Cisco Secure Endpoint Reviews

I implemented the solution in my company to use its managed endpoint protection in my company's use cases. Most of the users of Cisco Secure Endpoint in my company are unaware that they use the product. Our company only uses it to isolate possible malware on the endpoints. Our company uses the solution in collaboration with other software protection tools we have so that it helps us to look into cases where possible malware or attacks can happen.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its technical support. In most cases, it's very difficult or complicated to incorporate Cisco Secure Endpoint in the IT environment, and most of the messages that appear are not very clear. It is a reliable tool. After the setup phase, I realized that it is a reliable tool.

The initial implementation of Cisco Secure Endpoint can be a pain and is an area in the solution that needs improvement. After the initial implementation phase, a person gets support from Cisco, making it a solid tool.

The solution needs to improve in the area of the specific details of the threats it provides to its users.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for three years.

After the presence and use of the solution in our company for three years, I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

Since we haven't had any expansion in our company's infrastructure, I won't be able to comment on the solution's scalability feature.

All of the employees in the back-end processes of our company are users of the solution since the product is implemented on all the PCs and servers. From an IT perspective, only two people use the solution in the company. One person looks after the maintenance of the solution, while the other person looks at the messaging part of the solution.

My company has chosen an outsourced option to get technical support of the solution since we don't get any technical support internally. 

The initial setup of Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex.

Speaking about the deployment process, during the initial phase of using Cisco Secure Endpoint, we were getting a lot of false positives in our company, making it pretty hard for us initially since we had to cut endpoints until we could stabilize the solution.

My company does make annual payments towards the licensing costs of the solution. Cisco Secure Endpoint is a little bit expensive. The pricing for licenses is pretty expensive for the moment, but it is a good solution.

My company wants to stop using Cisco Secure Endpoint and opt for another solution.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

I rate the overall solution an eight or nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is general antivirus protection.

This product was deployed to a number of Windows machines, and we also have a VMware environment.

The product gives greater visibility of malware being downloaded by my clientele. In a more general fashion, Cisco Secure Endpoint has helped to prioritize threats. It has allowed us to make more effective use of our security team members.

Another advantage is that it has improved the effectiveness of our security options. We now have better response times when dealing with outbreaks.

We have decreased our time to detection, although it is difficult to say by how much because we weren't detecting all of the malware in the past.

It is reasonably easy to remediate issues using Cisco Secure Endpoint. In part, this is because I don't have to visit the physical machines to remediate them. As such, the time it takes for remediation has been decreased. 

This solution accelerates threat hunting by automatically promoting endpoint incidents to the Cisco SecureX platform, which is something that is fairly important to us.

Our systems are monitored by this product, and if threats are detected then the systems are shut down before problems arise. This is something that is fairly important to our organization.

This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports. Especially when updates are released for Chrome, many detections report a virus when it really wasn't.

Another problem that I notice is that Outlook 2016 creates cache files of attachments, and when this product detects them as malware, it can't delete them. I assume this is because Outlook still has the file open. This means that I get notices about the issue but I can't do anything about it until later, after Outlook has closed them. This may not be Cisco's fault as much as it is Microsoft's fault.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Endpoint for less than a year.

In my experience, this product is very stable.

This is a fairly scalable solution.

We deployed it to all of our Windows devices. A team consisting of fewer than 10 people receives alerts from the product when there is an issue. The team will follow up on the incidents and any remediation.

At this point, we have no plans to increase our usage.

I have not needed to use Cisco technical support for this product. I am usually happy with their support, so I'm assuming that for this product it will be roughly the same.

Prior to using this product, I did not have other agents in place to handle the same job. We had implemented Microsoft Defender for Endpoint but that doesn't really have any reporting tools.

We switched away from Defender because we needed better visibility. There really wasn't any.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. It might have been complex for somebody that hasn't been doing this type of thing for as long as I have. For example, not a lot of people understand deploying things via group policies. In my case, however, I have a lot of experience and it wasn't complicated.

The deployment was done in-house, by me. I did not use any external help for the implementation.

We purchased the product through a reseller, CDW, and our experience with them was straightforward. There were fairly easy to deal with.

It does not require regular maintenance or monitoring. I receive alerts when they happen but I don't actively monitor it. When an alert happens, an email is sent to a small team of fewer than 10 people.

The pricing and licensing fees are okay. As a school, we do not have quite as much funding as a private business might. I wish that there were more of a discount available for educational uses.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Endpoint, we didn't thoroughly investigate or evaluate other options. We are a Cisco shop and we generally lean toward using Cisco products.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that all of their security products should come from the same vendor. This way, your dashboard can be set up to monitor all of them. In my case, because we're a Cisco shop, this product makes sense for us.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Endpoint has improved our speed of response and the level of confidence we have that we are in good shape or are not in good shape.

Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts.

I've been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for three years.

It's very stable.

We haven't had any issues at all with the scalability. We're a global enterprise with between 1,500 and 1,700 users and we use it on servers, Macs, and PCs.

The technical support is good.

We've already got SHI and Cisco reps on top of us, and that's a lot of the reason why everything is so good.

Positive

We were looking to replace Microsoft Defender, which really just wasn't cutting it. Before Defender, we used Kaspersky. We needed to go to an EDR solution and we were already a Cisco-centric company, so it made sense to go into a unified environment.

It was straightforward. We just rolled out the agent to all the endpoints. It took just a couple of people, one security person and one person for the tool that pushed it out to Windows devices.

If I didn't have someone else taking care of the licensing, I would say that the licensing needs to be improved. All the product features we need are there. It's just a matter of the complexity and the different offerings and trying to figure things out.

There are a lot of pieces that roll into the pricing issue. For Cisco Secure Endpoint, with our Cisco EA, the pricing seems reasonable compared to the others. But when we get to solutions like Duo and we think that with our Microsoft agreement their MFA is "free," it's not exactly free. But without our EA, Duo would cost so much more. It feels a little bit like nickel and dime sometimes, but I get it.

We looked at CrowdStrike and Carbon Black. All the solutions had great value, but we went with Cisco because we were with Cisco for networking quite a bit. Also, our overall direction was to look at SASE, and with some of the other things, they all just started coming together. It made a lot of sense to stay in one environment for functionality.

Traditionally you'll see the industry reviews talk about Cisco Secure Endpoint as typically in Cisco environments, but I'd tell the CrowdStrike users and other folks to take a look. It's an interesting solution and it provides a lot of value.

Cyber security resilience has been extremely important for our organization. Cisco Secure Endpoint has stopped a few things. I don't know whether other avenues of defense in depth would have caught them or not, but the resilience of depth and the ability to keep moving, even after an event, keep the rest of our business productive.

The Cisco environment has been perfect. When there is an event in the news that I know my leaders are going to be reading about, in 10 minutes I can check my environment to see if I have any indicators of compromise, and I'm done.

Cisco Secure Endpoint, often paired with Firepower and Cisco Umbrella, is primarily used for perimeter security and DNS protection.

The tool's most valuable feature is its integration with other Cisco products, such as switches and routers. This integration allows comprehensive coverage of security parameters across the customer's entire network. Customers find it easier to manage because they already know Cisco products. The cloud-based management is another valuable feature, enabling customers to manage their security from anywhere with an internet connection.

Cisco Meraki could benefit from AI assistance or intelligent assistance features. Compared to competitors like Juniper, Cisco Meraki currently lacks a digital network assistant, which is an area Cisco is reportedly working on.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

The solution is very stable. I don't hear complaints from customers about it not working right.

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. 

Palo Alto has a portfolio similar to that of Cisco. 

Setting up Cisco Secure Endpoint is complex, primarily because it needs to be tailored to each customer's specific needs and network configuration. Factors like whether the customer has a segmented network or uses VLANs affect how the solution is implemented.

While it's straightforward for a customer with ten branches, it becomes more complicated with 30-50  branches - not due to technical issues, but because of logistical challenges. 

One or two people are enough for deployment for complex cases with 20-30 branches. They're network or security specialists with Cisco certifications like CCNP or CCNA. The number depends on how complex the project is, but most times, it's pretty easy to deploy. We also typically need one or two people for maintenance, depending on how many branches there are and how complex the project is. If there are more than 50 branches, it can be complex to manage. Our solution architects often have CCNP certification, which helps manage the customer's network across branches.

The solution's price is about the same as that of Palo Alto solutions.

I recommend Cisco Secure Endpoint to others. It has been around for a long time and knows its stuff. Their Talos intelligence tool allows customers to see and secure their networks. I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

Being the primary AV/IDS within the enterprise, we have the solution deployed across multiple platforms including workstations, servers and Operating Systems.

The solutions conveniently integrates with other existing on-prem and cloud application will relatively minimum to stand up, using APIs and security best practices.

Most out-of-the-box features are either being utilized or pipelined to be deployed going forward, including MAP, ETHOS, SPERO, Exploit Prevention, SecureX, and Tetra which serves as an offline definition repository for workstation who are unable to pull definition updates using the default Cisco AMP cloud route.

It has been effective as the primary AV tool.

The visibility, dashboard and the navigations gives pretty decent insights into threats, IOCs and endpoint events to help with proactive monitoring. Deployment and connector upgrades are straightforward with available technical documentation for most scenarios.

AMP simplifies endpoint protection, detection, and response workflows, like security investigation, threat hunting, and incident response. By using the solution, we've been able to divert attention towards of the tasks, saving us significant time and effort. It has also served as a one stop shop for endpoint anomaly detection and proactive protection, thwarting the need to gathering inputs from various applications and having to compile that data into one relevant result. It has obviously minimized security risks to the entire business, most importantly, endpoints, servers and other crown-jewel assets. 

Recently, we have engaged the vendor regarding optimization, bug detections and extended features. Identity persistence, a feature request that was recently granted for instance gives virtual and physical devices deployed using gold image the ability specify an Identity Synchronization option. This persistence feature can apply by MAC address across business, by MAC address across policy or by host name across business.  

Speaking of scalability, integrating with other Cisco products, secure email, network, SIEM, API, open source and a number of selected proprietary applications have been encouraging.

Of all valuable features, these are worth mentioning:

- CI/CD pipelining and feature prioritization by actioning on user requests/ identified bugs, releasing connector upgrades, and deploying console upgrades for better usability

- Subscription functionality where console administrators able to Subscribe to receive immediate alerts(digest) on specific or group of monitored workstations

- Identity and access management capability within the console that allow administrators the ability to drill down user visibility on a Role based access control, limiting access to policies, groups, exclusions, and other controls

In terms of operating system compatibility, the coverage is almost in its entirety. Integration and deployment to Windows workstations, Windows servers, Mac, Linux and mobile is seamless

Being a unified AV engine, AMP conveniently delivers both Intrusion detection systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) capabilities with a specialty in cloud-delivered protection, next-generation antivirus, endpoint protection platform (EPP), and advanced endpoint detection and response (EDR)

Like any other security tool, there's always rooms for improvement. Some of the ways the product can be improved are:

- Vendor needs to understand a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with addressing TAC cases and service requests. For "once in a blue moon" cases, most approach still sound like the engineers are acting off of a runbook. In this case the recommended solutions will not totally align with the scenario

- Since customers do not have the ability to allow or decline console updates, there have been a number of instances where the console GUI appear buggy and functionalities do not work correctly after an upgrade. This can be improved by informing customers prior to the upgrades.

Other additional features that should be improved in next releases include:

- The dashboard is great for quick visibility prior to deeper dive, however, making the dashboard more customization will improve interaction, grant the ability to filter out irrelevant outputs and encourage personalized drill-downs based on daily requirements

- Integration with enterprise monitoring applications and ticketing systems that differentiates noise, forwards events, generates tickets and have them automatically assigned to application owning group.

I have been using Cisco AMP for Endpoints for about three years, this is inclusive of my prior assignments before being the SME for the application within the firm.

Stability is below average. There have been several issues with frequency of release, feature release and wait time for overhanging time-bombs. 

From a customer stand-point, these released are aimed at fixing known bugs from last release and introducing new features either in beta or live versions. However, this means that an enterprise  running 50K+ endpoints need to go through the rigors of setting up test/dev/qa/pilot then production for iteration, so as to limit the blast radius. 

This can be tasking if as the frequency increases.

Long story short, Cisco AMP is scalable. Having used the product as a 'demanding' customer, I can attest to the availability of proper technical documentation and seamless integration with existing application, infrastructure and appliances 

- Vendor needs to understand a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with addressing TAC cases and service requests. For "once in a blue moon" cases, most approach still sound like the engineers are acting off of a runbook. In this case the recommended solutions will not totally align with the scenario. Also escalations can be more flexible, for instance, certain case priorities (P2, P1) require phoning in, which can be fuel to an already burning bush. 

Neutral

From my understanding, initial setup was tasking with various gray areas. For a new customer trying to set up AMP, there is room for improvement. 

The initial deployment happened prior to me joining the organization, based on my interactions with the application deployment team, the effort took months.

Customers can get better during product's initial setup if vendor provides documentation that suggest important objectives like naming convention, default config and collection of product's best practices

In-house

AMP is worth the money. In recent years, we have spent less time/money and require lesser  human resources for task completion. On the higher level, this has saved the firm the need to hire more security engineers to manage the application, reducing overhead cost.

A discrepancy with  the number of assets per license should be reviewed to apply based on preference or number of endpoints versus ranges.

Compared to other competitors, there's a significant price difference, although different applications tend to focus more on different cybersecurity functionality

It's been really interesting working with the application, going from 5.X.X connector versions up until 7.X.X. As previously highlighted, there are numerous ways to improve the products. Working with the engineers in previous cases, there is the zeal to improve and an attitude that embraces change

We use this solution to protect our IT environment. We use it to secure our user endpoints.

It gives awareness of our users' security posture.

The console feature gives a centralized management of what's going on, and if something happens, it gives you an alert. That's the most important feature for me.

Compared to other products, Cisco Secure Endpoint has some limitations and issues, it is still catching up with competition. For example, protection for USB is fairly recent and it is still limited to Windows platforms, and there are significant differences in the product packaging and distribution for Windows and MacOS platforms.

Another area of improvement is stability.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for two years.

We had a couple of deferred releases this year.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

Our deployment is very small. We only have a few dozen endpoints. So I can't really say if it scales well to a large number of endpoints. However, it seems like it could scale well so, the solution could be easy to scale up as needed.

The customer support team solves the problems, but it takes a while to contact them. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We secure the laptops down, making sure that where we build the policy, every policy is consistent on every laptop.

It has greatly improved my organization from a security standpoint.

The most valuable feature is being able to push a policy. Whenever we update a corporate policy, we update it in one place, push it down, and it updates the policy on every laptop.

Secure Endpoint is good for creating actionable alerts so we can detect and remediate threats. If somebody does get infected, we don't have to wait for them to say, "Oh, I can't use my email." We immediately know about it. We would absolutely know about the problem before the person did. That was our biggest impact.

Secure Endpoint decreased our time to remediation. Where it used to take us a month to find out that something is infected, we now know that same day, as soon it is infected.

Cisco Secure Endpoint has helped improve our cybersecurity resilience. We only have about two IT guys. So it just makes them better at what they do. It saves them time, so they can focus on other things.

It saves them time so they can focus on other tasks.

It does a great job for what it is. The user interface face could be slicker. It does not have to be flashy, but the user interface is dull.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for two years.

The solution is rock solid.

The solution is really easy to scale.

I have engaged with tech support and I think they're great at what they do, two thumbs up. I recommend them.

We were using Avast and Norton. We felt it was time to switch to something Cisco branded that we could trust because we are a Cisco shop. All of them are proactive, but identity services was a big reason we switched to Secure Endpoint. You cannot really hook Norton into a Cisco ICE. We chose it for the integration abilities.

I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We are using it for remote users, and that's our main reason for using it. We have a lot of colleagues who work outside the organization, and they need to connect to the local, on-prem resources for file sharing and other things that we have in our data center. That's it.

It helped to free up our IT staff's time. We don't need to manually check everything in the compliance area. Everything is automated, so we don't need to check all the time. I don't know how much time it has saved, but it helped us a lot.

The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor.

Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better.

We've been using this solution for five or six years. 

We do not have any challenges, and we are fine with it. We are using it only for external endpoints, and we are very comfortable with it. 

We don't see any difficulty there.

It's very nice. You get feedback very easily. I'd rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were using another solution before. We switched because we have Cisco everywhere, and the best way is to go for Cisco for everything. That's our strategic plan.

Its initial setup is straightforward, but I have been working with Cisco products for about 10 years. I have knowledge of how to use it, and it's very easy for us to implement.

The process of migration was easy. We have our own tools to migrate from the old one. In our environment, everything is on-prem, and we also have redundancy for the central equipment.

We implement it ourselves. The number of people required depends on how big the organization is. We are not so big. We are a middle-sized organization, and for our use case, three or four people were involved in the planning and implementation.

We have not seen an ROI.

We had faced some license issues, but it has been improved. At the beginning of the implementation, we faced a lot of licensing issues, but now, we have EA licensing, which gives us an opportunity to grow.

If you have a Cisco environment inside, it's best to have a Cisco solution for the outside. You don't need to use multiple vendors because it can be difficult for them to communicate with each other. Sometimes, there can be difficulties when you have different vendors.

Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten.