Cisco Web Security Appliance Reviews

We have implemented Cisco Web Security Appliance in quite a few places and the results are quite satisfactory. We haven't faced any kind of challenge from it. Neither has the customer reported anything.

I am a solution architect. So I'm able to discuss in terms of configuration management. All I can say is that from a solution perspective, whatever the customer is basically looking for from our web security appliance, Cisco Web Security Appliance has met it all. And more importantly, wherever we have deployed this kind of Web Security Appliance, Cisco hasn't faced any kind of escalation from our customers. And whenever we go for review with them for their satisfaction level, we have always heard that this is one of the products that they are very satisfied with.

Obviously there is always room for improvement for almost all the appliances available in the market. But there are scopes for improvement. I'm pretty sure that Cisco will keep on integrating different feature sets as the market demands and I have seen Cisco as an organization that puts in proactive efforts providing different features before they come into the market. So I'm pretty sure that Cisco will give due diligence in terms of providing all the features in their WSA. 

But one thing I don't like with Cisco is that they're very fragmented in terms of feature sets. What I mean is that the one thing I don't like about Cisco is that they are very much fragmented in terms of providing the complete solution. They keep on breaking their different feature sets into different boxes. The days are coming when almost all the customers are looking for a consolidated box or a box wherein you can have multiple feature sets based on infrastructure, which will decrease the carbon footprint in the data center. Then, obviously, the number of devices they will have in the data center will go down. So cooling requirements and power requirements will also go down. So that's what the customer is looking at. But Cisco is too segmented. They gave ESA, they gave WSA, they give their next-generation Firewall Firepower. Then they gave a management center. And for network AMP they made a separate box set. So there are too many devices.

Though I understand technically that, yes, fragmented technology is best because we should let the dedicated device do dedicated jobs. But again, in terms of customer acceptability and the customer's point of view, consolidated devices make much more sense for them.

I would obviously prefer the WSA to be integrated with ESA because there is no point putting so many hardware devices and infrastructures in. So if WSA had the functionality of ESA, at least the basic functionality of ESA, it could be merged into a single box, and that would be good.

Cisco Web Security Appliance is stable. Very recently we deployed corporate-wide security practices with all the Cisco devices like Cisco Firepower, Cisco AMP, Cisco Cloud Email Security, Umbrella, and so on and so forth. That infrastructure is running quite okay for the last two to two and a half years. So I must say that all the security products are quite stable in nature.

Cisco is the best in giving technical support. There is no doubt about that. I am working with Cisco on a range of products since 2004.

I have dealt with all their technical related support. I used to be in deployment. Then I used a lot of their super technical support. But once I migrated from the implementation team to the solution designing team, I did not require that kind of technical support from them in terms of their technical assistance. But yes, I still have discussions with my implementation team and they keep telling me that one of the best features is the technical support we get from Cisco. So as far as technical support is concerned, I don't think that there is a match for Cisco.

Regarding Cisco price-wise, it is always a bit on the higher side. Apart from a few products, if you look at the majority of Cisco products, they are a bit on the higher side as far as the market is concerned. Obviously it would be good if Cisco could cut down on their prices, but they would have to do a lot of negotiation or compromise in terms of their product quality and support quality and a lot of customers may not like that. Price is something very dynamic. In India, actually, we don't find that much of a challenge with prices in enterprises and in government.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Cisco Web Security Appliance an 8.

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 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.