Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

We use it at the end and the center as the core and apply a lot of policies to the firewall.

Using Cisco Firepower has helped us.

We like the Cisco product, the concept, and the tech intelligence. We are much more comfortable with Cisco products. It's a reputable organization, and we trust the products.

The next Cisco NGIPS release should include more features for production ideas and more intelligence for IDS and IPS features.

We have been using this solution for two years. 

We initially had some difficulty loading pages due to certain rules regarding performance and stability. On some websites, we had to click more than once. These issues were quite easy to fix.

Regarding scalability, the solution is not that good.

They're nice people. We don't have any issues with them. They are quick to respond, but sometimes it takes time to solve the issues.

Positive

We previously used Check Point and Cyberoam. We switched because the license expired.

We initially had some difficulties, but now we have no problems.

A Cisco vendor in Nepal helped us configure the product properly. We didn't have a strategy. The vendors supported us from the very beginning. After working with them, we had no problem using the product.

It took almost a month and a half to install the system.

I would rate our ROI as eight out of 10, with 10 being the highest ROI.

Cisco NGIPS licensing is yearly. 

I would rate the pricing four out of 10, one being very expensive and 10 very cheap. 

I would give Cisco NGIPS an overall rating of eight out of 10, 10 being the best.

We have a department of almost 50 people in our company using Cisco NGIPS. 

We have 10 people to maintain the product.

We want to cover all the systems and networks of our organization. 

I use Cisco NGIPS as a firewall.

The most valuable features of Cisco NGIPS are protection and reporting.

We have a separate management controller for Cisco NGIPS. If they have not done it already they should integrate Cisco NGIPS with the Cloud Portal.

The solution has some bugs that sometimes take time to resolve.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately two years.

The stability of Cisco NGIPS has been good since we have been using it.

The scalability of Cisco NGIPS is good.

Cisco has better technical support than other competitors, such as Check Point IPS or Palo Alto. Cisco has very good support, they are always ready to help their customer if there are any production issues.

Cisco NGIPS should add a technical person to the chat support. They correctly do not have a specialist. The knowledge base of the chat agent should be better.

I have used Check Point IPS solutions.

The implementation of Cisco NGIPS is straightforward.

You have to do your own implementation of the Cisco NGIPS hardware, but for the configuration, Cisco support can be involved from day one. That's what I have experienced. There was some exception but I have involved the Cisco support team from day one when I started configuring my firewall.

We have seen a return on investment by using Cisco NGIPS.

There is a license required to use Cisco NGIPS and it can be a one or three-year license.

I would advise others to use the support from Cisco, they are helpful.

I rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

People still aggregate these functions. We have files that only serve the purpose of NextGen NGIPS.  They have no rules that just allow pure source running and execution. We need regular firewall protection with NetGen. It's nice because we can lease both firewall and IPS system functions. We have both running on the network.

Apex IPaaS functions itself. You can create an intrusion rule that can be used for blocking purposes.

I like the security solutions from Cisco. They don't only give you the IPS itself, but you also have another database and other applications. 

They also have the security intelligence feature. This is one of the first software lines. This brings you the URLs, IPs, etc. This is even before the access control.

There are certain limitations that need to be addressed. 

I have been using the Cisco NGIPS for two years. 

Cisco support is very good. 

Positive

For the time being, I never received a complaint about a policy, but this may happen in the future. This can be due to consistent integration. 

They filter even between different companies and stuff and cloud providers and I've never received any complaints about the speed.

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

In my company, the solution is used as a platform for cybersecurity. The product offers protection from malware. In general, the solution offers protection to our company's internal network.

The product's benefits experienced by the company stem from the fact that the solution provides keep abilities that help users see what is happening in their network. The solution also provides alerts.

My company does not use the URL filtering capabilities offered by Cisco NGIPS. My company prefers to use the URL filtering feature offered by a brand other than Cisco since other tools provide an easier way to use the functionality.

I wanted to look into the other products offered in the market because Cisco NGIPS is expensive. The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for eight years. My company has a partnership with Cisco. I am also a user of the product. My company operates as a reseller of Cisco products.

I don't remember seeing any crashes when using the solution. The product has been very stable in our company.

The scalability offered by the product is fine. My company has not faced any problems with the scalability feature. The solution is deployed in three of our company's data centers.

The first call that I had with the product's technical team was not good since it took time to provide an explanation to get the right engineer to help us with our problems. Once the user gets connected with the right engineer, the support offered is very good.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with Fortinet. I don't remember the name of one of the solutions that I had used in the past.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one means a difficult process, and ten means that it is an easy process.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of weeks. We take care of the testing phase in our company before installing the solution only when the signatures are updated in our environment, which takes around a time frame of less than two weeks.

Around three or four engineers take care of the product's installation phase.

My company purchases professional services from Cisco's partner to take care of the installation phase.

Cisco NGIPS is an expensive product.

I have compared Fortinet FortiGate IPS against Cisco NGIPS.

With Cisco NGIPS, the rate of false positives is very low.

I would tell those who plan to use Cisco NGIPS that it is a good solution, but if they have budget constraints, they should explore the other brands in the market.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco as a firewall. It is an intrusion detection and prevention solution.

The malware detection, threat defense, sandboxing, VPN, and mail security have all been valuable features of Cisco NGIPS.

The performance of CISCO Firepower could be improved. 

We moved from Sophos to Cisco before the pandemic. During the pandemic, there was an increase in VPN connections. We had a layer of security within CISCO Umbrella, and now with Cloud. The firewall protects the internal system, but we needed to add another layer of security for the endpoints that are outside the local area network. We needed another product to cover this lack of security.

We prefer to have integration with the points that are outside our local area networks using the same brand using one single console. Because the firewall only protects the people inside the network, we required another solution.

I would like to see Cisco NGIPS include home office support in one single product.

Our organization has been using Cisco NGIPS for two years.

Cisco NGIPS is stable most of the time.

This solution is not easily scaled. I would like Cisco NGIPS to be easier to scale. With the increase in work from home, we needed to add another layer of security to ensure we can meet the demand of stability, high availability, and connection.

Our company has two layers of support with Cisco. One is the local support, which is very good. The second support is directly from Cisco. They are quick to respond and have quick solutions to the problems.

We moved from Sophos to Cisco Firewall because we were looking for better integration between all the appliances and data center. All of our core switches, our wireless system, and other tools are the Cisco brand, meaning that all our monitoring options are integrated under Cisco.

We hired a professional service to install this solution.

With the increase in work from home, companies may need more than just a firewall. I recommend anyone considering Cisco NGIPS evaluate all the demands from their in-home offices and determine if their solution needs to be bigger, or wider, for security and performance.

I would rate this product a 9 out of 10, particularly if you work in a LAN environment.

Some of our customers are having DDOS attacks and ransomware attacks.

Earlier in July 2019, I noted that there was an attack. To mitigate future attacks from the ransomware in Columbia Bank and other similar situations, we at Cisco Talent, which is responsible for security intelligence, provided updated security rules. We offered intrusion policies and codes through signatures to help overcome such situations.

It's a good solution.

The solution is not that bad. Next-generation firewalls work from my experience, they work. 

The URL filtering feature and the new locations feature are both valuable additions to the solution.

While the Management GUI and FMC could be improved, the devices themselves function well.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for more than five years.

I provided support for version 6.4, but in our company, we do have Firepower version 7.0.

Cisco NGIPS is a stable solution.

Cisco has great support.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

The way we use it in my company is just for a basic firewall.

It's a next-generation firewall. You can integrate it with external systems, like Cisco Talos, Cisco Umbrella, all these things. You can do threat detection, threat prevention. You can integrate with your active directory. It can block traffic based on the user or user group.

I use the product mainly for follow-up. I would say the most important is the integration with our directory services, the user directory services. We can block or allow traffic based on the specific users or specific user groups.

There are other features such as the connection with the intelligence systems such as Talos on Cisco. You can do zero-day prevention and detection. It's quite useful.

The solution is stable and the performance is good. 

My understanding is that the initial setup is simple. 

I'd like to see some cloud management. Cisco maybe already has it, however, my company doesn't use it as cloud management. That said, it would be great to manage your device through the cloud instead of managing through a server on-premise.

I've only used the solution for two months. It hasn't been that long just yet.

The product has been stable. Cisco is quite stable as a product. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches.

I can't really speak to the scalability of the solution as I haven't used it for long enough.

Due to the fact that all the traffic passes through the firewalls, I would say 500 people or maybe more use the solution in our organization.

Cisco technical support is great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with their capabilities. 

I'm also aware of Palo Alto, which in many ways is a more solid product. We used it in my previous company as it was more mature and much simpler to use in comparison to Cisco. 

While I didn't set it up, my understanding is the implementation is straightforward. You read the documentation. It's this continuation from the old Cisco ASAs. People have used it for many years. Cisco's quite easy to set it up and keep up and running. You just need to add things on top of it, however, it's all quite easy. I have done an installation of the previous Cisco firewall. It's really straightforward. The upgrade is quite simple as well.

We have three technical personnel that can handle deployment and maintenance. We have to cover the whole globe, so we have three people on to handle everything 24/7.

You do need to pay a licensing fee. If you want the additional features, like prevention or integration with extended intelligence systems, you need to pay additional licenses.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It might be 6.4. It's likely whatever that latest version is.

I would recommend Cisco, however, I do find Palo Alto to be a good product as well, and in some ways more solid. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

In the previous version, some features were not enabled. For example, you could not access the VPN. So that was one of the downsides of the product. In this latest version, after enabling these features in the previous version and using them, it's been good. Inspection, application, and inspection in the cloud, the detail in the cloud for an indication of compromise and the malicious activity re-hashing are all valuable features. It's more of the cloud and the malicious activities aspects that define this application.

The file trajectory could be improved.

We still have a web proxy but I think at some point we should not have two products. We should have only one product. Most of the features of the web proxy already exist in the UTM appliances. We have a debate as to whether it's the Cisco Firepower and UTM Appliance of next-generation firewall. But I consider both of them the same. So I would say if we have the caching and the other features which are unique features to the Web Proxy, I think Cisco will be number one if they are able to include such features in the future.

It's a really good product but I have had a really good experience with Palo Alto UTM Appliances. Which I would give a higher mark than the Firepower. It's just a little bit more expensive than the Cisco Firepower.

Scalability I would say, it has some limitations in the large deployment. I think Cisco is working to improve it.

The technical support is the most valuable part of the solution. Cisco is number one in technical support. It's good technical support and this is actually a problem when we do the recruitment for some other products. Other products you are on hold forever and the support is not as good compared to Cisco. 

I started with Juniper and the Palo Alto UTM Appliances, and many other vendors. But we do have a policy to use multiple vendors.

Three years ago the setup was very complex. We had two different cables or software. It's like two appliances and one appliance. We had to set up ASA first and then set up Firepower and do the redirect from the old HTTP traffic, from the ASA for a detailed inspection by Firepower. Initially, it was complex. That was a few years back, but now with the newer version, it's just a piece of cake. Deployment took about 40 minutes. I also handle the maintenance myself.

I do the implementation myself but in certain situations, because we have a risk assessment, it's a sort of risk transfer, so we have a contract with a certain integrator. We do have a contract, but I personally do the setup.

We have definitely experienced ROI. Because we have had many incidents where Cisco Firepower has caught malicious activities and triggered an alarm, a true positive alarm. Which is really good in our case.

The solution is extensively used. We have a policy, from a permission security perspective, that you need to have diversity in the vendors and diversity in the products. We have some areas which are using these products and other areas which is using different products.

It's a really good product, but you need to give it some time to form a sort of baseline, before enabling all the features. You need to study the product well because the product will decrease to around 35-40% of the actual product when you start to enable features. Like the application and inspection, the SSL decryption, the URL filtering, and the ITSM inspection. If you enable more features, you will decrease a little bit of the property. Whoever selects the device initially needs to plan which features they are going to use and they might have to shift the sizing of the product. They might need a high-end appliance or a smaller low-end appliance based on the features they are going to use.

I would give the solution 9 out of 10.