Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

I use Cisco NGIPS as a firewall.

The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are protection and reporting.

We have a separate management controller for Cisco NGIPS. If they have not done it already they should integrate Cisco NGIPS with the Cloud Portal.

The solution has some bugs that sometimes take time to resolve.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately two years.

The stability of Cisco NGIPS has been good since we have been using it.

The scalability of Cisco NGIPS is good.

Cisco has better technical support than other competitors, such as Check Point IPS or Palo Alto. Cisco has very good support, they are always ready to help their customer if there are any production issues.

Cisco NGIPS should add a technical person to the chat support. They correctly do not have a specialist. The knowledge base of the chat agent should be better.

I have used Check Point IPS solutions.

The implementation of Cisco NGIPS is straightforward.

You have to do your own implementation of the Cisco NGIPS hardware, but for the configuration, Cisco support can be involved from day one. That's what I have experienced. There was some exception but I have involved the Cisco support team from day one when I started configuring my firewall.

We have seen a return on investment by using Cisco NGIPS.

There is a license required to use Cisco NGIPS and it can be a one or three-year license.

I would advise others to use the support from Cisco, they are helpful.

I rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

Cisco NGIPS offers defense mechanism and intrusion prevention for your environment. 

I like the way the tool pushes the packets from the node level. 

Cisco NGIPS' performance could be better. 

I have been working with the product for 24 years. 

Cisco NGIPS is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has over 2000  users for the product. 

The tool's deployment is not straightforward. You need a technical and competent person to do it. A four to five-member technical team can handle its deployment and maintenance. 

The tool's ROI is good. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate Cisco NGIPS a ten out of ten. 

Some of our customers are having DDOS attacks and ransomware attacks.

Earlier in July 2019, I noted that there was an attack. To mitigate future attacks from the ransomware in Columbia Bank and other similar situations, we at Cisco Talent, which is responsible for security intelligence, provided updated security rules. We offered intrusion policies and codes through signatures to help overcome such situations.

It's a good solution.

The solution is not that bad. Next-generation firewalls work from my experience, they work. 

The URL filtering feature and the new locations feature are both valuable additions to the solution.

While the Management GUI and FMC could be improved, the devices themselves function well.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for more than five years.

I provided support for version 6.4, but in our company, we do have Firepower version 7.0.

Cisco NGIPS is a stable solution.

Cisco has great support.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

I am currently working with Cisco NGIPS at home as an IPS device, so I can see what's hitting the firewall and look at the logs. I'm using it as a learning environment. 

The IPS functionality is useful if you have offices all over the place. It's nice to have centralized management instead of going to a separate ASA or FirePOWER device. 

The biggest problem with most Cisco products is that the interface is lagging behind the competition. The user interface could be updated and improved.

Cisco NGIPS is stable. 

Cisco NGIPS is highly scalable. We use it to cover 15 offices.

It requires some background in IPS and IT security to fully understand it, so it is somewhat complex to deploy.

I rate Cisco NGIPS eight out of 10. 

The primary use case is for intrusion prevention. We install the solution between the firewall and the call switches.

The most valuable features are the intrusion detection ones. We channel the intrusion engine to create a policy of prevention. We only use this solution for intrusion prevention, not as a firewall.

There is room for improvement in the policy documentation. It gets confusing trying to understand what all of the policies mean. We need clear documentation explaining what each policy does.

For the Cisco STD, if we lose the connection with the SMC and STD, we can only assist with the STD via the CLI, so we can only do some troubleshooting. I think this is an area that needs improvement. In terms of the architecture, it needs to be more comfortable to change our own managed STD via the UI even if SMC is not available.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for six years.

Some of the engineers within Cisco's tech support are knowledgeable and others are not. Sometimes we have to go back and forth for a week to get an answer.

Neutral

The initial setup is not complex; we only need to define the IP address and add the SMC IP. Both STD and SMC have the capability of SDM. Also if we don't have SMC, we mainly require the anti-SDM in UI. However, after we enroll the Cisco file from the SMC, we can no longer manage the STD from there. Therefore, it is very difficult to roll back if there is a connection loss between the STD and SMC, as SMC cannot manage the STD via the UI. In comparison, if there is a connection loss between Palo Alto Panorama, we can simply lock it with Palo Alto following the file and do some configuration. 

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

We have a Cisco ASA firewall, which is like a standard firewall. We upgraded to Firepower Threat Defense, and it is like a next-generation capability, like NGIPS and NGAV, and has that kind of functionality. It also improves network security and threat defence.

It has helped to improve our cybersecurity and our network security posture.

The FTD has a GUI interface, which is very easy to work around with all the configurations. It is a client-based software based on Java. Now we have the GUI web interface, and it's very interactive and easy to navigate.

Cisco NGIPS runs the backend as a Snort engine, so it is like they customize it with Cisco. So they need to have an engine for threat defence.

We have been using this solution for two years and are using version 9.6. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable. NGIPS is based on our user base, so we have around 2000 users. We require two network and security administrators for deployment and maintenance. We do not plan to increase usage because we have already upgraded.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We updated from Cisco ASA to NGIPS FTD.

The initial setup is a bit complex because it requires a lot of configuration, firewall and zoning. The deployment was done in-house. We just purchased a box and installed it on our own.

We have seen a return on investment in improving security and defending the threats in our network.

I do not have details about the licensing costs. It has a user-based license and a different model license because it is modular software.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. From a recommendation perspective, before deploying the NGIPS solution, you need to work with your internal environment. It can minimize the load on the NGIPS, so you should do your IPS signature before moving to production.

It should have a network and content processor and a security process for additional features. Other OEMs have these capabilities to enhance the throughput and performance.

Customers who are trying to replace their internal firewall with good visibility at the application-level content level use Cisco NGIPS. It has the ability to do packet inspection and the customer can check their users while they're searching the web and going to different websites. Cisco NGIPS has the ability to connect to your firewall with advanced intrusion prevention.  

The most valuable feature of Cisco NGIPS is the centralized user interface. You have the ability to quickly push out configurations across your environment using the Cisco UI. It's a powerful capability of that solution.

Cisco NGIPS could improve its ability to do SSL inspections. Sometimes the ability to do SSL inspection is not scalable and you might not be able to get the installment required if you don't size the right hardware.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately five years.

Cisco NGIPS is stable, but I there is more that can be done.

Cisco is particularly strong when it comes to firewalls and the IPS, IBS, or next-generation firewalls. When I was working as a system architect we went from Cisco to Palo Alto or Fortinet. I don't know if they've made some recent improvements or maybe it's in the roadmap, but I would say there's still room for improvement with Cisco security appliances.

Cisco NGIPS is scalable. However, the cost to the customer is always high, because it's still a hardware base. After the resource cycle of three or five years, you have to replace them. From that perspective, they are not the greatest solution out there.

Our networking team of approximately 50 people that are mostly using this solution in my organization.

The support from Cisco NGIPS is good.

The initial setup of Cisco NGIPS is of a medium difficulty level.

My advice to others is they should look into other vendors and cloud-based solutions. Solutions that don't require you to refresh and get hardware, because nowadays there are new problems for hardware. It's getting more difficult, try to get a more software-based, cloud-centric model solution.

I rate Cisco NGIPS a six out of ten.

This product automatically blocks any form of threat in a network. Once a threat is detected, it will notify the IT team. It will show the full threat, the target destination, and perhaps a loophole that the intruder used.

What it reports depends on how you have configured it.

It's able to map the solutions that you have, detailing how they are connected. It gives you visibility in terms of what's happening without your network.

This is the leading Cisco solution across Sub-Saharan Africa.

The most valuable feature is that it is able to detect any form of infiltration. It does this in an automated fashion so that you don't have to do anything to it. Once it is properly configured, it will act on its own.

The visibility that it gives you is very good. You're able to know what has happened within your network.

The way it pushes policy rules is very good. It makes sure that your information is reliable, and that you have the right visibility and the right intelligence.

I would like to see a more user-friendly interface. This is true for Cisco in general, with many of the products that they have.

We have been selling Cisco NGIPS for approximately four years.

This is a very stable product. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is used by every six or seven banks out of ten.

This solution is very easy to scale, depending on your organization's roadmap. I have had customers that are using it and scaling very fast, especially in the financial sector.

Being a clustered solution, you can have 500, 1,000, or 10,000 users. In fact, one of my customers has 20,000 users of NGIPS. I have another organization that has 1,200 users. The size of the solution is set based on the number of users.

The technical support from Cisco is good, and it is not expensive. Over the past couple of years, they have really improved when it comes to service delivery.

I have worked with a variety of security solutions. I have worked with products from Trend Micro, Cisco, and others.

This product is straightforward to install. A CCMP can complete the deployment in one day.

One skilled person is suitable for deployment.

This is a very affordable product.

This is a product that I can recommend anytime. I have sold millions of dollars of it, every year. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.