Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

The way we use it in my company is just for a basic firewall.

It's a next-generation firewall. You can integrate it with external systems, like Cisco Talos, Cisco Umbrella, all these things. You can do threat detection, threat prevention. You can integrate with your active directory. It can block traffic based on the user or user group.

I use the product mainly for follow-up. I would say the most important is the integration with our directory services, the user directory services. We can block or allow traffic based on the specific users or specific user groups.

There are other features such as the connection with the intelligence systems such as Talos on Cisco. You can do zero-day prevention and detection. It's quite useful.

The solution is stable and the performance is good. 

My understanding is that the initial setup is simple. 

I'd like to see some cloud management. Cisco maybe already has it, however, my company doesn't use it as cloud management. That said, it would be great to manage your device through the cloud instead of managing through a server on-premise.

I've only used the solution for two months. It hasn't been that long just yet.

The product has been stable. Cisco is quite stable as a product. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches.

I can't really speak to the scalability of the solution as I haven't used it for long enough.

Due to the fact that all the traffic passes through the firewalls, I would say 500 people or maybe more use the solution in our organization.

Cisco technical support is great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with their capabilities. 

I'm also aware of Palo Alto, which in many ways is a more solid product. We used it in my previous company as it was more mature and much simpler to use in comparison to Cisco. 

While I didn't set it up, my understanding is the implementation is straightforward. You read the documentation. It's this continuation from the old Cisco ASAs. People have used it for many years. Cisco's quite easy to set it up and keep up and running. You just need to add things on top of it, however, it's all quite easy. I have done an installation of the previous Cisco firewall. It's really straightforward. The upgrade is quite simple as well.

We have three technical personnel that can handle deployment and maintenance. We have to cover the whole globe, so we have three people on to handle everything 24/7.

You do need to pay a licensing fee. If you want the additional features, like prevention or integration with extended intelligence systems, you need to pay additional licenses.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It might be 6.4. It's likely whatever that latest version is.

I would recommend Cisco, however, I do find Palo Alto to be a good product as well, and in some ways more solid. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

The NGIPS handles all of the IPS functionality for our security.

The most valuable feature for our cloud-based deployment is the autoscaling.

For our on-premises deployment, clustering is the most valuable.

I think their fingerprints are good in terms of how they whitelist and blacklist. This is because of Talos, which is really awesome. We use that a lot.

The anomaly detection capabilities are awesome.

The only thing I think they may need to improve on a little bit is identifying software more correctly when you do network discovery. You need that to really handle finding anomalies properly. In the past, I've noticed that some applications are not identified correctly, based on the OS and the fingerprints that they're pulling from the host.

In the future, we would like to see more involvement with the on-premises hybrid cloud. We want to see Cisco do more in the cloud space, and basically improving the connection between on-premises and the cloud. This including things such as automation.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for almost seven years.

The code is well-stabled right now and we've never had issues upgrading from one version to another. We've had it since version 2.0 and for every time we upgrade, it gets better. We're currently on version 6.6 and we're expecting that when 6.7 comes out, it will get better.

This is a very scalable product. You can add multiple devices to the same policy and then push that out.

In the cloud space, scaling is done automatically based on the amount of traffic and the amount of bandwidth that's generated. It scales up and down, back and forth, as needed. For example, if there is not much traffic then it drops, whereas if there is a lot of traffic then it creates another FTD, and then it just shares the load with load balancing.

Everything is scaled properly both in the cloud and on-premises.

Cisco's technical support is really good. I would say that they are number one. They follow up on their calls and tags, as well.

I also have experience with Check Point and I find that the pricing is better with Cisco.

The initial setup is straightforward. With the Firepower Threat Defense (FTD), everything is in one box. You can do everything from firewalls to IPS and more. It also includes the next-generation firewall.

It is an easy upgrade process that is easy to understand. I would say that from version 3.0, it has improved.

The cost of the license depends on the level of support that you have with Cisco. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco NGIPS is to read and understand all of the documentation before you start. Whatever it is that you might need help with, reach out to Cisco support and let them help you. The documentation is available and it is very understandable so you may not need their help. I would say that if you take your time to read it then you shouldn't have any problems in deploying.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Basic IPS functionality for intrusion prevention. We have two kinds of deployment. The one that is Inline and the one that is not Inline, where it's just listening. We have like a tap to which its monitoring traffic. For the one that is kind of offline deployment but for the Inline deployment, all traffic goes through it, like for North-South traffic, towards internet to provide some real-time intrusion prevention.

Ir's signature-based. We are also using the anomaly baseline formation, where it links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged. Those are the two most valuable features. 

It has room for improvement when it comes to integrating machine learning and AI into it where even if you don't have a baseline that is of length for anomaly detection, it could do more like an AI style machine learning. It learns on its own. It learns patterns, learns what good traffic looks like then is able to stop bad traffic, not just based on behavior but based on every other thing. I think other next-generation IPS solutions are turning towards integration of ML and AI. I need machine learning and the ability to share intelligence. 

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for seven years.

It is pretty stable and has good throughput.

It's scalable. You can add more to it as traffic requires, one cluster can do HA, so it's pretty scalable. In fact, you can cluster up to six chassis on the 4100.

If it's host-based IPS, we can count a number of users and say we have 45,0000 users but for network-based IPS, where it's just picking traffic from different connections when you're trying to go to the internet or when you're trying to come back to the internet it can support up to 10 million concurrent sessions. We have around 200,000 users but it can support 10 million concurrent sessions.

For maintenance, once you configure it, depending on what you call maintenance if it's software upgrade it doesn't take a lot to upgrade it. If it's active/standby you can upgrade the active. The standby becomes the active. Then when the active comes back on, you can upgrade the standby. So usually, at least you have an active/standby scenario, but if you have a cluster, you can take each out of production in codes. We start while others are in production. 

If you're talking about maintenance in terms of log collections and shipping of the logs, it's also easy to deploy from that perspective.

Cisco has very good support. We get good support from Cisco. 

We've been using Cisco for a while. Going from the IPS module on ASA or the IPS appliance, we've transitioned from different Cisco IPS solutions to this Cisco Next Generation IPS. 

It's been Cisco all along, it's just that this one has more visibility and it's next-generation style compared to the older IPS. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy to deploy. It was very quick.

We also looked at Sourcefire.

They bought this particular one from Sourcefire and Sourcefire was the world leader in next-generation IPS before Cisco bought it and I know it wasn't just in terms of visibility and how much it can do but in terms of cost too because it was an open-source project that was going on before Cisco bought it. Cisco bought the enterprise version so I feel it's not expensive, but I've not really checked the licensing cost.

Sourcefire wasn't originally Cisco and it was already a world leader and if I'm not mistaken or quoting wrongly, I think it's from the Snort project. I know the open-source community is still contributing to what Cisco is presenting with FirePower or FireSIGHT IPS. It's an open-source project. You can trust it because of the originality score and with what we've used so far too, I see the difference in the old version and this new one. You get better security compared to these other next-generation IPS out there.

In the next release, I would like to see AI machine learning capabilities built into it.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

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 are using Cisco NGIPS for our company network. We are comparing how it works with the other companies.

The most valuable feature of Cisco NGIPS is its protection.

The price of Cisco NGIPS could improve.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately four years.

Cisco NGIPS is stable.

The scalability of Cisco NGIPS is good.

We have approximately 100 people using this solution in my company.

I did not use the support.

We previously used a Russian-based solution that was not popular.

The initial setup of Cisco NGIPS was straightforward.

We used a consultant for the implementation of the solution.

I have not seen a return on investment.

The price of Cisco NGIPS could be reduced. It is more expensive than other solutions.

The solution only requires one person for maintenance.

I would recommend this solution to others but it depends on their budget. It is expensive.

I rate Cisco NGIPS a seven out of ten.

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.

There are both options of cloud or on-premise solutions. I usually do the on-premise solution. We have others who do the cloud solution. If you want to deploy and protect your network from threats and protect your neighbor, that's one of the uses that we employ. With that, you have Security Intelligence, you have Intelligence, you have an Intrusion Prevention System. In the recent upgrade of Firepower, we have 3.0. You can use that to protect the internal network or if you want to protect your servers. 

We use the Security Intelligence feature. We also use the Cisco AMP for Networks, which is used with the ITL certificate. You can use third-party integrations with the Firepower, about security. You can use the STIX format. With the STIX, you can add emergency threats to rules. This includes malware detection which has a third-party Security Intelligence platform. Included are reporting for the last seven days, V shell, and phishing tank. Cybercrime tracker is to check if any company or domain has a bad reputation on the internet. And it can give that information to the Firepower. You can use Security Intelligence to protect the network. It has preprocessors about security. They have a preprocessor for the SCADA. Cisco has evolved a lot in that area over the last few years.

The SSL decrypt could be improved, but it's normal. All the devices in our platform need a lot of memory or CPU to do the SSL decrypt. This is an issue to improve in all platforms, not only in Cisco. They have SecureX which can be integrated with other platforms. But I think the improvement of SecureX in the platforms is needed. SecureX is really new but I think that needs a little improvement.

We have been using Cisco NGIPS or Firepower NGIPS for five years. We use the latest version.

It's working correctly, it's working without problems. You can buy another Firepower, and you can do a cluster configuration. And it's really easy, we don't have any problems.

Cisco support is really awesome. I have another vendor like Honeywell. I really hate when I call Honeywell. But when I call Cisco, I really appreciate it a lot when I talk with the support engineers because the personnel have really good skills and have a really good passion. Cisco support is awesome.

I think the installation of Firepower NGIPS is really easy. You configure the device, you connect that to the Firepower Management Center, and you have deployed the Firepower.

If they're looking for a platform that can protect from attack, from external or insiders who want to attack the network, I think Firepower is a good solution. With  Security Intelligence, other security features make that platform an awesome platform. I would give Cisco NGIPS a rating of nine on a scale of ten. I think no one platform is perfect. I wouldn't give a 10 to a solution ever because 10 is 100%, and I think no one solution can 100% secure. Not because the platform is not working correctly. Because I think no one platform can be 10 by 10.

It is our main firewall. We use it for reporting and for firewall purposes to block unwanted inputs and outputs.

Its ease of use and its ability to block and allow ports in and out of our organization are the most valuable features.

It works very well. It gives us all the information that we need.

We don't like its licensing model. It has separate licensing for all the features. For instance, to get URL filtering, you need to buy another license. Every feature set seems to require another license. Unless you purchase them all upfront, you find some surprises and realize that you can't do that because you need another license. 

Its logging isn't quite as good as it used to be in our previous solution. We used to have Cisco ASA, and we could view the logs a lot easier than NGIPS (also known as Firepower). We saw real-time logging, but we don't see that as much in Firepower.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It has been very stable. I don't think it has gone down at all in two years.

It is very scalable. In terms of the number of users, we have 26,000 students and 3,500 staff members. Everybody in our organization goes through it and takes advantage of it on our system. We have about five people who are managing it, and they are from the network group, infrastructure group, and storage group.

We did have some engagement with the technical support people regarding the integration with Nexus Switches, and they were very good. They helped us out quite a bit.

We were using Cisco ASAs. They were going out of service. They were going out of sale and support. So, we decided to move to Firepower. We wanted to go to the Next-Gen IPS type of stuff, and ASAs didn't have that kind of feature set.

It was quite complex. It required some workarounds with other network components in our system. It could have been a lot less complicated. Nexus Switches that we had were a little bit older, and they didn't integrate as well with Firepower as they could have. So, we ended up having to buy some new switches. 

The deployment pretty much took about three weeks. It involved moving all of our stuff from our old firewall onto the new one. Rules were a little different, so we had to work on it for a while. Fortunately, we could run them in parallel, so it worked out okay.

We did it in-house.

It has definitely given us our return on the investment.

It is expensive. It has separate licensing for all the features, and every feature set seems to require another license.

Licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs besides the standard licensing fee.

I would advise others to make sure that the rest of their equipment is completely compatible with the newest Firepowers.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten. It gives us all the information that we need. We've got to dig for it sometimes, but it is a good product.