Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Reviews

Our customers' primary use case in the banking sector is for URL history.

Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has a lot of issues like troubleshooting and massive troubleshooting which require technical support. A lot of the product is not accessible. You must ask the tech support to communicate to open the root of the product - so that's an issue. But with Cisco you can access the product and troubleshoot.

To access the root of the product for troubleshooting you must have a data engineer. This is the big issue with Forcepoint. The support community is not good. 

The management should be directed to the object itself. They have to make a more flexible management so you can access a device using a normal web browser or you can access a device using a management tool.

Our company has been working with this product for about four years.

Our company prefers Forcepoint, but I prefer Cisco.

There is one issue with Forcepoint that you can't communicate directly with the update. You must have something called the management center to communicate. For Cisco you can communicate directly. With Forcepoint you cannot communicate directly

Scaling is not good with Forcepoint. Even high availability with Forcepoint is not good.

We do have a lot of customers using Forcepoint.

Yes, we have a lot of plans to increase usage because it's the only product we have. There is no other.

The initial setup is not complex, but requires being setup from the beginning. There is no default setting, so you must go to the console and configure the product from the beginning. It takes about 10 days.

This product, especially Web Gateway, has only a small vendor working with it.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway a five.

My primary use of this solution is to help our customers filter their security and their users' usage. They can optimize internet traffic and block or allow sites.

This solution allows us to control web usage to ensure that our employees use the internet for business research only. It also monitors all employees' traffic, so it gives alerts for searches and can block any websites not allowed by company policies. This means the company can ensure our employees make the best use of their time and get the most value from the internet itself.

The most valuable feature is the ability to allow or block sites by category.

An area for improvement would be the classification of websites - it can take a long time for new websites to be classified. 

I've been working with this solution for about four years.

This solution is very stable because it gives users the ability to have high availability and clustering.

This solution is scalable but may require a change of hardware in order to handle big changes.

Previously, I used Symantec Blue Coat, which is easier to implement than Forcepoint but has more technical issues.

Implementation can take some time, but there are lots of resources online to help.

I would give this solution a score of nine out of ten.

Our customers are government agencies, and we recommended Forcepoint to add an extra layer of security to their data centers. It's the second layer of protection on top of a layer from another vendor.  And one week ago, we recommended a data leakage prevention solution from Forcepoint for another agency, but this project hasn't started yet.  

I've only recommended Forcepoint to one client so far, and they've been using it for only a few months.

Forcepoint is more stable than FortiGate and all the others. 

In terms of performance, Forcepoint stands out because it is more scalable than any other solution. It can extend to different types of boxes and integrate well with other platforms and vendors. And it doesn't need to have the same kind of box or throughput to have high availability. So Fortinet is the most scalable of all the security systems in the same category. 

With any box security, we need vendor support during the first installation each time. After that, we don't need any support for operations. But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise.

I think Forcepoint's price is average.

We are using this solution for web security.

I have found the web content filtering and malware filter the most valuable.

There should be more hardware models available and the application control could improve.

I have been using this solution for approximately 10 years.

The hardware is stable. However, recently we experienced some technical issues that took some time to resolves.

Technical support can give a good solution for issues but it can take a lot of time to receive it. They could improve by being faster.

The setup is very easy.

The price of this solution is reasonable.

I rate Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway an eight out of ten.

We make use of a host of features offered by Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway. We primarily use it to analyze cloud-based data which enters and exits our company through external web access. We retrieve all the data for analysis of any external transactions as these relate to the application of messages. 

Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has improved our organization through its ease of use. It is not a slow product. It has numerous features that give us control over suspicious and malicious transactions. We can also integrate it for security management purposes. 

The most valuable feature of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is the ability to retrieve and analyze lost data. It also allows us to detect and prevent the release of all messages and to take appropriate actions in consequence.

A feature of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway that can be improved is the speed of data analysis. 

Also, there should be enhanced detection when it comes to the loading of encrypted data. 

A feature we wish to see addressed in the next release of the product involves its administration. 

I do not consider the product to be excellent and would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We have been using Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway for around three years. 

I like the stability of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and feel it to be very useful. 

I would evaluate Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway's technical support for a first time user as an eight out of nine. 

The initial setup of the product did not take long and was uncomplicated. Its deployment took three days.

We deployed by outsourcing to an open source software company and took courses to familiarize ourselves with the product's features. 

Overall, I am not aware of the option to pay for one time use of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway. We sometimes take out a monthly subscription to the product but prefer to do so on an annual basis. 

The versions of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway that we currently use are 6.5 through 6.7.

We decided to go with it to enhance our main security features. This made a lot of sense, as antenna extensions between users is generally required. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

One of the main features I have found the solution to be efficient.

I have been using the solution for approxmately five years.

We have not had any big issues installing the solution.

The solution is priced a little high compare to similar solutions.

When evaluating this solution to others it is one of the best.

I rate Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway a seven out of ten.

The critical role is web URL filtering.

The functionality of this product in the current version is not up to our expectations.

This product does not have an integrated strategy for securing your web gateway with DLP.

I have been working with Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway for approximately 15 years.

We have had issues with downtime, where the service was out one time for 48 hours and nobody knew what was happening.

I don't know of any issues with scalability.

I have been in contact with technical support several times, and I am not happy with them.

We recently stopped using this product and migrated to Zscaler.

Setting up the solution for our clients can be difficult because we are dealing with different timezones and different geography. It also depends on their data center.

The clients sometimes depend heavily on the partners, rather than take time to understand the product themselves.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I use this product for email filtering.

The spam filter is very effective.

It does a good job of detecting ransomware links in email and then blocking them.

We have a lot of false positives, which is one area that can be improved. At the same time, there is a lot of spam that still gets by the filter.

The engine should be enhanced because some malware still gets by the filter.

The login for emails should be more advanced.

I have been using Forcepoint Web Security for four years.

This service is very stable.

It is easy to scale. I can set up more than one Exchange server and more than one domain. We have about 600 users in the company and we do not plan on increasing at this time.

We obtain support from the local partner, rather than from Forcepoint directly.

Prior to this, I was working with Websense. 

It is a cloud-based deployment so the initial setup is not complex. There are a couple of things to configure, pointing them to your mail servers, but it is easy and straightforward. 

We only require a single person for maintenance.

The price of this product should be reduced to make it more competitive.

In summary, this is a good product and I highly recommend it. However, it is important to remember that suitability will vary depending on the environment.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

My position means that I'm focused on functionalities and the happiness of the users of this solution. I am the CTO of sales and we are a customer of Forcepoint. 

I think the antiviral sandboxing is a valuable feature. 

The issues we have are more around organizational issues between us and Forcepoint. We don't have problems with the solution although sometimes attacks or new ransomware gets through. Sometimes we need to work together with Forcepoint in order to change the setup and to block it. It would be great if Forcepoint was able to do this without our knowledge and, even better before those mails ever reach us.

The improvement needs to come on both sides – not only from ForcePoint, but the idea is to work on few points:

• The idea is to set up on the ForcePoint side TAM that could help us in the tuning the configuration.
• At the same time we need to work on improving the expertise and increase the number of FTE that will work on the platform (internal or external) in order to be able to really have the benefit of TAM.
• 3^rd point is that some of the attacks come through and after we report it to ForcePoint they manage to improve the environment, while my experience with some other solutons is that the provider is more proactive and does the change/improvement even before we notice it.

I've been using this solution for three years.

The stability of the solution is fine. 

The scalability of the solution is fine. 

We are not so satisfied with the technical support but not because of Forcepoint, rather because of the organization on both sides. We need to work on that.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. You need to spend some time defining the template of the environment that you would like. After that, the deployment in different domains is pretty easy.

The pricing of the solution is okay. We pay licensing fees but the cost depends on the package that we take. There are no other hidden costs. 

We are happy with the solution for now. One of the reasons we took it is that it gives us the flexibility to change if we do not like it or we are not happy. To be honest, once we made the decision, I didn't look at the marketplace anymore. It's possible that there are better products out there today.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are a solution provider for a variety of products including web security, next-generation firewalls, and DLP. Forcepoint Web Security is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

The most valuable feature is security, which is very strong.

Once deployed, the management console is simple and easy to use.

In the on-premises version, I don't like the deployment and structuring of the device. It is time-consuming and not as easy to implement as Blue Coat Web Security.

I have been using Forcepoint for about one year.

Forcepoint is stable but not 100%. This solution is Websense-based and because of structure, there is some instability. In general, if it is implemented properly then it will be stable.

While the product is scalable, from a hardware perspective, it may need to be upgraded. It is not a modular appliance, but rather, a server.

Our customers are enterprise-level businesses, in general.

The technical support is very good. Here, in Saudi Arabia, service engineers are very cooperative and the Forcepoint team has a good number of people. Of course, nobody is perfect.

We used to use Blue Coat solutions but in the past couple of years, our business has turned to Forcepoint. Blue Coat Web Security is very easy to implement and configure, more so than Forcepoint.

I have also tried the cloud-based deployment of Forcepoint and it works well. It is very functional and very fine. However, we haven't sold any cloud-based subscriptions because our customers have all wanted on-premises solutions.

The initial setup is somewhat complicated. Implementing this solution and deploying the servers is the challenge. It has to be planned properly but once it is complete, the security features work properly.

The length of time for deployment depends on whether the customer is ready and has all of the prerequisites in place. If everything is ready then the deployment will take a maximum of one week. One problem we sometimes face is that the customer says they are ready and has verified that the prerequisites are in place, but in fact, once we visit the customer we find out that they are not. In cases like this, or when the information we need is not clear, it can take longer to implement.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.