Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) Reviews

It detects attacks from malicious intrusions and malicious activity before they happen.

This solution has helped improve productivity and detect attacks before they happen.

Signature rules from the Snort community around the world.

• I would like to see better integration with SIEMs. 
• Better rule building using other tools, like LuaH and Python.
• Better performance.
• Better intelligence gathering in domains, the main URLs, and endpoint solutions.

It's very reliable. We really like the product and will be staying with the product a while.

At this point in time, it's making it a little bit difficult to scale due to the company, as the vendor is making some changes. We are waiting to see if the product is scalable or not. 

Rating the technical support from one to five (where five is high), I would rate them as a two. I find them to be very bad.

This was originally a Snort product, which was open source. So, there is a community for it worldwide.

We used ISS from IBM in the past, but it was causing many issues and was dropping packets. It was not an ideal solution, so we moved to Sourcefire FirePower NGIPS.

The initial setup is easy because I am very familiar with the product.

We buy the licensing on a yearly basis, when we renew our contract. It is around $14,000.

McAfee and Palo Alto were on our shortlist.

The product is a ten because it is the only product in the market like this.

We have a Cisco ASA firewall, which is like a standard firewall. We upgraded to Firepower Threat Defense, and it is like a next-generation capability, like NGIPS and NGAV, and has that kind of functionality. It also improves network security and threat defence.

It has helped to improve our cybersecurity and our network security posture.

The FTD has a GUI interface, which is very easy to work around with all the configurations. It is a client-based software based on Java. Now we have the GUI web interface, and it's very interactive and easy to navigate.

Cisco NGIPS runs the backend as a Snort engine, so it is like they customize it with Cisco. So they need to have an engine for threat defence.

We have been using this solution for two years and are using version 9.6. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable. NGIPS is based on our user base, so we have around 2000 users. We require two network and security administrators for deployment and maintenance. We do not plan to increase usage because we have already upgraded.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We updated from Cisco ASA to NGIPS FTD.

The initial setup is a bit complex because it requires a lot of configuration, firewall and zoning. The deployment was done in-house. We just purchased a box and installed it on our own.

We have seen a return on investment in improving security and defending the threats in our network.

I do not have details about the licensing costs. It has a user-based license and a different model license because it is modular software.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. From a recommendation perspective, before deploying the NGIPS solution, you need to work with your internal environment. It can minimize the load on the NGIPS, so you should do your IPS signature before moving to production.

It should have a network and content processor and a security process for additional features. Other OEMs have these capabilities to enhance the throughput and performance.

The Cisco NGIPS and IGS are used as network firewalls for IPS and IGS protection. I have both the Cisco Firepower and Cisco Meraki solutions in different customers' locations. They have the capability of the NGIPS built into it. We have different customers that they are using it. For example, on Edge, data centers, and campus networks.

Among all the different solutions I have worked with, such as Palo Alto many other firewalls. Cisco has the support, documentation, and design. The documentation is widely available and it can help you a lot with implementation. It makes the implementation much easier.

What I don't like about Cisco recently is they keep changing the names, which makes it hard for customers and sometimes even us as engineers to know what is the solution they are speaking about. For example, with AMP, now they call it Secure Endpoint and I don't know if in the next couple of years they're going to change it to something else. They should keep the names the same.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for approximately 10 years.

Cisco NGIPS is stable, however, it is nothing special.

The scalability of Cisco NGIPS I am not too familiar with. The solution can do clustering and other operations. With the Orchestrator, I haven't worked with it yet but I hope that will help to make standard policies all run better. The most important part about scalability is how do you want to apply the same policy all around and across the different locations that you have. This is something that is not easy with any firewall unless you have a Secure Orchestrator. I don't see any issues with the scalability at this time.

The support from Cisco NGIPS is very good.

I have used many other solutions, such as Palo Alto.

I would rate the price of Cisco NGIPS a three out of five.

They are very expensive in some places and not reasonable at times for many customers. I have had customers choose another solution because of the high price.

When speaking about the features of Cisco NGIPS, what makes the feature good is dependent on what the customer likes and the skillset that they have. I cannot say what is the best feature because it depends on the use case.

There are times I see customers spend a lot of money on something which they really don't use. Whether this solution is good or not depends on what exactly the customer wants to implement and protect. They should pick the right solution with the skillset that they have.

I rate Cisco NGIPS nine out of ten.

We use the solution for traffic filtering, security, and antivirus capabilities.

I have found the filter and the antivirus to be most valuable.

The user interface needs some improvement, it is a little rudimentary and not very intuitive. If you are not very technical inclined you may need to be assisted or might struggle to set it up.

The newer version tends to use a lot of system resources. For example, your processor and RAM.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The solution is stable and reliable, it does the job well.

The scalability is excellent, they can support a large environment. However, a large size organization will need its own dedicated appliance.

The customer support is very good.

We have used and still use Darktrace. We do not use it to replace Cisco's NGIPS solution but we use it predominantly as an in-network snooper.

The installation is complex.

We used an in-house team to do the deployment and it takes roughly a day and a half depending on the size of your organization and the configuration. Setting up the rules, all the features, and the licensing takes time.

To do the maintenance you need somebody familiar with Cisco and networking technologies.

By using this solution we have received a return on our investment. 

Cisco products are not cheap and this solution is no different. However, the price of all of the Firepower is part of a bundle when you buy the actual firewall, the Cisco firewall. It is part of the whole bundle package, but Firepower IPS itself has its own costs.

We are on a yearly license and the price depends on the environment, we pay approximately $33,000. The solution has additional components, and each one of the components cost extra.

For those wanting to implement this solution, I was advice before deploying the solution, understand exactly what you want it to do for you. The product has a couple of different capabilities, do you want to expand, or you may not want to expand. These are scenarios that you have to take into account. I would not recommend the solution for small organizations, it would be too time-consuming for that.

I rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

We are a system integrator, and we resell this solution to our customers.

This solution is for intrusion prevention, and the majority of deployments are on-premises.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its modularity, so whenever you need to upgrade or add another service, you don't need to buy another box. You can activate these services on the same box, which saves a lot in terms of cost because you don't need additional hardware. Moreover, it makes manageability easier because you don't have to use several different devices.

Cisco operates on an open operating system platform so it gives you the flexibility to add other things. Cisco itself is using different manufacturers, or OEM vendors to integrate with their product. For example, Radware is providing a DDoS solution for the NGIPS box.

We would like to see support for DDoS protection.

The cost of adding additional throughput is very high and is an area of concern. Competing products such as FortiGate and TippingPoint have a much larger throughput at a smaller cost.

The devices have certain limitations and to go beyond them, I need to change the hardware. For example, if I exceed the throughput on the 2000 series then I have to switch to the 4000 series. This one then has a limitation of perhaps fifty gigabytes, and if I exceed that, then I need to move to the 9000 series. By comparison, TippingPoint and FortiGate have no limit. If there was a software-based solution for scaling up then it would be much better.

This is a very stable solution. We have not heard any complaints from customers, and we have not experienced any trouble ourselves.

When it comes to scalability, there is a limitation that is set by the hardware. If you're looking for higher throughput then you have to change boxes. The 2000 series is pretty small when it comes to bandwidth, so scalability is a concern.

Technical support from Cisco is perfectly fine, and they are doing a great job.

Prior to this solution, we used TippingPoint. Although it is a very good solution, there was a problem with the product having too many acquisitions. Every time there was a new acquisition, support was a concern. For example, at one point it was taken over by HP, and then, again, HP disowned it. Support was hampered by this, and if you're not getting support on a critical security appliance then you need to look for other options. This is what led us to adopt Cisco.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex. They have a graphical user interface for managing all of these things, which helps make it easy to deploy.

The price for additional throughput is the highest in the industry.

This is a solution that I recommend for IPS.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The thing about this solution that I like the most is that it's intuitive. The other features I like are the good support chain and ease of use.

My opinion is that this solution should improve the pricing.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

I would rate the technical support of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Positive

I would rate the pricing of this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

At present, we are using different policies against which we gather logs. Logs that have been deleted on a first in, first out basis. The logs are only available for three to four hours max. I work in the IT department of a pharmaceutical company and we are customers of Cisco. 

We are looking for cybersecurity threats, like Pinterest and this solution has a good IPS feature as well as it's VirtualBox which helps us to time and for the QD, our daily routine tasks or issues. The solution provides a clear picture of what a user is doing at a specified time.

Because of cybersecurity threats, other security features should be available in Cisco devices. Sangfor IAM is good because this provides the logging IAM feature which you can retain for up to 12 months. But Cisco does not provide this type of logging because no third-party logging server is supported with the Cisco firewall.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is fine. We manage to resolve general bugs by updating the software or VirtualBox as well as in the hardware. That is not a big deal for us.

The scalability is fine for us, we currently have 50 users. 

Their technical support is good. We have SLA with Cisco, which will be renewed next year.

We have a somewhat complicated environment over here. We have also implemented SSG Juniper, SSG140, so basically their firewall is working as a router.

The price is a little high in comparison to other similar solutions. If we talk about Sophos Firewall with IBM software, it's cheaper in comparison to Cisco and their VirtualBox.

I recommend this latest model of Cisco firewall. In terms of the wide logging, it gives us as much as we need. We have implemented 30 to 35 policies in which loggings are gathered. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

Our primary use case is as a firewall segregating networks and defending the perimeter.

I would consider this to be a medium product in its field across the board.

Some features, for instance, are a way for the management console to be able to manage each specific firewall, for instance. Because if we have more than one firewall configured in the management center, we cannot delegate administration, just one of the equipment. I think the part of IPS and everything else needs to be better equated to the real needs or current needs of the business compared to the other manufacturer, because it is not straightforward, a way to configure it compared to the other competitors.

I have been using Cisco NGIPS for one year.

It is more or less stable. Sometimes I have some issues normally when we need to upgrade it to newer versions. I think it does the job. The hardware does the job, and the current models do the job.

We have around four thousand users and that would be an example of its scalability.

Technical support is good. If you open a case about the support, it is good. Compared to the other manufacturer, it is very good.

The initial setup was complex and the upgrade took a lot of time with a very big image to download and everything else. We had many versions and patches that had to be installed. The deployment took between two and three hours.

In this case, we did it in-house and I was the integrator.

I think we have to have a good knowledge of the product. It is not easy to set up from the beginning. And I am also using the comparison with the other manufacturer. You need to have very good training before managing the product. I would rate Cisco NGIPS a seven on a scale of one to ten.