Cisco Secure Email Reviews

We have it for email security. We use it for some security features to set up emails.

Cisco Secure Email has helped free up our IT staff for other projects because the product is so stable, and you don't have to spend so much time with the administration of the product. You free up time because you don't need to set up so many functions. Some of the functions are out of the box, and they just work.

There are a lot of filters for scam emails and things like that work out of the box. You can also use the antivirus features. I like its features.

Cisco Secure Email can be improved from the administrator's point of view. Usually, you have to work with different areas, and they can try to make it easy for the administrator to use different functions.

Its stability is perfect. It's very good.

We did grow out of the product, so we changed the product to a bigger box. It was the same installation and the same setup, so it was fine. We just replaced them with a larger box.

In terms of our environment setup, we have it set up in two data centers just for redundancy. We have about 1,200 people using it in the organization.

I've been in contact with Cisco Support a few times regarding questions, and I've had a very good experience with their support. They have been able to answer my questions directly, and they replied fast, so it's very good. Regarding Cisco Secure Email, I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

When I first started at the company, the product was already there. That was my first experience with the product, but I liked the product, and I thought it was very stable and working well.

I've been involved in the lifecycle management of it and upgrading it, so I have experience with that. It has worked well with no impact on production or something like that.

The upgrade process is quite straightforward. You just have to ensure that you have everything prepared for the upgrade.

It was Cygate in Sweden from whom we bought the product. They were resellers for Cisco, but we installed it ourselves.

I don't have the insights into it, but compared to different products, it seems to have a medium level of pricing.

To those evaluating Cisco Secure Email, I'd advise thinking about what do you need and what is most important for your company in terms of stability and the administration area.

Based on my experience, I'd rate Cisco Secure Email a nine out of ten.

We are using it for our email gateway security for all our inbound and outbound email. We use a lot of the URL filtering and spam filtering as well as the dictionaries, e.g., if they try to spoof employee names.

We didn't have an email gateway initially. As spam was ramping up, the junk was getting through. So, we needed a gateway. We then worked with a local company who sold us this product and some training as well as how to get it up and running, configuring it. Over the years, they have been constantly changing it.

We use a lot of their search features to search for emails that have come through. Our end users come through it. They say, "This didn't email didn't arrive," or "How did this email get through?" So, I am constantly searching through message tracing and using that all the time.

I use the search all the time. Sometimes, it is hard to search for things and things are hard to find. People come to me all the time, saying, "This email didn't get through." Then, I go searching and don't find it on the first search. You have to think about alternative searches. I don't know if there is an easier way that they could help to find things. I don't know how they could simplify it, because now everybody else is using the cloud and everything is coming from Office 365, or whatever. It is just not the same environment from years ago where everybody had their own server and you could search easier.

When you run a trace and you are in the cloud, it's harder. You run a trace and it generates trace results. I haven't figured out how to get those off of the cloud. I don't know if there is a path to open up a ticket on that.

Before it was purchased by Cisco, we had already been using IronPort since 2005 or earlier.

It is very stable. We have never had any problems.

The way we are using it now, it does require maintenance. I decided to take a zero trust for URL links coming in emails or unknown links. Then, if there is a link that somebody wants to get through, then I have to add that to the list to allow it. So, there are some dictionaries and things to maintain the way we are running it now that we didn't have in the past. For many years, we got it running, then forgot about it. It just ran and ran. Now, I think it is just a different environment due to the level of phishing emails, etc. 

The way that we are running it now, there is more to maintain, like the dictionaries and the list of employees, so somebody doesn't spoof an employee's name. It takes maybe an hour or so a week to update the dictionaries and things like that. 

Right now, I'm the only one maintaining it.

The scalability is good. It seems like it still has capacity in the cloud. It is hard to tell in the cloud. However, the ones that we had on-prem were running real close to their limit for whatever reason: memory swapping and CPU utilization. So, we had to do something there. Right now, it seems like there is capacity/room to grow.

The solution protects 450 users. We plan to gradually increase users.

They have always been good when helping with problems. They are responsive and always come up with an answer.

We migrated from Cisco ESA to Cisco Cloud Email Security. 

The appliances were getting close to the end of life. They were using a lot of CPU, so it was time to do something with them. IT management seems to be going more to the cloud now, so it made sense to go to the Cisco Cloud solution. The machines that we had on-prem were really slow. For whatever reason, they were getting real slow. When we went to the cloud, we got away from that problem.

For the initial deployment, we might have spent a week getting it up and running. Then, we went for a day or two to training.

There wasn't really any downtime involved during the migration from our on-prem to Cisco Cloud Email Security, which was important to us. We didn't want to interrupt email flow. So, we prepared it, then there was a cutover. 

The migration from the vendor’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security wasn't too difficult.

A few times, we needed Cisco's expertise in the migration process to solve some problems for free. Because it is in the cloud, you can't get to the command line interface to access and download/upload files. So, I had to rely on Cisco for that.

There is a huge return compared to if we didn't have a gateway appliance, as far as blocking malicious emails.

The licensing was all transferred. A fair amount of the configuration had to be done by hand. We didn't transfer the people safe list and block lists. There were a number of things that we didn't transfer because they were in the cloud. It was a matter of going through and reconfiguring.

The familiar user interface was important in our decision to migrate from Cisco’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security. We have a lot of other projects going on. Being able to migrate to something that we were already familiar with versus migrating to Proofpoint or something else was a major decision factor. I didn't have to invest that much time, resources, and learning in a whole new product.

If you compare it over Proofpoint, it was a big savings. It was very competitive. It saved us from buying new appliances. Though, I don't know that would have been a big expense, because I didn't do a cost analysis of staying on-prem and replacing the appliances. We were more comparing the solution to Proofpoint, and the cost was considerably less than Proofpoint. It was already in place and working for us on-prem. So, I didn't want to move to Proofpoint because there would have been much more to learn.

Some of the things that we were doing in Cisco, we can't do it the same way in Proofpoint, from as much as I have looked at it. I know there is a difference. They have different solutions. They have some solutions that aren't configurable at all, such as, the lower price ones. They have another one where you are just like a tenant and everybody gets the same thing, then for it to be customizable, it is a lot more expensive. In orders of magnitude, it is more expensive than Cisco, which didn't make sense. With all the little tweaks and customizations that we're doing, I couldn't see how to do that based on the time I spent looking at Proofpoint. It might be doable, but I didn't figure out how to do it. So, I think Cisco is a little more configurable than Proofpoint for tweaking. I could be wrong, but that is my impression.

There wasn't much of a learning curve involved in migrating from Cisco’s on-prem to Cloud Email Security because they are very similar. There were just a few things that were different.

It is a good product. Be prepared to invest time in learning it, like anything. You need to have somebody who is a key administrator, like any enterprise-level product that you would bring in. Even if you will have Salesforce or whatever, you need to have an administrator who knows how to keep it running.

Email threats just keep getting worse and worse, so you need to keep on your toes.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

The primary use case for Cisco Secure Email is for email security. It is used in scenarios similar to Fortinet, focusing on email security and integrating with Cisco Firewalls.

The integration with Cisco Firewalls has worked fine, allowing the two devices to share information about incidents. When deployed in an environment where most products are from Cisco, it facilitates easier integration.

Cisco's Secure Email integrates with Cisco Firewalls, utilizing the AMP as their anti-malware engine, which allows for information sharing between devices. 

Additionally, Cisco Secure Mail works well with data security integration, particularly in environments where all or most products are from Cisco.

The primary areas for improvement are the pricing and the complexity of deployment. 

The pricing is considered expensive, and the deployment process is complex, involving many steps and usually requiring more than one technician.

You can say the same period also as one year for Fortinet.

The latency is better compared to Fortinet. Based on my experience, it is a faster solution, particularly in scenarios involving firewall or malware protection.

Scalability is fine with Cisco Secure Email, as it does not place any limitations.

I would rate Cisco's customer support between eight and nine out of ten. Cisco's support is much better than Fortinet.

Positive

The initial setup is a bit complex due to multiple steps required for deployment.

The return on investment is not very good due to the expensive nature of the product.

The licensing is expensive and a bit complex with the new approach Cisco has taken. It is considered more complicated than other vendors.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it to secure our email system, to cut down on all the bad emails that we would otherwise receive. 

The reason for implementing the product was the huge increase in spam and junk mail which occurred when we were adopting these devices. There have been some changes in the way that email is delivered since then, and one or two of the major spam sources have been taken down or prosecuted or jailed. Today, we have less blanket-spam, but we have more targeted phishing emails or spear phishing.

The combination of emails with links that encourage users to give away their user login information can cause problems. When someone's account is compromised it can result in access to our global address list and access to emails that the compromised user may have sent. Therefore, they have details of the format and the style emails that our company uses. We have communication threads that they can take advantage of because they can inject their fake emails into an existing communication thread and try to fool a supplier or client into giving more information or, worst-case, giving money to the wrong person.

When we first had Cisco hardware, we were having significant problems in that we were getting something like 10,000 emails per device per hour. We have four devices, so if we calculate that up it was like 1,000,000 emails a day, and most of those, about 99 percent, were junk mail or spam.

We had a major problem with email, and introducing Cisco Secure Email Gateway systems was a set change for us. It reduced the number of unwanted emails by a huge factor. That has continued to be the case, from when we first got the devices, until today.

Previously, we had other email security appliances, and they were overwhelmed by the volume of email that we are receiving as a company. The introduction of the Cisco Secure Email Gateway systems had two effects for us: 

1. They significantly reduced the number of emails that were even considered for delivery or for being accepted into our company for internal routing.
2. It gave us another line of defense. We use the Cisco Secure Email Gateway systems as our first line of defense which we then follow up by another manufacturer's email security appliance, which gives us a second level. Subsequent to that, we've adopted another layer of email security. So we now run three layers.

Initially, the most valuable feature for us was the SenderBase Reputation, because that reduced the number of emails that were even considered by the system by a huge number, before we ended up processing them to get through the spam, the marketing, and the virus-attached emails. 

Since then, customized filtering has been very effective and useful for us.

In addition, Cisco has developed the product with its Talos product. They've developed the Cisco Secure Email Gateway systems so that instead of just specifically stopping known spam sources and using that to stop virus-infected emails, the Talos solution which they're now providing has a lot of attraction because it helps to prevent phishing emails.

Things such as Sender Domain Reputation, which is a relatively new feature, are attractive because when there's a pop-up domain, which might be a look-alike of your own company domain, or it might be a look-alike for some other company like Microsoft, it gets a bad reputation, and the Cisco Secure Email Gateway systems will reduce the possibility of these emails delivering to the recipient's desktop.

We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change.

More than five years.

The system is very stable. We have had very little downtime and the system is, in general, reliable. 

We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change. We may consider going to virtual systems. In general, we have had a good experience with this product. The hardware, given occasional failures, has been very reliable. There is an upgrade process for keeping the system running with the most current, recommended version of AsyncOS. We have had very few problems where an upgrade has gone wrong. We've been very pleased with the solution.

The scalability is good because when you have appliances such as we have, if you have the infrastructure and the available resources, you can install additional virtual appliances. From the point of view of scalability, if there were a problem with performance, it is possible to add other systems or devices, even though they are virtual, and they all fall under the same control interface. They are all a part of the same cluster so they are all relatively easy to manage.

We currently have 11,000 employees and a large number of those users hold email accounts and email addresses.

We have a 24-hour operation because our company is located in 62 countries, so we have to respond relatively quickly because email is important. We have a department that deals with IT security and likely, at a minimum, we would have six people who have the capability to work on these systems. But in reality, because the systems are very stable, we have three or four people who regularly work on them. All the people who maintain the system are currently in the same department as me and all of them are considered IT security officers. They deal with other systems as well as the email.

Cisco's technical support is, perhaps, taking a different approach to the way that IronPort managed systems. Cisco tends to try and answer questions or problems by email more, initially, rather than talking to someone on the telephone. Sometimes that's not quite as good as IronPort was. 

But, in general, Cisco is good in that when we have a question they will respond quickly. But equally, because we've had these systems for several years, there is a good pool of experience in our security team so that we don't regularly have to ask questions of Cisco support.

We switched to using IronPort because it gives us a second line of defense from spam, phishing, and all the other problem emails. One of the reasons was that there was a major spike in the number of spam and junk emails that people were sending from when we first got these systems. 

The other system that we had was suffering from performance problems because it was being overwhelmed by the volume of emails that were being delivered to Fugro. The other product was still a good product, but it didn't have the performance to handle the volume of email. With the IronPort system being used as a first line of defense, it probably would have done everything that our previous system did, and we could have just removed it from our email processing.

However, we wanted to retain the old system because it had some nice features to do with additional email filtering. Having IronPort as a first line of defense was really good, and then, it was possible to do special filtering and other email reaping on this other system. The other system could then perform at a good level because it was not being overwhelmed by the huge volume of spam, junk, etc.

The initial setup was very straight forward. Having said that, we had a lot of experience in email systems before we set up these devices. But to get the most out of the functionality of the devices it took us some time to implement custom email filters. These were detecting targeted phishing email, although they weren't called that back in the days when we first got this type of hardware.

This was in the days before it was common to have virtualized systems. The systems we had at the time were probably the type that might have been considered by a small ISP. At the time it might have been Cisco Secure Email Gateway 310 or 320 systems. It was a long time ago. We have had those systems on contract since then. We've regularly upgraded the systems when the contract has been renewed.

We've had the systems configured in a cluster where the cluster spans more than one email gateway. Email gateways are located in different countries, so although we have different places where the email can be delivered to Fugro and from where Fugro sends email, the systems are all managed from the same interface and console, even though the systems are in different countries.

Because we had the systems before Cisco bought IronPort, we used some assistance from the then-IronPort company for the initial set up. But our own personnel were involved in training courses, so most of the configuration was done by Fugro people.

The IronPort consultants were very good. Because the company was keen for business, they were keen to assist us. At the time, we were, perhaps, one of the more unusual cases because of the quantity of junk, spam, and other types of emails that were being sent to Fugro recipients. IronPort, at that time, was very responsive, very helpful, easy to deal with and, usually, very knowledgeable about the product.

It would be fair to say we have seen return on investment using this solution, but I'm not the person who spends the money or places the orders so I do not have detailed information on it.

We did evaluate other options, but it was a long time ago so I'm not sure I can remember which other options we considered.

Having a good understanding of the product helps in the implementation process, so do some upfront training before you adopt the product. Be closely involved with Cisco support or the Cisco implementation team which will help to make sure that configuration is well adjusted and suited to your company.

I've used the product for more than ten years. Prior to that, it was IronPort. Cisco bought IronPort. We were using the IronPort products before Cisco bought them. We're currently using AsyncOS version 12.

We've used this product for so long, and we've been very happy with it, that we do not have a direct comparison against other products that are available today. That said, and accepting the fact that email security systems are not cheap, this product is still a front-runner and, combined with the new things that Cisco is doing, it has a lot of scope and capability. I would suggest this product would be about a nine, if ten is the best.

It is just another level of protection that we use, as far as email is concerned. We use it for different policies or as another scanning engine, e.g., on the desktop or for data coming through another email gateway.

At one point, there was a zero-day attack. The Cisco appliance detected it and stopped it, helping us out. We avoided the attack and potential damage.

The most valuable feature is the policies or rules that you can put on it. This definitely helps with routing specific things to different destinations within our organization, or even potentially blocking when something is coming in and out, to where you can't do this on an email server or on our other email gateway. It's just not possible.

On their roapmap, they are looking to integrate with different cloud features, like Office 365.

I would like them to add some clustering or high availability features.

More than five years.

It is very stable. I haven't had any issues with memory or CPU. I haven't had any unstable performances from any of the appliances. Initially, we had physical appliances, then we went and upgraded to virtual appliances at some point. However, even the physical appliances were pretty stable.

I did run into one issue at one time where I had to shut something off. It was a bug, but being down for an hour or two is just two costly for our firm.

Deployment and maintenance is handled by two people (email engineers).

Scalability is good. We have four appliances total clustered, two in one data center and two in the other. The ability to increase is definitely doable, and it's helpful if you need to do that.

We are a legal firm with close to 2000 employees.

Technical support is definitely good. The turnaround time to speak to someone is very good, as well.

We had another appliance (Axway MailGate) and switched because it was outdated. Also, their support model wasn't that great. They were difficult to get a hold of after six or seven in the evening.

The initial product setup was easy. However, it was a bit more complex on our side because of some of the rules that we had set up on a previous appliance, which was not Cisco. Trying to match some of those to Cisco was a little complex. We had some consultants help us out with that. Overall, it wasn't too bad.

The deployment took three to five days.

We worked with a partner consulting firm, Presidio, who very useful and helpful.

We did a proof of concept first off, then did a hard cut over on the weekend.

For what you get for the product, the support, and the overall stability, it is definitely a good return on investment.

We do annual licensing for Cisco Secure Email Gateway and SMA together, and possibly SmartNet support. Packaged together, the cost is just under $38,000.

We looked at two or three different vendors. One of the solutions that we looked at was a virtual Linux-based appliance. We did evaluate that and a proof of concept around it. However, it wasn't as robust as Cisco, as far as features and high availability.

Give it a chance. If you can do a proof of concept somehow to rate it against other competitors which are out there, look into it because it is a good product.

I haven't upgraded to version 12 yet.

Cisco Secure Email is a budget-friendly solution.

I am not satisfied with the solution's reporting and logging.

I have been using Cisco Secure Email for the last five years.

I like Proofpoint's reporting, management, and interface. It has a single dashboard, very simple configuration and integration, and a very user-friendly GUI.

The solution's initial setup is not difficult. However, it has the management's separate interface and email security's separate interface, which we need to manage.

It was not difficult to integrate Cisco Secure Email with other products in our infrastructure, but it has many complicated options. Sometimes, we need to go to the command line to check the debugging. The solution's DLP (data loss prevention) feature is partially for compliance. DLP needs a full-fledged solution with the agent implementation. Until the agent is not there, you cannot implement DLP.

The solution's email encryption feature works fine. Cisco Secure Email is not a single platform. The engineer has to be a little technical to understand the command line, which is different from the firewall. There are different types of command lines. You have to check the mail log using different command lines.

Overall, I rate the solution eight and a half out of ten.

I use the solution for email security. 

The tool comes with AI features. It is good for clients who already use Cisco products due to integration. 

Cisco Email Secure's pricing needs to be less. We have vendors who provide cheaper solutions with the same features. 

I have been using the product for half a year. 

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Cisco Secure Email a nine out of ten. 

The tool's technical support team answers queries quickly. 

Positive

Comparing Microsoft Defender and Cisco's Email Secure service, partners have noted that while Microsoft Defender offers email security, the tool's additional layer of protection provides further defense against threats like spam and phishing emails. The AI features filter out phishing emails. I have worked with FortiMail and Barracuda before Cisco Secure Email. 

The product's deployment is easy in a cloud environment. You don't need to install it for the Office 365 product. 

Cisco Secure Email is more expensive than other products. I rate it a five out of ten. There are no additional costs. You only need to pay the subscription amounts. 

I rate the overall product a seven to eight out of ten. 

It's our primary enterprise email gateway. It's the first stop for edge email security.

One of the things that I like most is that, since we do have a Cisco Enterprise agreement - we have a lot of Cisco products - we're able to consolidate reporting a lot better. Reportability is a lot more end-user accessible, or easier to acquire. The solution overall does what it does, but being able to quantify that, put it into reports that are easy to analyze, is probably the best and the largest gain that we acquired in switching.

One of the nicest things is that parts of it are highly intuitive. For instance, black-listing, white-listing, and things of that nature are very easy to do and they're very intuitive. You wouldn't even need any training to be able to perform those actions straight out-of-the-box. 

Even though it's not perfect, it has the IMS engine, Intelligent Multi-Scan engine, and it does a good job, right out-of-the-box, of blocking the vast majority of things that should be blocked. Again, it's not 100 percent, but out-of-the-box I didn't have to touch it, I didn't have to tune it, I didn't have to tweak it. I believe it leverages the threat-intelligence database and does what it needs to do in making sure that the bad stuff stays out and virtually all of the good stuff makes it through.

We find bugs, just like anyone else. We bring them to Cisco's attention. 

If there was one area I would like to see improved it might be having someone who can help us when Cisco comes out with a new product. Let's say I'm going to be purchasing and utilizing version two of this product. They assign me an account specialist and a technical specialist to help with the bring-up. It would be nice if the specialist would be able to help foresee some of the issues we might run into, specific to the version we're implementing. I know that's a bit of a loaded issue because sometimes it depends on your particular environment. I know that's very difficult.

But, there have been some instances where particular hiccups could have been avoided if the individual assisting us was slightly more versed in the version that we were going with. Maybe he could have told us that it wasn't the version we should have gone with. Maybe we should have gone with a previous version and then skipped over this version until they came out with a more upgraded version of it. The version we first chose might be a stable version in general, or it might be stable for other environments, but not for our particular environment.

There's one other thing I would like to see. It would be nice to have an easier way to check on the health of the system, how stressed these appliances are. Sure, you can do it, but it would be helpful to have an easier way to do it, maybe even at a glance. That was something that Proofpoint had that I wish I had here. That would be very useful.

One to three years.

It's been stable. I don't have to do anything with my email gateways. They chug along and they do what they do. They don't always get it perfect, but I have never had one fail on me. And I've never had a problematic appliance that I'm aware of. We had Proofpoint for a lot longer, but if I were to compare the percentages, I would have to say that the stability of Cisco appliances is superior to that of our previous Proofpoint environment.

We haven't had to address scalability. The umbrella IronPort is broken down into two halves: email security and web security. I haven't had to deal with the scalability of the email security at all. But since they're both under IronPort, I have had to deal with scalability on the web security end. Relying on some of that experience, my assumption is that the way it worked for the Web Security Appliances is probably pretty similar to how it works for the Cisco Secure Email Gateway. With that in mind, I can say that scalability is not an issue. It's as easy as just bringing another Cisco Secure Email Gateway into the cluster.

In terms of plans to increase usage, if you ask any enterprise they're going to tell you, "Yes, of course, we're going to grow, and as we grow we're going to use more." And the reality is, any growing enterprise is going to utilize email more and more. As the landscape morphs and changes, so do your rule sets and the features available to you on these appliances. Will we be using it more and more? Absolutely. Will it be a daily thing? Absolutely. I'm in these appliances every single day, taking a look and tuning where necessary and trying to find more efficient ways to handle the email traffic flow. It's safe to say that for any enterprise that's going to be the case.

We were using Proofpoint and then we switched to Cisco. As I mentioned above, reportability was one of the main reasons we switched, but the biggest one was cost. If you can get an equivalent functionality for a better price it's wise to do so. That's what our primary decision came down to: We could get equivalent functionality at a lower price point.

There were definitely parts that were straightforward. The initial bring-up of the gateways was actually cloud-hosted and was done primarily by Cisco. There were definitely aspects of it that I didn't even have to touch and it was wonderful. They just did it for me and that was great. 

When I took over administration there were aspects that were definitely easy and intuitive like the basics of being able to set blocks and set allowances when you have false-positives and false-negatives. It kept the basics simple. 

Of course, just like with any enterprise technology product, it can get as complicated as you want it to. There are a lot of granular controls that you have the ability to tune, but doing so requires more in-depth knowledge and more in-depth training and making sure you know what you're doing. Otherwise, you can end up doing things you never intended to do.

The initial bring-up, the initial switch from Proofpoint to Cisco, was pretty quick. We had a little bit of redundancy but the overlap was a couple of weeks at most. I would condense it down to about a week, because there was one week where it was mainly status updates. As far as tuning the appliances and tuning the filters go, that's an ongoing process for me. I still do that today.

In terms of implementation strategy, you want to minimize downtime, so it's important tor run in parallel for a little while. Thankfully, we had the ability to point some test traffic to the new appliances before moving the rest of the enterprise over. So it was:

• run in parallel
• send test traffic to the new Cisco gateway appliances, to make sure that things are flowing the way we'd expect them to 
• and then we staged it a little bit more. 

We accept emails from multiple domains and we moved our primary domain last. We started by moving over some of the lesser-used domains to verify things were okay and then moved over the primary domain last. It was a typical implementation that most people have: Run in parallel until you verify, and then move everything over.

Regarding staff for deployment and maintenance, right now it's just me, but it's unwise to have just one. What happens if I get hit by a bus? To do this properly you would need at least two. 

In an enterprise you end up with a myriad of email hiccups. Email hiccups are one of the most common. Being on the information security team, you have to look at it in a multi-faceted way. That means I'm not just looking at the flow of data. I'm also having to analyze the contents of the data and then start to determine whether I need to dig further into it to see if this particular message possibly went to multiple recipients. That's the investigative piece. The administrative piece is a given, but then you also have an investigative piece on top of that. That can be a lot to do, it could be an overwhelming amount for a single person to try to do. That's especially true when something does happen. 

One person is probably going to be consumed with trying to do all that. Is it doable? Sure. Is it advisable? No.

Since we are using Cisco cloud appliances, we had to have Cisco's involvement. They brought up the cloud appliances, where the initial configuration is done, and then we were the ones who started doing the final configurations, the moves and the migrations, as we entered the testing phase. We then moved more toward the final production move.

In terms of our experience with Cisco reps, I can speak on it more broadly as well, not just from a shear email-security perspective. When implementing a Cisco product, they're great in those initial stages. You get that expert help and it's a relatively smooth bring-up. For the things that go wrong, you have a Cisco person working with you who has the answer or knows who to go ping to get the answer. It's really nice.

That changes a little bit as time goes on. Once that expert is no longer helping you with your initial bring-up, then you rely more on the vendor's support matrix to get your solutions further tuned and to work out the little wrinkles as you experience them. Of course, it is universal - I haven't seen an example where this is exception - that this process is less smooth. 

As far as initial bring-up goes with Cisco, it's very smooth. Once that expert is no longer working with you on the bring-up and you run into issues and need to get help, that's less smooth. It's less smooth in that when you call any vendor's support line you get varying degrees of expertise. The same challenges are experienced with any international company where there could potentially be language barriers, based on where your call gets routed for support. That can slow the whole process down a bit.

That's just a reality of today's world, but it's workable. Unfortunately, it's a rather normal thing but there are different skillsets depending on the individual you're talking to, and then, depending on what the issue is and how complex the issue gets, your time to resolution may end up dragging out a lot longer than you had originally anticipated.

Our top-three choices were considering staying with Proofpoint, as well as Cisco, and Microsoft. We were looking at the bigger names.

In retrospect, I would probably want to talk to someone like myself. I'm now using Cisco security appliances and I can see how someone like me in another agency would benefit from talking to me about: "Hey what do you see? How's it going? What have your experiences been with the product?" If you can, find someone who is actually using it and talk to them.

In addition, it really depends on where you're coming from. The learning curve is going to be there regardless, because it's a new product. But if you're coming from a smaller email security platform up to this one, the learning curve is going to be steep. You may actually want to invest the time and the money into some additional training. Don't neglect that because if you just try to rely on Cisco support you're going to notice pretty consistent slowdowns. If that's okay, then it won't be an issue. Of course, it's always okay until something urgent comes up. If you're trained up, you can handle it yourself. Nobody knows everything, but it's in your best interest to know as much as possible.