Cisco Secure Endpoint Reviews

It is used especially to connect with MDM, covering security and monitoring services.

It protects user devices, especially for field services.

Customers need some infrastructure on the cloud, e.g., Amazon and Google. We also need some testing and stage environments to perform tests.

We need to follow many countries' laws about data privacy. This is a requirement that is key for users. Cybersecurity resiliency has been important for us because we need to protect against loss.

The most valuable feature is its threat protection and data privacy, including its cyber attack and data protection, as we need to cover and protect data on user devices.

It could be improved in connection with artificial intelligence and IoT.

I have been using this solution for three years.

The stability is good.

It doesn't require much maintenance, just in a few cases.

It is good.

The technical support is fair. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

We previously used IBM. We switched because customers made decisions to work natively with the Cisco features, especially on infrastructure and security environments.

In many cases, we can deploy it in a week. In other cases, we have to connect and test with more complex architectures. However, this is not related to the security endpoint services. The testing around another product is important, so it can take two to four months.

We use the agile method for our implementation strategy.

We worked with IBM, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and a few partners.

It takes three to 10 people to do the deployment, including pre-sales and technical guys, testing guys, and some software architecture.

We get more value out of our portfolio. We have pretty much seen ROI. When the endpoint service is well connected devices, it covers many important key features,

The price is very fair to the customer.

We need to be open as an integrator to figure out other situations and features, especially from Microsoft and IBM. Everything is related to the customer's architecture, which is why we have to be open-minded. 

I really recommend to test and connect it with different devices, especially mobile, tablets, notebooks, and servers. Then, the potential customer can understand the value of naturally integrating all these devices together.

When it comes to data security, it is important to protect the data.

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10.

Being the primary AV/IDS within the enterprise, we have the solution deployed across multiple platforms including workstations, servers and Operating Systems.

The solutions conveniently integrates with other existing on-prem and cloud application will relatively minimum to stand up, using APIs and security best practices.

Most out-of-the-box features are either being utilized or pipelined to be deployed going forward, including MAP, ETHOS, SPERO, Exploit Prevention, SecureX, and Tetra which serves as an offline definition repository for workstation who are unable to pull definition updates using the default Cisco AMP cloud route.

It has been effective as the primary AV tool.

The visibility, dashboard and the navigations gives pretty decent insights into threats, IOCs and endpoint events to help with proactive monitoring. Deployment and connector upgrades are straightforward with available technical documentation for most scenarios.

AMP simplifies endpoint protection, detection, and response workflows, like security investigation, threat hunting, and incident response. By using the solution, we've been able to divert attention towards of the tasks, saving us significant time and effort. It has also served as a one stop shop for endpoint anomaly detection and proactive protection, thwarting the need to gathering inputs from various applications and having to compile that data into one relevant result. It has obviously minimized security risks to the entire business, most importantly, endpoints, servers and other crown-jewel assets. 

Recently, we have engaged the vendor regarding optimization, bug detections and extended features. Identity persistence, a feature request that was recently granted for instance gives virtual and physical devices deployed using gold image the ability specify an Identity Synchronization option. This persistence feature can apply by MAC address across business, by MAC address across policy or by host name across business.  

Speaking of scalability, integrating with other Cisco products, secure email, network, SIEM, API, open source and a number of selected proprietary applications have been encouraging.

Of all valuable features, these are worth mentioning:

- CI/CD pipelining and feature prioritization by actioning on user requests/ identified bugs, releasing connector upgrades, and deploying console upgrades for better usability

- Subscription functionality where console administrators able to Subscribe to receive immediate alerts(digest) on specific or group of monitored workstations

- Identity and access management capability within the console that allow administrators the ability to drill down user visibility on a Role based access control, limiting access to policies, groups, exclusions, and other controls

In terms of operating system compatibility, the coverage is almost in its entirety. Integration and deployment to Windows workstations, Windows servers, Mac, Linux and mobile is seamless

Being a unified AV engine, AMP conveniently delivers both Intrusion detection systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) capabilities with a specialty in cloud-delivered protection, next-generation antivirus, endpoint protection platform (EPP), and advanced endpoint detection and response (EDR)

Like any other security tool, there's always rooms for improvement. Some of the ways the product can be improved are:

- Vendor needs to understand a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with addressing TAC cases and service requests. For "once in a blue moon" cases, most approach still sound like the engineers are acting off of a runbook. In this case the recommended solutions will not totally align with the scenario

- Since customers do not have the ability to allow or decline console updates, there have been a number of instances where the console GUI appear buggy and functionalities do not work correctly after an upgrade. This can be improved by informing customers prior to the upgrades.

Other additional features that should be improved in next releases include:

- The dashboard is great for quick visibility prior to deeper dive, however, making the dashboard more customization will improve interaction, grant the ability to filter out irrelevant outputs and encourage personalized drill-downs based on daily requirements

- Integration with enterprise monitoring applications and ticketing systems that differentiates noise, forwards events, generates tickets and have them automatically assigned to application owning group.

I have been using Cisco AMP for Endpoints for about three years, this is inclusive of my prior assignments before being the SME for the application within the firm.

Stability is below average. There have been several issues with frequency of release, feature release and wait time for overhanging time-bombs. 

From a customer stand-point, these released are aimed at fixing known bugs from last release and introducing new features either in beta or live versions. However, this means that an enterprise  running 50K+ endpoints need to go through the rigors of setting up test/dev/qa/pilot then production for iteration, so as to limit the blast radius. 

This can be tasking if as the frequency increases.

Long story short, Cisco AMP is scalable. Having used the product as a 'demanding' customer, I can attest to the availability of proper technical documentation and seamless integration with existing application, infrastructure and appliances 

- Vendor needs to understand a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with addressing TAC cases and service requests. For "once in a blue moon" cases, most approach still sound like the engineers are acting off of a runbook. In this case the recommended solutions will not totally align with the scenario. Also escalations can be more flexible, for instance, certain case priorities (P2, P1) require phoning in, which can be fuel to an already burning bush. 

Neutral

From my understanding, initial setup was tasking with various gray areas. For a new customer trying to set up AMP, there is room for improvement. 

The initial deployment happened prior to me joining the organization, based on my interactions with the application deployment team, the effort took months.

Customers can get better during product's initial setup if vendor provides documentation that suggest important objectives like naming convention, default config and collection of product's best practices

In-house

AMP is worth the money. In recent years, we have spent less time/money and require lesser  human resources for task completion. On the higher level, this has saved the firm the need to hire more security engineers to manage the application, reducing overhead cost.

A discrepancy with  the number of assets per license should be reviewed to apply based on preference or number of endpoints versus ranges.

Compared to other competitors, there's a significant price difference, although different applications tend to focus more on different cybersecurity functionality

It's been really interesting working with the application, going from 5.X.X connector versions up until 7.X.X. As previously highlighted, there are numerous ways to improve the products. Working with the engineers in previous cases, there is the zeal to improve and an attitude that embraces change

We rely on it for antivirus. There are probably three levels, and we have the bottom tier, the most basic one.

It is on Cisco's cloud. We have the client installed on all workstations, but we don't have a server.

It just gives me more insights into what threats are out there on the machines, so I can be more proactive.

Actionable alerts in the security console are helpful. With the security console, I immediately get to know about an issue. So, it has sped things up. It also gives you a way to research and see if an issue is spreading, so it has assisted quite a bit.

It definitely gives a starting point for investigating and mitigating threats. It has research tools, and we can run queries. I have used its Orbital Advanced Search feature. I have run quite a few queries to determine what is out on the network or on the devices that could be a threat. It could be something that is misconfigured or something that we don't want to have running. It is able to quickly run these queries.

I usually use the Orbital Advanced Search feature for groups. I use it to look for commonality for a threat thread, and it provides good visibility. I've never used it for just one endpoint.

Orbital Advanced Search helps in reducing the attack surface and investigating real-time data on endpoints. I've only used it a handful of times, and I was mostly looking for whether or not an update has been applied.

Orbital Advanced Search definitely saves time. I assume money goes right along with time. I don't have to go from desktop to desktop. I have 50 desktops, and if I'm looking for something in particular, it would take at least 15 to 20 minutes per desktop.

We use Cisco Umbrella. The integration when you use the SecureX console is really good to go from one to the other. I have pulled the endpoint and Cisco Umbrella into SecureX, so I just have one console. It was easy to integrate. They provided really good instructions. This integration just made things more convenient.

It simplifies endpoint protection, detection, and response workflows, especially for threat hunting. The way it is set up, with the console, I would get to know quickly that we have an issue. It increases operational efficiency because I don't have to go from desktop to desktop. I'm also proactive instead of reactive.

It has minimized security risks to our business. I've had several desktops where they have triggered an alert, and all I had to do was to go and clean that machine out before the problem spread. 

It allows us to focus on the incident instead of investigating the group, so we are more efficient. It has decreased our time to remediate because we're focusing on the machines we need to.

It has decreased our time to detect. I can't quantify the time, but in some of the older antiviruses, the user would say, "Okay, I've got a pop-up, and it has flagged this or that," and then you'd have to go look for it. With this, I know ahead of time, or I know when it happens. 

We use it as an antivirus. The audit logs are valuable. 

It is extensive in terms of providing visibility and insights into threats. It allows for research into a threat, and you can chart your progress on how you're resolving it.

It is quite comprehensive in terms of endpoint protection. I haven't found anything where it was lacking in terms of the protection of our Windows machines.

While I've attended a lot of their training webinars, they were mostly high-level. They just say that these are the feature, and this is how you access them, but I would like to see more scenario-based information. They should provide us examples of how to resolve something when we see something happening. They should give us an example of the flow on how to resolve it.

In Orbital, there are tons of prebuilt queries, but there is not a lot of information in lay terms. There isn't enough information to help us with what we're looking for and why we are looking for it with this query. There are probably a dozen queries in there that really focus on what I need to focus on, but they are not always easy to find the first time through.

I have been using this solution for about a year. My company had it for about a year and a half before I joined.

II haven't had any issues with it except for a connector issue. They quickly put out a new one and got rid of the problem. So, it seems to be really stable, and they seem to be reactive when there is a problem.

It is good in terms of keeping the machines updated. It is easy to get it installed on the desktop and keep it updated. We have a little over 100 users. They are administrators, project managers, field supervisors, engineers, and sales and support staff, so we have quite a mix.

We have deployed it on all desktops and laptops currently. I am going to start looking at adding it to mobile devices. Currently, we only have Windows machines covered. We are working on getting it set up on the Mac mobile devices. So, eventually, we will have a lot more depth than we have now.

I never had to reach out to them. So far, I have been able to find the documentation that I needed.

I've only been with the company for a year. They had it when I got there, and we haven't changed anything since then.

I've used McAfee and Norton, and it does much better than them.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup. They did that before I joined the company.

Its maintenance is done by me. I'm the only IT person. It is not a large company, so it isn't a bad thing.

It is kind of hard to say what would have happened if you didn't have it. We've got a very stable environment, and it seems to be doing its job. So, I assume we're getting a return on investment.

The pricing was negotiated before I started, so I don't really know.

I would advise others to take a real hard look at it because it is a good solution for companies of our size. I like the fact that it is managed in the cloud. I don't have to maintain a server presence. It is easy to use. It was a bit of a learning curve to start with because I was completely unfamiliar with it. I just dug in there and figured it out. Its documentation is fairly good.

If you go through SecureX, everything is right there in terms of user access and device protection. This integration is nice, but so far, it hasn't really saved me any time. It may in the future.

I believe it makes it possible to see a threat once and block it everywhere across all endpoints and the entire security platform, but I never had to do that.

I would rate Cisco Secure Endpoint an eight out of 10.

AMP was purchased for our organization in response to continued threats that we had from malware and malicious activity on our endpoints. We received AMP for Endpoint and also AMP for Networks as part of our Cisco Security ELA. The solution has made a huge impact on the visibility of what has actually been transpiring at the process level on our servers and workstation endpoints as well as being able to look in detail on those processes to see whose executed those processes and what the trajectory was for those processes.

AMP for Endpoints is Software as a Service. It's a subscription service. You do download a connector onto the endpoint. Then, there is the option to run it to an air gap mode where you connect to a local server that does back out to the AMP Cloud. However, that's not the deployment we have in our case, we have it connecting back directly to Cisco Cloud Security.

While I can understand from a theoretical standpoint how some organizations may not want a cloud connection, it increases the processing and detection because of ETHOS and SPERO detection. Throughout all the other Cisco security products, it is able to add this detection into the threat analytics through Threat Grid and Threat Response for other customers who have the same type of hash in their environment. There are the options: If you want to submit a file to be removed after submission and also for it to be submitted anonymously.

We tie AMP into our SIEM so we are receiving alerts through the SIEM. I also have AMP independently send me alerts. I have these alerts finely tuned so I'm getting the right severity level on events where I am being notified. If you choose to receive a notification on all events, potential malware, or potentially unwanted applications, you're going to have an overload of information. Therefore, AMP allows the ability to go through and fine tune the alerts, both in the console and remotely, so you get a proper level of notification to make actionable requests and executions.

In our organization, we have about 95 percent Windows operating systems. Then, we have about five percent Mac OS. Therefore, Cisco AMP covers a 100 percent of our endpoints. It's totally comprehensive.

I had a conversation with my CIO about a week ago. We are seeing more security incidents in our organization. However, we believe these events have always occurred, and that we are more aware of them now. For example, last Thursday we had an incident where a device tried to go and reach out to a malicious website. Because of the integration we have with Threat Response between Umbrella with WSA and AMP, we were able to stop that malicious activity. That's something we wouldn't been previously aware of: If we had an endpoint out there trying to reach out to a malicious site. Until it hit our perimeter security, we wouldn't have been aware of that. You don't always want to rely on your perimeter security for everything, as it won't catch everything all the time. Therefore, you want a multilayered approach, and having Cisco AMP and Cisco Threat Response helps us to accomplish that.

There are several valuable features that AMP offers:

• Application blacklist
• Threat Response
• Cognitive Threat Analytics
• Threat Grid
• Orbital
• Endpoint Isolation. 

We regularly use all these features on a daily basis. E.g., if we have an alert stating exploit prevention was detected on an endpoint, we will look to see what the hash for that executable/application was, then we can add it to a simple blacklist. Then, everyone else in the organization with AMP for Endpoint running that device can prevent it from running. This is really useful in the event that you have some type of malware incident or event where something is trying to propagate. You can squash it then and there. 

There is also the ability: If you have one device that is running something that's really malicious. You can go ahead and put that in isolation mode to prevent any further spread or damage.

I have used Orbital for searching and taking a bit of a deeper dive. It provides detail on assets, users logged in, the IP address, and architecture. It also helps with going through posture assessment, threat hunting, and forensics. 

The room for improvement would be on event notifications. I have mine tuned fairly well. I do feel that if you subscribe to all the event notification types out-of-the-box, or don't really go through and take the time to filter out events, the notifications can become overwhelming with information. Sometimes, when you're overwhelmed with information, you just say, "I'm not going to look at anything because I'm receiving so much." I recommend the vendor come up with a white paper on the best practices for event notifications.

As far as reducing the attack surface, Orbital really doesn't decrease that surface.

I have been using Cisco AMP for about 18 months.

With most applications, whether it's AV or some type of IDS/IPS running on an endpoint, you will have some type of performance hit or degradation of the endpoint's performance. Out of all the devices that we've put AMP on, which is around a 1,000 devices at this point, we have only had one device that had a problem with performance using AMP. So, we were able to go through and tune the policy from the AMP console for that one endpoint. The overall view of AMP's performance is very good.

You have the same deployment process and methodology for 10 to 10,000. Therefore, it scales very well.

I have never had to use tech support for this solution.

Threat Response is integrated with AMP and all the other Cisco security products. That has really helped to decrease the troubleshooting time. Back in the legacy days of AV and Endpoint Protection, the typical workflow would be, "Okay, I have a machine over here that has been infected. I have to figure out all the files which touched it." It was almost impossible retroactively to go back and see what everything it touched and where it all went.

You had to witness the malware in the wild (in real-time) to figure out what it was doing. With Threat Response, you are able to see its executables and trajectory across your network, then where it tried to reach the outside world. All of this helps to mitigate our threat response from days or hours to just a few minutes.

Prior to Cisco AMP, we used Sophos Intercept X, which we still do use, and we also used Carbon Black.

The initial setup was extremely straightforward. I performed the initial install, and I maintained it ever since.

The deployment took about 30 minutes.

The deployment plan was to get the console and policies configured. Once the policies were configured, we started with the servers first because the servers were easier for us to get our hands on and ensure that the connector was installed. Secondarily, we went out to the workstation level endpoints and installed there.

There is Cisco documentation on best practices for your specific endpoints. My recommendation would be to get with your Cisco support team or account manager and obtain the most recent iteration of that document to ensure that your deployment goes as smoothly as possible. While the deployment will go smoothly, the main thing that this document does ensure is you have the correct policies configured per endpoint type. E.g., you have a different type of policy for a workstation versus a server.

We have seen ROI, but it's hard to calculate that return on investment in terms of actual dollars because it's more man-hours. Time spent on other projects is possible because of the optimization and performance that we have by utilizing AMP.

AMP for Endpoints simplifies endpoint protection, detection, and response workflows. It continues to decrease the man-hours needed to perform tasks, such as threat hunting and incident response.

It has decreased time to detection by 95 percent. A lot of the time, prior to having AMP, even with our traditional AV protection, we weren't aware of any type of malicious activity until it had an impact on the organization.

We had a 97 percent reduction in time to remediation, because it's almost instantaneous. In the 18 months that we've had AMP, there has not been malicious activity on an endpoint that we weren't able to resolve immediately.

In our organization, Orbital definitely does save time. Anything that we can do in our organization to save time is crucial, as we have a small IT staff. Therefore, we really need to find force multipliers.

For each incident which occurs, whether it's an exploit prevention or malware detected, Orbital is saving us five to eight hours per incident. In one week, it could save eight hours, and then another week, it could save 32 hours. It just depends on the malicious activity for any given week.

Whenever you are doing the licensing process, I would highly advise to look at what other Cisco solutions you have in your organization, then evaluate if an Enterprise Agreement is the best way to go. In our case, it was the best way to go. Since we had so many other Cisco products, we were able to tie those in. We were actually able to get several Cisco security solutions for less than if we had bought three or four Cisco security solutions independently or ad hoc.

In our case, it is a straightforward annual payment through our Enterprise Agreement.

We evaluated Carbon Black before going with Cisco AMP. The reasoning behind going with AMP over Carbon Black was we already had other Cisco security products in our organization. Therefore, AMP was a native integration versus something like Carbon Black where you're looking at a third-party integration. Also, Carbon Black was a bit more cumbersome when it came to performing a lot of the tasks that AMP performs. Carbon Black was first to market with things like endpoint isolation. However, after speaking with our Cisco account reps, we did realize that, "Okay, Endpoint Isolation is coming to AMP. It's just not there yet." That did come to fruition, so there wasn't an advantage to using Carbon Black over AMP. Plus, there were several advantages to using AMP over Carbon Black. That's what led to our decision.

Integration is a key selling factor for Cisco security products. We have a Cisco Enterprise Agreement with access to Cisco Email Security, Cisco Firepower, Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco Talos, Cisco Threat Grid, Cisco Umbrella, and also third-party solutions. This is key to our security and maximizing operations. Because we do have the Email Security appliance and it is integrated with Threat Response, we have everything tied together. Additionally, we are using the Cisco SecureX platform, as we were a beta test for that new solution. With SecureX, we are able to pull all those applications into one pane for visibility and maintenance. This greatly maximizes our security operations.

Orbital just went from beta to production recently, so I haven't had the opportunity to go through and do a complex search on anything yet.

Biggest lesson learnt: How impactful proper tool utilization in an organization can be to the overall efficiency.

I would rate the solution a 10 (out of 10).

I'm hoping that this is protecting me from all the harmful issues that are happening, because we know exactly what kind of world we are living in on the internet.

I rely on this system. I am hoping that everything is fine with the system and that it will catch any harmful file or virus or trojan. If any of those things happen on my network, it will hold it or stop them.

It has helped to simplify cybersecurity in my company. I see that there are files that have been blocked. I don't go deep into the reports that I get from the system, but I believe that it's doing its job. I haven't had any serious problems.

I'm only using the AMP (advanced malware protection) which is protecting my file system from all the malicious things that might happen. It should protect all kinds of things that might happen on the servers, things that I cannot see.

They could simplify the solution and make it a little bit easier to understand how things are happening or if something serious has happened. They could improve the main dashboard to more clearly show me the things that I want to see. When I open the dashboard right now, I see a million things and they are not always the things that I need.

I would also like it to update itself so that I don't need to click to make that happen. Of course, having to click is not a hard thing to do, but I would like to see things done automatically as much as possible.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for a long time. I used it in the last company I worked for and, when I opened my own company, I also started using it. I have been using it for around five years at least.

It's very stable.

I have it installed on about 40 clients. To increase the number of endpoints I just need to download the connector and install it.

I have had some difficulties, but I received support from Cisco and, in the end, it was okay. I cannot complain.

It took me some time to understand how to send in a request. It would be very easy if there were a chat on their site or if it could be done via WhatsApp. But I had to look for an email address, where to send and what were the details that they asked from me at the beginning. It wasn't obvious how to reach out to support.

Positive

I did not have a previous solution.

The deployment was straightforward. It's easy to understand the steps. I created a profile, downloaded the agent, and installed it on the clients that I wanted it on. The dashboard is in the cloud, hosted by Cisco.

It is good that you don't have to take care of the system all the time. Once it's installed and stable, you don't need to make adjustments.

I used SecureIT and it was perfect. He's very professional and he knows the system. He gave me an introduction to the system and explained the things that I needed to know.

It's keeping things quiet, so that's a very good return.

Cisco Secure Endpoint is not too expensive and it's not cheap. It's quite fair.

I looked into SentinelOne two months ago. The question is, is the system protecting me enough or not? Sometimes I ask myself, should I put more security on the servers? Doing so is going to make the system work more slowly. I checked SentinelOne because some of my colleagues who have Cisco AMP had an attack that Cisco AMP did not see.

The fact that I've been using it for five years already means that I believe I can trust it. Others can also trust it.

Our primary use case is general antivirus protection.

This product was deployed to a number of Windows machines, and we also have a VMware environment.

The product gives greater visibility of malware being downloaded by my clientele. In a more general fashion, Cisco Secure Endpoint has helped to prioritize threats. It has allowed us to make more effective use of our security team members.

Another advantage is that it has improved the effectiveness of our security options. We now have better response times when dealing with outbreaks.

We have decreased our time to detection, although it is difficult to say by how much because we weren't detecting all of the malware in the past.

It is reasonably easy to remediate issues using Cisco Secure Endpoint. In part, this is because I don't have to visit the physical machines to remediate them. As such, the time it takes for remediation has been decreased. 

This solution accelerates threat hunting by automatically promoting endpoint incidents to the Cisco SecureX platform, which is something that is fairly important to us.

Our systems are monitored by this product, and if threats are detected then the systems are shut down before problems arise. This is something that is fairly important to our organization.

This product has issues with the number of false positives that it reports. Especially when updates are released for Chrome, many detections report a virus when it really wasn't.

Another problem that I notice is that Outlook 2016 creates cache files of attachments, and when this product detects them as malware, it can't delete them. I assume this is because Outlook still has the file open. This means that I get notices about the issue but I can't do anything about it until later, after Outlook has closed them. This may not be Cisco's fault as much as it is Microsoft's fault.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Endpoint for less than a year.

In my experience, this product is very stable.

This is a fairly scalable solution.

We deployed it to all of our Windows devices. A team consisting of fewer than 10 people receives alerts from the product when there is an issue. The team will follow up on the incidents and any remediation.

At this point, we have no plans to increase our usage.

I have not needed to use Cisco technical support for this product. I am usually happy with their support, so I'm assuming that for this product it will be roughly the same.

Prior to using this product, I did not have other agents in place to handle the same job. We had implemented Microsoft Defender for Endpoint but that doesn't really have any reporting tools.

We switched away from Defender because we needed better visibility. There really wasn't any.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. It might have been complex for somebody that hasn't been doing this type of thing for as long as I have. For example, not a lot of people understand deploying things via group policies. In my case, however, I have a lot of experience and it wasn't complicated.

The deployment was done in-house, by me. I did not use any external help for the implementation.

We purchased the product through a reseller, CDW, and our experience with them was straightforward. There were fairly easy to deal with.

It does not require regular maintenance or monitoring. I receive alerts when they happen but I don't actively monitor it. When an alert happens, an email is sent to a small team of fewer than 10 people.

The pricing and licensing fees are okay. As a school, we do not have quite as much funding as a private business might. I wish that there were more of a discount available for educational uses.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Endpoint, we didn't thoroughly investigate or evaluate other options. We are a Cisco shop and we generally lean toward using Cisco products.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that all of their security products should come from the same vendor. This way, your dashboard can be set up to monitor all of them. In my case, because we're a Cisco shop, this product makes sense for us.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that there is a lot more malware slipping through my email filters than I expected.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Endpoint has improved our speed of response and the level of confidence we have that we are in good shape or are not in good shape.

Device Trajectory is one of the most valuable features. We're able to dig in and really understand how things came to be and where to focus our efforts.

I've been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for three years.

It's very stable.

We haven't had any issues at all with the scalability. We're a global enterprise with between 1,500 and 1,700 users and we use it on servers, Macs, and PCs.

The technical support is good.

We've already got SHI and Cisco reps on top of us, and that's a lot of the reason why everything is so good.

Positive

We were looking to replace Microsoft Defender, which really just wasn't cutting it. Before Defender, we used Kaspersky. We needed to go to an EDR solution and we were already a Cisco-centric company, so it made sense to go into a unified environment.

It was straightforward. We just rolled out the agent to all the endpoints. It took just a couple of people, one security person and one person for the tool that pushed it out to Windows devices.

If I didn't have someone else taking care of the licensing, I would say that the licensing needs to be improved. All the product features we need are there. It's just a matter of the complexity and the different offerings and trying to figure things out.

There are a lot of pieces that roll into the pricing issue. For Cisco Secure Endpoint, with our Cisco EA, the pricing seems reasonable compared to the others. But when we get to solutions like Duo and we think that with our Microsoft agreement their MFA is "free," it's not exactly free. But without our EA, Duo would cost so much more. It feels a little bit like nickel and dime sometimes, but I get it.

We looked at CrowdStrike and Carbon Black. All the solutions had great value, but we went with Cisco because we were with Cisco for networking quite a bit. Also, our overall direction was to look at SASE, and with some of the other things, they all just started coming together. It made a lot of sense to stay in one environment for functionality.

Traditionally you'll see the industry reviews talk about Cisco Secure Endpoint as typically in Cisco environments, but I'd tell the CrowdStrike users and other folks to take a look. It's an interesting solution and it provides a lot of value.

Cyber security resilience has been extremely important for our organization. Cisco Secure Endpoint has stopped a few things. I don't know whether other avenues of defense in depth would have caught them or not, but the resilience of depth and the ability to keep moving, even after an event, keep the rest of our business productive.

The Cisco environment has been perfect. When there is an event in the news that I know my leaders are going to be reading about, in 10 minutes I can check my environment to see if I have any indicators of compromise, and I'm done.

The solution is easy to deploy and applies multi-factor authentication. 

The solution can be cheaper. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for six years. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is an expensive solution. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.