Cisco IOS SSL VPN Reviews

We primarily use this solution as browser and I like that you don't need a username or password to browse.

Sometimes browsers are not able to support a certain file, so that is something that can improve.

I have been using the solution for four years on premise.

The solution is stable if you have a stable internet connection.

The setup and installation was easy. We had the help of a Cisco integrator, because one needs support from the system team to access your server and your VPN. So you basically have to know all the information about the server if you want to have access.

The pricing of the solution is reasonable - G Grade.

On a scale of one to ten, I give this solution an eight. In the next version I would like to see easier installation that allows a default to open un-trusted servers. The servers should be more user-friendly too. 

We are solution providers. We provide remote access solutions, internet access, and Voice over IP for our customers, as well as IT operational support.

We use this solution to access their on-premises server from outside locations for situations such as working from home.

The system needs to be upgraded to replace the Token Authentication software, which will no longer be supported.

I have been working with Cisco IOS SSL VPN for two years.

It's a stable solution. We are using the latest version.

I believe that this solution is scalable.

Some of the solutions that our customers are using are Microsoft 365, Cisco VPN Access, and Cisco AnyConnect with the physical USB Token to input the password.

The Token support will expire soon. Currently, we are researching similar solutions.

We are always researching new products to provide to our clients.

I can't say that I would recommend this solution at this time because the support for the Token software is expiring soon and Cisco IOS SSL VPN would have to be upgraded to another solution similar to Token.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Our primary use case of this solution is for business operations.

I find each and every feature of this solution valuable.

The pricing needs to be better because you need a license for every device.

I have been using Cisco SSL VPN for around four years.

The solution is very stable.

There are no issues when it comes to scalability.

We get local support and we are satisfied with the support we get.

The initial setup wasn't complicated at all and the installation was done by resellers.

Nothing is perfect and my advice to others would be to look at their requirements before they choose a solution. Cisco has been tested and used widely so there are virtually no issues in terms of selecting Cisco. But it's up to each client to determine what they need when it comes to things like trafficking. 

Additional features that I would like to see included in the next release of Cisco VPN is that it should be compatible with all the devices like mobile devices, laptops, or iPads. 

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution an eight.

We use the on-premises deployment model. Our primary use case of this solution is to support remote office workers.

The most valuable features are that it's reliable, convenient, and easy. It always works if configured well.

I would like for it to have support for the Dutch language. I typically use English in 99% of our communications but for some people, it matters. 

I've been using this solution for fifteen years.

Stability is good. 

I don't have any issues with scalability. We have around 3,000 users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy depends on the product internally. It took a couple of months. It was a phased approach, that was not due to the complexity of Cisco. In total it took a couple of months. 

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

It was quite easy to set up. I don't get any complaints about it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten because I would never give a ten out of ten. 

Virtual Private Network over Secure Socket Layer protocol has already been in business for quite some time now. Brands like Cisco, D-Link, and Netgear have already launched their products a few years back. Though there are many brands, Cisco is still leading the market. Cisco's new ASA device for SSL VPN, has made a new gateway for the technology. While the product is still under review and it has to pass many exploitations and critics, ASA has certainly made a new revolution in SSL VPN technology. With Cisco's ASA hanging around, no more configuring separate gateways, and tunneling complex networks with complicated authentication procedures. Simple user based authentication is possible now with the launch of a new device. The device will let you configure a standard set of users and groups for user based authentication. Hence, the hassle free setting up and operation.

Cisco ASA system doesn't provide interface with radius based user mapping, other than the standard schema of users and groups. This is the one field where you may have trouble with while setting up the device, with your already configured secure network. ASA only provides single network based access control list features. This is a drawback if you have multi-layered networks and several VLANs. The flexibility is lost. There has been a compatibility issue of the device with Windows Internet Explorer version 8. Cisco has provided a beta version to resolve the issue.

Cisco SSL VPN is a bag of mixed features. Some of these features will let you set up an easy secured and remote access of individual networks. At the same time, some of these features will cause some trouble with your already configured network. While we know that SSL VPN is an advanced technological step towards achieving a more secured network against ever growing multiple networking threats, Cisco's SSL VPN device is definitely a wise choice to pick.

We use the on-prem deployment model of this solution. 

The interface is user-friendly. 

In terms of what needs improvement, it should have better integration. Although, it might have already been taken care of.  

I have been using this solution for more than seven years.

It's been stable for as long as I've been using it. Any issues that we had didn't come from this solution, they were from a third-party. It is stable. 

Their technical support is good.

The initial setup was easy. It was easy to install. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. In order to make it a ten, it should have better integration.

I would recommend this solution to someone considering it.

The primary use case for this solution is to connect offices to their services through the VPN tunnel.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises.

It is easy to create. I like to work with the CMD command line because it's easy and it doesn't take very long to configure.

It works quickly compared to other solutions.

It can be difficult to find service and at times we cannot connect with the internet easily. It should be easier to find an internet connection through vendors.

They could have a better internet router solution.

I have been using this solution for seven years.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable.

We have a minimum of ten users, and a maximum of one hundred and fifty users.

The technical support is good.

We contacted a consultant, a reseller, and an integrator to implement this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.