Cisco Secure Endpoint Reviews

We use this solution to protect our IT environment. We use it to secure our user endpoints.

It gives awareness of our users' security posture.

The console feature gives a centralized management of what's going on, and if something happens, it gives you an alert. That's the most important feature for me.

Compared to other products, Cisco Secure Endpoint has some limitations and issues, it is still catching up with competition. For example, protection for USB is fairly recent and it is still limited to Windows platforms, and there are significant differences in the product packaging and distribution for Windows and MacOS platforms.

Another area of improvement is stability.

I have been using Cisco Secure Endpoint for two years.

We had a couple of deferred releases this year.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

Our deployment is very small. We only have a few dozen endpoints. So I can't really say if it scales well to a large number of endpoints. However, it seems like it could scale well so, the solution could be easy to scale up as needed.

The customer support team solves the problems, but it takes a while to contact them. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the public cloud deployment model. I have installed the license, the software, on my VM and it is being managed by Cisco Cloud.

My primary use case for this solution is to test it against malicious links and for encryption and decryption. 

The simplicity of use is its most valuable feature. You can very clearly see things. You have the ability to go back in time and get details, where the malware started, what happened and where it went from the minute it got in. It offers a good scope and a good ability to shut it down then go back and see what happened. 

It should be doing backups. Every stage that this malware is going forward, it should snapshot the situation. Then I could go back to the first stage before it got infected. It doesn't have this option, and I know that other manufacturers have it, like Check Point, for example. 

In the next release, I would for it to have back up abilities. I would like the ability to go back to a point in time to when my PC was uninfected and to the moment of when the infection happened.

The stability is good. 

I haven't needed to scale up yet but from what I see it's supposed to be easy. My organization sells this solution. We provide the service and management of the environment of our clients. 

It only requires one staff member for deployment and maintenance. 

I'm looking to expand the usage. I offer this solution to almost every endpoint SMB client. I'm looking to establish a faster solution and I meet with clients to discuss their network security. 

We haven't needed to contact their technical support because we've never had a problem that we couldn't resolve ourselves. 

We were previously using Check Point Sandblast Agent. We switched because it wasn't as stable as this one. We had some problems with it and we needed to contact their support and it wasn't so good. I would get tough questions from my clients so eventually I told them that we would look into other solutions.

We also work with Fortinet but I prefer AMP. 

The initial setup is a bit complex because you need to execute existing antiviruses or security software that you have on your device. 

The deployment took around fifteen to twenty minutes. 

I deployed it myself. I am the consultant who does the deployments. 

The costs of 50 licenses of AMP for three years is around $9,360. There are no additional costs. 

Just purchase the license, download it, install it to an active device, the main controller, and send it to everyone. My advice is that you need to delete your existing endpoint security solution because AMP actually contains everything that you need. Those two softwares can attack each other which can be a problem.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use it to deliver the best endpoint protection and control for our clients. We offer them MSSP services for their products, so they are assured that their product is fully visible and protected.

It offers advanced threat protection by using machine learning to prevent any possible cyber threat, including malware and ransomware. We get complete real-time visibility and control over the system, so it is easy to track any possible data breaches. You can see on the report what kind of tactic was used and at what time. It provides a comprehensive security posture for our company.

It provides real-time visibility and control over endpoints, allowing its users to promptly respond to any security incidents and remediate any vulnerabilities.

Due to the complexity of the technology that is used and its advanced threat detection capabilities, it is possible to encounter many delays in operation. It can impact the business itself, so I would suggest an improvement in that area.

I have used this product for seven months. 

I am highly satisfied with the stability. I would rate it nine out of ten.

It offers good scalability. I would rate it eight out of ten.

They provide good customer service and support. I would rate it eight out of ten. 

Positive

The deployment process is seamless and fast. After the suitable option is selected and downloaded, it only takes a few steps to complete it and deploy it. The efficiency and promptness of the process greatly depend on the performance of the computer. 

It is quite cost-effective. I would rate it ten out of ten.

It is a very good product overall, it provides multi-layered protection, but its promptness is challenged, so that is something that should be worked on. I would rate it eight out of ten.

AMP 4 Endpoints protect our workstation (ca 300), our VDI environment (ca 250), and our servers (ca 50).

The old product was from Trend Micro and was just a simple antivirus solution. It was ok, but it was just an antivirus. We needed something more than just an antivirus that is used by every end-user. We were looking for a tool can we trust, and something that can schedule some things, implement scripts, analyze malware, perform advanced scans, etc. Our company, as an ISP for many customers, has to be protected from vulnerabilities.

First of all, we performed a PoV (Proof of Value) together with our Cisco partners, and we tested about a few months the efficacy and complexity of this product.

After the evaluation of the cost and security that AMP 4 Endpoints could offer, we decided to replace the old solution with AMP 4 Endpoints. The implementation was performed, with support from Cisco partners, in a few hours. In the following days, AMP 4 Endpoints found many things that the old antivirus solution missed. That was a very huge advantage for us.

Since we booked the Premier License, the most valuable features, in my opinion, are

• Secure Threat Hunting to have a specialized team to support in analyzing complex attacks. That could help us to learn about new technics
• Threat Grid with the ability to observe the sandboxing, analyze, and perform investigations of different malicious files. Nobody wants to run a dangerous file in his network, for that Threat Grid is important for us.
  
• Threat Response that offers the possibility of help on logs, IPs, domains, etc. to perform investigations into our and global infrastructure. Sometimes we want to see if a malicious file was run in our network, for that Threat Response take this job to search and save us alot of time.

Actually, we don't need others features or improvements of this product. It is a complex product and offers us exactly what we need - security and trust.

We chose Cisco because we wanted security and trust. That is what we needed from Cisco, and what our customers expected from us.

We are using many Cisco products, and, with every new product, every new feature, the trust in Cisco security is growing.

We think that Cisco covers all of the security aspects on the market. They continue to innovate in the right way.

We have been using the AMP 4 Endpoints in the Test Environment since November 2020 and implemented them in the production environment since March 2021.

We used Trend Micro and when we tested AMP 4 Endpoints we saw its value immediately.

I'd advise users to book the premier license and to have access to all the features that AMp 4 Endpoints has on offer.

There was no other option; we wanted the Cisco solution immediately.

Everything is working fine.

We are trying to provide managed security services. This solution would be part of those managed security services.

We are on proof of concept phase and will see how it works.

I hope it will help decrease mean time to detect and respond, because it provides scalability, and we could make an efficient, effective service providing it for customers.

• Scalability
• Ability to integrate with SIEM.
• Advanced threat protection for customers.

We would like to have an API integration with a SIEM solution, because as far as I know, it currently hasn't yet been released. We are looking forward to it because it's important for us to integrate the product with a SIEM solution in order to provide our customers a good, robust solution.

It needs major improvement with its ease of integration.

So far, so good.

The scalability is good.

We have not had any technical cases.

We are providing our customers multiple solutions depending on their needs. So, it's more like what our customer needs. We could go with Cisco or maybe we could with another vendor (we will see). Right now, we are quite satisfied with Cisco.

For what we have already set up, the process has been straightforward.

We are estimating 5 to 10 percent staff productivity increases.

Our partner in Norway does the price negotiation.

We are looking for cost-effective, efficient solutions for our customers, and Cisco happens to be one of the vendors who fits into that scope.

Microsoft is another vendor who offers a similar licensing model for this type of solution. There is also McAfee and Trend Micro. It depends on the customer's requirements.

We have some mature security services, like anti-malware. We are looking to broaden our service portfolio and are on the first steps to climb further. 

You should always assess your customers' needs. Once you get that information, you just look for respective vendors. 

We mainly use this program for our business operations.

The feature I find most valuable is the sandboxing.

I think there should be better support and I would also like to see an easier implementation of the solution. The support should be cheaper and more available during the implementation stage. It would be great if they could have support teams that involve an AMP team because there's a specific team for AMP.

I have been using Cisco AMP for Endpoints for around three years now.

Cisco AMP for Endpoints has been very stable so far. 

I believe the solution is scalable. We have around 200 end users working on this program, and then we have a team of 15 that is responsible for technical and maintenance issues.

I will rate the technical support a six out of ten because their response time was very slow. Not as fast as they used to be.

We also use Micro, so we use two programs simultaneously. 

I did the initial setup myself and it was really easy and straightforward.

I will recommend this solution to others. I would, however, like to see better features and implementation to cover some points. It would be nice if they could add more protocols to support encrypted files, and be able to inspect an encrypted file, or at least be able to support that. Better and faster technical support is also necessary. 

On a scale from one to 10, I rate this solution a seven.

The primary use case is email filtering.

We are using the latest version.

I am told that we get over 100 million emails a month. This filters them down and allows only somewhere about three million emails, which is a great help.

We are a Cisco shop, so it just integrates with everything else that we are doing.

I would like them to add whatever makes filtering more advanced in scanning and blocking for malware in emails. It would just improve the product further. I think they are working on this, the continuous improvement aspect. 

One to three years.

The stability seems to work well.

The scalability is fine.

The technical support is sufficient. Every time that we have had an issue, we call the tech support, and they are very responsive.

We wanted to get a homogeneous environment where everything works together and is integrated well together. This was a big advantage and big driver for us.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used Dimension Data for the deployment. The experience was positive.

This solution has helped increase staff productivity, e.g., if you get 1000 emails a day and 95 percent of those are garbage, then the savings that you receive from going through those emails is immense.

We have seen a measurable decrease in the mean time to detect or respond to threats by 90 percent, blocking a vast majority of threats. 

Seriously consider it. It blocks a lot of emails. Look at the market, do your evaluation, and pick the right solution for you.

We are fairly mature in our security program maturity, but there is always room for improvement.

We are using it for remote users, and that's our main reason for using it. We have a lot of colleagues who work outside the organization, and they need to connect to the local, on-prem resources for file sharing and other things that we have in our data center. That's it.

It helped to free up our IT staff's time. We don't need to manually check everything in the compliance area. Everything is automated, so we don't need to check all the time. I don't know how much time it has saved, but it helped us a lot.

The VPN is most valuable. It's the best thing in the market today. We can use two-factor authentication with another platform, and we can authenticate with two-factor.

Logging could be better in terms of sending more logs to Cisco Firepower or Cisco ASA. That's an area where it could be made better.

We've been using this solution for five or six years. 

We do not have any challenges, and we are fine with it. We are using it only for external endpoints, and we are very comfortable with it. 

We don't see any difficulty there.

It's very nice. You get feedback very easily. I'd rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were using another solution before. We switched because we have Cisco everywhere, and the best way is to go for Cisco for everything. That's our strategic plan.

Its initial setup is straightforward, but I have been working with Cisco products for about 10 years. I have knowledge of how to use it, and it's very easy for us to implement.

The process of migration was easy. We have our own tools to migrate from the old one. In our environment, everything is on-prem, and we also have redundancy for the central equipment.

We implement it ourselves. The number of people required depends on how big the organization is. We are not so big. We are a middle-sized organization, and for our use case, three or four people were involved in the planning and implementation.

We have not seen an ROI.

We had faced some license issues, but it has been improved. At the beginning of the implementation, we faced a lot of licensing issues, but now, we have EA licensing, which gives us an opportunity to grow.

If you have a Cisco environment inside, it's best to have a Cisco solution for the outside. You don't need to use multiple vendors because it can be difficult for them to communicate with each other. Sometimes, there can be difficulties when you have different vendors.

Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten.