VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access. We are not using Zero Trust yet, as that will be a stage three. First, we want to get rid of the on-premises VPN gateways and then start developing Zero Trust, so it is not in use at the moment. I am not sure what Hybrid Private Access means, but what we have is an integration from Cisco Secure Access to our SD-WAN, where the Cisco Secure Access Points of Presence are directly connected with our SD-WAN cloud, optimizing the communication. I am not sure if that is what is meant by Hybrid Private Access. I would rate this product overall a six out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

We installed Cisco Secure Access for customers rather than our company since we're a reseller.

Cisco Secure Access is not installed for VPN as a service; the customer using the VPN side is using it for access into the core network, so it functions as a landing point and an on-ramp into the core.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the secure web gateway, which provides the secure edge.

The reason for this is centralized firewall control for people going out to the internet, so you can manage it. The essential ROI we are looking for with Cisco Secure Access is secure access to the internet, and in reality, this is the key factor where we can control access based upon various aspects such as AD group, plus we have a single portal where we can see what is going on and easy management.

If I could improve Cisco Secure Access in any way, it would be with Meraki integration; we do a lot with Meraki SD-WAN, and while the functionality is coming, currently it is not an Auto VPN integration, but I know it is now in public preview, and we have started to have a look at it in the lab. That is key for us because we have had a lot of problems with the VPN from Meraki into Cisco Secure Access, especially since local breakout does not work if you are running BGP over the VPN. Auto VPN functionality would be a big improvement.

The other issues we are having are around Talos and content filtering functionality; the Talos database is insufficient because Cisco Secure Access web gateway database is not big enough to hold every URL, leading to numerous problems with URLs not being categorized correctly and a slow turnaround for recategorization requests. Therefore, improvements with content filtering and Talos integration are significant for us, and we are speaking regularly to the Cisco teams about this.

Another significant issue involves a parent-child problem we have with the URLs; if they match multiple URL categories, then the rule base only looks at the first category, so it does not match multiple categories, resulting in a lot of problems around the Talos content filtering integration.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for three months.

Cisco Secure Access is stable, as we have had issues with the factors I have mentioned, but we can see that it is being developed all the time, which is key; new features are being released and integrated. It is stable, but since we are new to it, it is about getting an understanding and a better feel for it.

So far, the scalability of Cisco Secure Access looks good; we are going to test that more as we have a project now to roll out to quite a lot of sites. Based on our discussions with the Cisco team, we should be good, but I cannot fully answer that until we have pushed it out to the hundreds of sites that we are looking to do.

I have worked with the support team, and they are really good; I am actually about to meet one of the guys now to have a chat and catch up, so we have had some good exposure to the support teams.

The support team assigned to us is very good, so I would rate them an eight or a nine, but if you are raising a TAC case, it can be hit or miss regarding the knowledge of the TAC engineer that picks it up; on the whole, it is quite good, probably a six or a seven. However, there have been times when it has been lower due to the confusion between Cisco Secure Access and Secure Connect, especially when integrating Meraki support cases. Many of the Meraki engineers did not recognize Cisco Secure Access and only knew about Secure Connect, leading to some communication problems between Meraki and Cisco.

Positive

Deployment of Cisco Secure Access now takes around half an hour to add a new site now that we have the baseline in place.

Adding a new site is easy now that the framework is in place.

Regarding licensing, the Essentials license, being the entry-level option, is somewhat lacking in my opinion; you lose a lot of the Layer 7 functionality that customers are looking for today. When talking about secure access, you typically expect next-gen firewall type features, and Layer 7 is quite key for that, which you do not get much of with the Essentials, but the Advantage license has a lot more and seems a lot more robust. We would definitely be looking to push the Advantage license in the future rather than Essentials.

I rate Cisco Secure Access a six at the moment; it is developing, and we can see that progress is happening. Its potential is there, but if I am being perfectly honest, I think it is a little immature at the moment and needs some work to develop some features.

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.

My main use case is Zero Trust because we're moving to a full SASE platform and Cisco Secure Access was our first step.

Cisco Secure Access has helped my organization significantly, especially when we went through a cyber event and lost all our previous remote access. We were able to get Cisco Secure Access up within seven days and roll it out to all our people to get everybody back online. It was a very fast rollout to 30,000 users and we regained full functionality within those seven days.

I appreciate all the features of Cisco Secure Access, but I find the Secure Web Gateway is probably the best feature, followed by the Malware and IPS in the cloud.

The Secure Web Gateway is probably the best feature of Cisco Secure Access because it simplifies access and allows me to lock down my entire environment. My access network only allows 443 to Cisco Cloud, with no other traffic, reducing the chance of anybody getting in and cross-connecting to anything else.

One area that needs improvement with Cisco Secure Access is the ZTA policy itself, which is lacking because it is limited to one policy for one target. If I have multiple policies I want to apply to a multiple group for the same target, I cannot do it, which is very limiting.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for 14 months.

I did not face any major challenges or have bugs, crashes, or downtime during the deployment of Cisco Secure Access. However, we experienced one downtime when all of Cisco Secure Access went down, but it was not specific to our organization.

My experience deploying Cisco Secure Access was positive. We had CX services and got it in within seven days, so it was pretty easy.

I can definitely say I have seen a return on investment from having Cisco Secure Access, as it has cut down our admin cost. I have eliminated three sets of firewalls that I did not need to have. I would say we probably save about 30% in hardware and about 20% in administration right now.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access is that it is part of our security EA, so it is included in our program, which is part of a much bigger portfolio.

Before adopting Cisco Secure Access, I used Zscaler, which is along the same line, but I am not a fan. I am happy because I find with Cisco it ties well with the rest of the ecosystem, unlike Zscaler, which does not. We did look at Zscaler.

The attack we faced had a big impact.

I am not using the AI assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access yet, as we have started looking at it, but it has to go through risk assessment first.

I am not using any other AI tools in Cisco Secure Access. We were deploying AI endpoint but that has been paused.

I do use VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access.

The transition from VPN to ZTNA with Cisco Secure Access has just been more secure for me. It is more secure because VPNs are easy. If somebody compromises a VPN, you get traditional full access to things, whereas ZTNA allows isolating access to an individual system, providing limited access.

I am not using the location enforcement by location features of Cisco Secure Access yet, but it is on the roadmap to deploy.

My experience with the Experience Insight feature, called DEM, is not good. I find the integration between Cisco Secure Access and ThousandEyes does not work well and does not deliver what it is supposed to. In fact, we have not been able to get it to work, making it pretty useless right now.

I have integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence in Cisco Secure Access, which is influenced by security. It is all tied to the identity, the root trust. That is where we are using it for.

My experience with the multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure Access in terms of usability and efficiency seems okay for the limited usage we have for the multi-tenant. I cannot really comment if it is good or bad.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is remote access.

As an aerospace company, security is highly important for us, and we have various security schemas across the company. We try not to treat everybody as the highest schema, so Cisco Secure Access gives us the ability to detect and put users where they need to go and not just shove everybody into the whole secure area.

I find the posture checking feature of Cisco Secure Access the most valuable, and I also appreciate the ability to tag clients to place them into the right segment.

We're just getting started with Zero Trust Network Access, and we have a long way to go in that aspect. We haven't expanded any usage; more of the posture and things we've done more with technology.  

They've protected us from threats like phishing and ransomware.

The only improvement I see for Cisco Secure Access is the way that we're using it; we're not fully integrating it into our client consoles, which affects the user experience. That's more of an internal issue than a Cisco issue. 

I struggle with the integration of CASB functionality for exposing Shadow IT within our organization. As a company of engineers, they tend to do smart things and just go around you, so it's always a challenge for us.

Regarding the integration with Cisco Talos, it's something that we're not utilizing as best as we can. We should leverage Talos more. 

From a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included. The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for seven years.

Cisco Secure Access has been pretty stable. I can't really speak to downtime or performance issues much; I know we've had a few. I don't have the details to say whether it was a Cisco problem or an internal issue.

The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I don't really get involved with customer service and technical support. From a cloud team perspective, I'm aware of generally how we approach it. On a scale of one to ten, I would give customer service and technical support an eight.

Positive

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Access, I have used another solution.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of Cisco Secure Access. That said, I'm not aware of major issues.

I don't see ROI with Cisco Secure Access right now; it's more of an internal issue. We have too many access platforms, and we need to consolidate. If we could solidify our access platform and eliminate non-duplication, the ROI would look much better than it does right now. That's our problem, not a Cisco issue.

I don't get involved in pricing scenarios; however, from a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included.

We're definitely looking at more SaaS-based solutions such as Zscaler and Palo Alto before selecting Cisco Secure Access, dabbling in them yet never fully committing.

We did not purchase the solution via AWS Marketplace.

We consider a change since we're trying to achieve a user experience that's lighter weight. 

I'm not an administrator, so I can't really speak to the ease or difficulty of managing Cisco Secure Access through a single cloud-managed console.

I would advise other potential customers or organizations considering Cisco Secure Access to take a closer look. They've added some features in the last year or so that have advanced significantly. They've caught up from the market where other people were ahead of them. I rate Cisco Secure Access seven out of ten.

On-premises

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access focus on information security direction in companies like banks, and we are implementing it in on-premise or cloud systems while integrating it into third-party vendors, particularly with information security teams.

I appreciate the posturing feature of Cisco Secure Access because it is very useful, especially when our company needs a hybrid system combining on-premise and cloud systems to work together with security; there are many features, and while I cannot tell you specific ones because it is part of the business, I basically value all of them.

I can provide that these features of Cisco Secure Access benefit not only our company but also the business that implements this approach, as our company is a professional team who knows how it works, and we are implementing what they need; our benefit is that we know it very well, and Cisco also supports us in this direction while we develop our IT and security knowledge.

When we started to use features such as AI assistance in Cisco Secure Access, it became very helpful for the IT and infosec staff because they have more visibility, and as an operational team, it saves them time.

I evaluate the AI Access feature of Cisco Secure Access as very new at this moment since we are just starting in a testing regime; we are now working on trusting everything about how it works, but I can say that deep dive visibility is more available now than it was before with these AI assistance features.

We are integrating Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access, and it is the engine of everything.

This integration influences our identity management and security measures to be 100% better than they were before.

Cisco Secure Access could be improved with fewer bugs; we need to address less software bugs, as there are technical issues and errors in the software, which we are trying to resolve to achieve a more stable version that companies can use without issues, but it is a working process, and we understand this.

We started to use Cisco Secure Access about two years ago, especially in the government and financial sector, so we have two years of experience.

Technical support from Cisco is very helpful.

I would rate technical support a nine and customer service a 7.5.

The ratings reflect our region; it is not a global assessment, but in our region, it is this way.

Positive

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Access, we were using another solution to address similar needs.

My experience deploying Cisco Secure Access is that it is very intuitive for a technical team, though the challenge lies in understanding the underlying processes; once that knowledge is acquired, deploying Cisco Secure Access becomes much easier, and if the team does not understand how the underlay routes work, that presents complexity.

I have not seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Access.

Setup costs and pricing for Cisco Secure Access are not our case since we are doing it ourselves, and I think the pricing and licensing are acceptable and comparable to other solutions.

We are using Cloudflare, and I believe the factors that led us to consider a change involve the different approaches of Cloudflare compared to Cisco Secure Access, which depend on business requirements.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Access, we considered using Palo Alto Prisma, and compared to Cisco, Palo Alto is a more expensive option for business, which is one of the most differentiated reasons why we are using Cisco Secure Access at this moment.

The help desk ticket volume and end-user experience have been impacted by Cisco Secure Access deployment such that it may take two to three months, with a reduction of two times.

We are just starting to use the AI assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access.

At this moment, I cannot answer how effective AI supply chain risk management is specifically for the pre-enforcement controls for developers downloading AI models because I have no experience.

I use ZTNA in Cisco Secure Access every day.

Cisco Secure Access is client-based or clientless, depending on business requirements.

It is always difficult to transition the mindset of the company to Zero Trust and least privilege principles, but after deep dive work, it works.

After integrating identity management and ISE in the company, everybody starts to use all policies and begins understanding the security policies; it is a unified solution for all business segments, not just IT, which has greatly benefited the entire company and influenced its development.

We do not use the Experience Insights feature, Digital Experience Monitoring, or DEM powered by ThousandEyes of Cisco Secure Access at this moment in our company.

In comparison to past years, Cisco Secure Access has improved very well at this moment.

It is very flexible, a very competitive solution, very helpful, and very secure; it includes everything a business needs, and the pricing is also available.

I advise other companies considering Cisco Secure Access to first evaluate their business requirements, then make a demo to compare with other solutions, and subsequently try to step-by-step migrate all their services and policies, ensuring they achieve the best solution for their IT and security teams. I would rate this review a nine overall.

Cisco Secure Access is used for remote access VPN, supporting approximately 6,000 users in my organization. Daily usage ranges from about 3,000 to 4,000 users actually utilizing the solution.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access for users is that it is stable and it works in terms of secure access.

The overall success of Cisco Secure Access has significantly improved my organization's security posture in terms of security and usability compared to the previous solution, which was fairly convoluted with several different hops required to log in every day from home. With Cisco Secure Access, the process is much simpler and works better, particularly in edge cases such as being in a hotel or on an unstable connection, which often caused disconnections and required a full reconnect with the previous solution.

There is nothing about the product itself that I would particularly like to see improved, as nothing comes to mind regarding Cisco Secure Access.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for about a year.

I certainly do not experience downtime with Cisco Secure Access, and there are not as many reliability issues compared to the previous solution, making it much more stable.

My uptime with Cisco Secure Access is very good, although I cannot specify an exact figure.

Cisco Secure Access does scale for my organization with 6,000 employees, and I believe we have the right devices for it. There have not been any issues with scaling as it was right-sized when it was implemented.

I have contacted Cisco support many times, though not specifically for Cisco Secure Access but for other things.

I would evaluate them overall as generally good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate them as a seven or an eight.

To make them a 10, it would be nice if there were not challenges in getting timely support due to our aerospace manufacturing constraints where we cannot share full telemetry or logs.

Positive

The previous solution I used before Cisco Secure Access was Ivanti Pulse Secure.

I decided to switch because Ivanti Pulse Secure was end of life, had vulnerabilities, and was not user-friendly, lacking features that you would expect from something like Cisco Secure Access.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Access was reasonably straightforward. Although it was not specifically me who completed it, everything has worked really well.

It took probably four or five months to deploy, as we had the kit for a little while, but the actual implementation was reasonably quick.

I have seen ROI from using Cisco Secure Access; it has provided benefits such as stability and ease of use since the previous solution was managed by third parties and now it is all in-house.

With reduced third-party costs associated with Cisco Secure Access, there is stability and reliability for the user base, resulting in less lost hours.

I do believe those vulnerabilities are covered now with Cisco Secure Access, as the support and patch support is better.

There is nothing that comes to mind that they can improve regarding vulnerabilities because as a Cisco product, I expect any vulnerabilities to be addressed quickly, and they do. They communicate clearly about what is going to happen and what needs to be done. With the previous product, there was often uncertainty about patch availability.

I am not using the AI Assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access.

Regarding VPNaaS, the answer is probably not.

I am not using the hybrid private access feature in Cisco Secure Access, but it is something we are considering, although progress is slow due to the regulations of where I work.

I have integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access and am in the process of doing it with some identity elements there.

The integration of Cisco Identity Intelligence has not influenced my identity management and security measures at the moment, as it is still a work in progress coming from a legacy solution where there was no identity management.

I am trying to improve my IAM management.

I cannot specify what would make it a 10 since I have not fully deployed it and do not know all the capabilities; it might also be related to limitations specific to my company.

The reason it is only an eight and not a 10 could be due to my company's specific limitations; for instance, always-on access and AI chatbots would be features I would appreciate having.

My overall rating for this review is eight.