Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

We use the solution as an intrusion prevention system to detect malicious attacks on the network.

The solution updates at regular intervals. It has the most recent definition of the attacks, including zero-day attacks.

They could provide one solution to fit all the use cases. Presently, we have purchased different solutions for total security. It has become expensive for us.

The solution is very stable. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. It integrates with different XDR solutions. Thus, we can manage all the devices on a single pane. It is suitable for SMEs and large enterprises as well.

I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is quite good. Although, it needs to be cohesive in terms of communication.

The solution's initial setup process is complicated. But we can manage it with the right team for installation and technical support from Cisco.

The solution is good value for money. It is highly-priced but competitive in terms of features and support services.

It is an efficient cyber security solution. I highly recommend it to others and rate it a nine out of ten.

The thing about this solution that I like the most is that it's intuitive. The other features I like are the good support chain and ease of use.

My opinion is that this solution should improve the pricing.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

I would rate the technical support of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Positive

I would rate the pricing of this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

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.

We use this solution as an intrusion prevention system, as well as UI filtering, application control, and anti-malware protection.

The traffic filter feature of this solution has improved our organization. It not only provides ransomware protection, but saves us time in dealing with unnecessary traffic.

The traffic filter of this solution is very valuable to us, and to our clients.

We would like to see some improvement in the configuration process for this solution, as it is currently quite complex.

We have been working with this solution for around a year.

We have found this to be a stable solution in our experience.

This is a scalable product.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward if it is only the standard package being installed. However, configuring this product is complex and requires a lot of time commitment.

Deployment of the solution usually only takes a few hours, but if it is being implemented in a more complicated environment it can take up to three days.

We would recommend this solution to other organizations as it is very easy to use.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using the WAF models to monitor the IDS and IPS also, and it is integrated with Cisco Umbrella.

Cisco NGIPS is working well overall with our current needs.

The stability of the user console and some features could be easier to access.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for the past one and half years.

The stability can be better. The Cisco console is unstable.

The scalability is fine. I believe it covers the expectations that we have.

Technical support is very good, but you must have the expertise and technical people with Cisco NGIPS.

Positive

It is very straightforward, clear, and easy.

I usually work with Fortinet and FortiGate which is a lower cost in comparison with Cisco NGIPS.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS a nine out of ten.

The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are the VPN, IPS, access policy management, EIM, and the ASA model as part of Firepower.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately three years.

Cisco NGIPS is highly stable.

Cisco NGIPS is scalable. The scalability is easy to do because if the Firepower threat defense works in the cluster mode, someone can scale up the system using two and three Firepower threat defenses at the same time in one system.

We use this solution in different companies and provide them with support. We have some clients that have 3,000 users whereas others have 700.

In our company process some team, we have three or four people and the solution can be easily maintained because it is managed in one place in the Firepower management center. In one company we have approximately 24 Firepower models and these devices are controlled by one system, the Firepower management system (FMC). It's very easy to control and maintain the solution.

The price of the solution is expensive to a degree it cannot be used by small businesses. It is best suited for medium and enterprise businesses.

I would recommend this solution to others for medium, large, and enterprise businesses only.

I rate Cisco NGIPS a ten out of ten.

We use this product for IPS detection and reporting purposes.

We have found the IPS detection to be a very valuable feature of this solution. It is easy to use to stop policy violations.

We would like an option to search through the logs to be added to this solution.

We have been working with this solution for three years.

The current version of this solution is proving to be very stable.

We believe this to be a scalable solution.

The technical support for this product is good. They respond to tickets quickly when they are raised, and they generally respond within 24 hours.

The initial setup and configuration of this solution was straightforward.

Licenses for this product are available for either one, or three year terms.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I like Firepower's automation, and the security intelligence is a powerful feature. 

If Firepower had an embedded vulnerability scanner, it could better detect the vulnerabilities on different platforms in the network. It needs to integrate with other solutions to detect these vulnerabilities. It cannot detect system vulnerabilities on its own. A new trend is encrypted security solutions. Firepower can integrate with Cisco products like Stealthwatch, and Stealthwatch can primarily integrate with other Cisco products. 

Firepower APIs that allow it to integrate with other vendors need more flexibility. For example, if I want to integrate with Forcepoint, I can't because Forcepoint cannot integrate with other sandbox vendors. This integration has become essential for the latest security solutions because most customers are now thinking about integrated security solutions. However, not every product is like that. We have to think about the integrated security solutions, so Firepower needs to improve in this area, the integrations with other vendors.

We are a partner with Cisco and we have sold these products to multiple customers. Most of them have given us positive feedback about Cisco Firepower.

We had multiple bugs and issues on the old versions, but the new versions Cisco has recently released are much more stable. However, our customers are still facing many bugs on the system. It has matured noticeably, but we are still facing multiple stability issues on Firepower. There are more than 80 or 90 bugs for each release node. It's a considerable number of bugs. It's much better than before, but there are still too many bugs in the new versions. The R&D team needs to put more work into new releases to minimize the number of bugs.

Cisco has some limitations in clustering if we want to upgrade the hardware currently deployed at customer sites. If Cisco can improve or optimize this clustering limitation, this will add more scalability to Firepower.

Cisco's most powerful support team is based in the United States. Most cases this team handles are solved quickly, but I've had a different experience with the Indian team. It takes too much time to solve the issues. We have different experiences with tech teams in other time zones, and I prefer to communicate cases with a US-based team. It depends on when we open the ticket. Sometimes it will route to the Indian tech team. If we open the ticket between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Cairo time, I think it will go to the US team.

Signature tuning is automated in Cisco Firepower. This is the most powerful feature, which most vendors don't have. It makes deploying the solution straightforward for the customer and us implementers as well. So the automation and the fine-tuning are effortless in Firepower.

Cisco Firepower is a good investment because one product can cover such a large part of the NIST security framework.

The weakness of Cisco Firepower is the cost. Some of the customers see it as very expensive. 

I would rate Cisco Firepower NGIPS nine out of 10. For any customers thinking about implementing this solution, I would suggest being aware of the security areas they want to cover. They need to consider the NIST cybersecurity framework and focus on each area of this framework to make sure that there are no security gaps in their environment. Firepower covers three main areas of this framework: detection, response, and identification.