Cisco Web Security Appliance Reviews

Web Security Appliance is a proxy and I have gotten active with the open-source proxy. If I want a feature that is not present, most of the database updates and filters are good. Our clients use Cisco Palace which is a very big database that is very quickly updated.

It also has high availability. These kinds of solutions impact the user experience. If you have an issue with the proxy not responding, you have to install or activate new does in order to reestablish the connections for the customer. 

There are some problems with this solution but it's not related to this product. If a user wants to use it for other devices like mobile or smartphones, this product isn't so reliable. If you want to implement it in a track point mode, it is difficult to implement and is not so reliable. There should be more implementation. 

I have been using Cisco Web Security Appliance for five to six years. 

It's very stable. We have thousands of users and they don't have any issues with it. It's very stable.

If you want this product to be stable you have to put it through the EPS and you have to manage the connection to the power. If you shut down the product, there will be a problem because they encrypt the discs and you'll have hardware loss. The solution won't work. 

It's very scalable. If you buy one bundle with 100 users, you can install unlimited appliances to scale horizontally. You can have ten appliances that can log share communications. It's very scalable. 

We have contacted Cisco support for other products. I am satisfied with their support. It depends on the level of the technician you get. If you are an end-user you start with level one help which isn't so easy. If you request escalation to the next level you get a good level of support. 

I only used an open-source solution. Cisco's advantage is the support and they have good scalability which is not so easy to implement in other solutions. 

The level of complexity of the initial setup will depend on the level of customization. If you want to start the product with the best practices presented by Cisco, it's very easy. You have to manage your own IP addresses and check that the service is okay. It's integrated with other services and then apply it to your users. It's very easy to implement. You need a high level of skills to manage it. If you want special customization or a high level of security activation, it may be a bit more complex. 

For a single appliance without any high-appliance activated and if you have all the data, DNS servers, and IP addresses, it can around an hour to implement.

Try it. See how it works, it's not difficult to implement and it's not so expensive. I would recommend it. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like to see reporting to implement more features. The license should also be more flexible. 

We are using this solution as a proxy.

The most valuable feature is that we can use it as a proxy.

They need a better graphical interface, and they need a better ISE mechanism.

In the next release, I would like to see the reporting features enhanced.

I have been using the Cisco Web Security Appliance for three to four years.

This solution is stable.

If you want to go to the next level, you will have to change the hardware. The general requirement is that when you reach the hardware limitations, you have to change it.

Depending on the customer, there are anywhere from 100 to 500 uses.

I have contacted technical support and I was satisfied with their help.

The initial setup wasn't easy but not complex either.

I implemented this solution.

You need a fair comparison with other solutions to judge and compare others fairly. I have only used Cisco and would not be able to provide a fair assessment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers.

The price of this solution needs to be reduced.

The FTD 21 model's Firepower Threat Defense does not have the multi-instance feature for the virtualization with the physical equipment. This makes it difficult to propose this solution to the customers. 

The issue that we are facing is, for example, if we have a project with a client, and we suggest the twenty-one series, we don't know until we have implemented it that we do not have the multi-instance feature.

The technical support is good. It is reactive and the documentation is very specific and very useful.

When you compare the price of this solution to the price of FortiGate, it's high. 

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use this solution mainly for web security for content and products, or for URL filtering. 

The most valuable features is of the solution is that it is user-friendly and we get good web security from it.

The pricing is too high, so that could be improved. Also, the solution is not very compatible with other products.

It is a very stable solution.

The setup was very easy and straightforward.

It is a very expensive program and therefore many people choose other, cheaper programs.

I will rate this solution a nine out of ten. I hope to see the next release being more affordable and better integration between platforms. 

We use it for security.

It's most valuable feature is its convenience.

I would like to see management automation in the next release.

It's so expensive. It's $10,000 per year.

We are system integrators and deploy solutions in our client's environment. The primary use case is to allow or deny access to sites or special networks.

The most valuable feature is security.

The GUI is not user-friendly, so it needs to improve or be simplified.

The initial setup is complex, it could be easier.

I have been working with the Cisco Web Security Appliance for five years.

The solution itself is stable, but it all depends on the infrastructure of the end-user, and how to integrate the product to the end-user.

It really depends on the complexity of the infrastructure and the design.

It's a scalable product.

We were using the Fortinet FortiGate Cloud a year ago. Fortinet is easier to use than Cisco.

We also use Cisco Firepower, ASA, the WSA, and ESA for email.

The initial setup is a bit complex.

It can take two to three days to deploy.

We are evaluating the Fortinet FortiGate Cloud.

In the future, we plan to use it in the cloud when there is a Cisco solution available, depending on the market and the purchasing power of the customers.

I would rate this solution an eight out ten.

We use the tool as a filter and proxy. 

Since working with the tool, we have not found any threats in our organization. 

The solution is priced high. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

We have not faced any issues with stability. 

The solution is scalable and we have around 1200 users for the product. 

I have used Fortinet FortiGate before. We switched to Cisco because its sandbox is more effective and the solution is more scalable. However, FortiGate has a simple user interface. 

The solution's deployment phase lasted around three months. 

We did the product's deployment in-house. 

The solution has a standard license. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten.