Forescout Platform Reviews

I primarily use Forescout Platform for its wireless functionality, predictive functionality, and NetFlow feature.

Forescout Platform's best feature is plug-in integration.

Forescout Platform's technical support needs to be improved - it could be faster, and its team could be more knowledgeable.

I've been using Forescout Platform for five or six years.

There are some problems with Forescout Platform's stability, but compared to its competitors, it performs well.

There are no problems with Forescout Platform's scalability.

Forescout Platform's technical support is slow to respond and could be more knowledgeable.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward.

Forescout Platform is on the expensive side.

I would recommend Forescout Platform for smaller businesses but not for large ones. I would give Forescout Platform a rating of seven out of ten.

I had to gain visibility across my network and be able to block any unknown device connected to my network and this is what I use Forescout Platform for.

The most valuable features of the Forescout Platform are ease of management and outstanding visibility. The visibility is simple to obtain.

Forescout Platform could improve the costs of integrations.

I have been using the Forescout Platform for one year.

The stability of the Forescout Platform is good.

Forescout Platform can scale very easily. You can deploy as many servers as you want, and it's highly scalable. There is console to manage all the Forescout servers which make for easy scalability. 

Forescout Platform is used by only the network and security administrators. There is a total of 10 people using it.

Forescout Platform is very simple to deploy. We did the deployment within a few hours, and I gained visibility at the end of the day. I had visibility across my whole network.

Forescout Platform does not require a lot of maintenance. It is a low-maintenance platform.

We need to pay for integration for each integration that we want to do and there is an additional license fee. This adds more costs. It is not something that anyone can afford. If you want to integrate this with a lot of other tools, it can be costly.

The initial cost of the Forescout Platform was $200,000 for three years. There are only additional costs for upgrades.

My advice to others is to use the Forescout professional services. They are offering a fixed price to deploy the solution, and it's major pain relief as you are talking with experts committed to achieving your objectives.

I rate Forescout Platform a ten out of ten.

Forescout Platform allows actions to be automated, which reduces the response time to any suspicious or malicious activity.

The best parts of Forescout Platform are its orchestration features, discovery capabilities, classification buckets, and flexibility in creating policies.

Forescout Platform sometimes returns false positives, so there's some fine-tuning to be done there. There are also some limitations with the Mac and Linux versions - the company claims they're agentless, but they're actually agent-based. In addition, there are a few actions that don't work in conjunction when we apply multiple actions, such as wanting to send a notification and isolate a device. In the next release, I would want to see better compatibility and visibility on the cloud front, and the system needs to keep up with upcoming technologies and trends.

I've been working with Forescout Platform for four years.

Forescout Platform is stable.

Forescout Platform is scalable.

The initial setup was very simple.

I would rate Forescout Platform's pricing as four out of five.

I would give Forescout Platform a rating of eight out of ten.

Endpoint visibility, policy flexibility, compatibility and integration with other products.

Automation! One broad example is that we can now stop network threats right away and without intervention.

Forescout is constantly adding new features, so this may change as of this writing, but sometimes the switch management interface doesn't display accurate information which relates to false positives on individual switch access errors.

1 year

None that were Forescout related. CounterACT always opens a bunch of little IP sessions with endpoints, ake sure you have a large enough connection table on your firewall if you plan to put it behind one.

Minor. Had to reinstall one virtual appliance, which is painless when you have an Enterprise Manager.

No, this is one of the products strengths.

10 out of 10. Very responsive and address concerns quickly.

9 out of 10. Really fast response, high level of competency.

I switched from Cisco NAC because it is reliant on 802.1X, and has no other function than to ensure endpoints have authenticated via your method of choice.

Straightforward. Setup is simple with a solid, pre-defined set of policies that you build on and customize as you learn.

In house.

Without access specific numbers, we now have the ability to instantly shut down internal malicious hosts or traffic, refuse or restrict access to non-compliant hosts, discover risks on the network we didn't know were there, and automate the remediation of a multitude of security risks. As I work for an organization that spends a lot on security administration, at a minimum, the cost savings must have already paid for the product.

Palo Alto

Make sure to plan for all endpoints. If you want full coverage of your networks, account for anything that has an IP address. For example, a busy core switch can have 20+ IP addresses, and each one goes against your license count. Also, if you plan to have it behind a firewall, take into consideration your firewall's connection limitations. Although CounterACT isn't really a heavy bandwidth user, it does open a ton of short connections on a constant basis. The more you tune these down, the less accurate your real time host information becomes.

It enhances cybersecurity by allowing us to monitor and manage all connected devices on our network.

The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches. In addition to its comprehensive feature set, it focuses on AAA for enhanced security and network control.

Incorporating additional features such as NetFlow DLP, would serve as valuable add-ons. Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions.

I have been working with it for seven months.

I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

Scaling it poses no challenges or obstacles. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The deployment time varies based on the customer's network and its complexity. It could range from as little as five to seven days to one or two months, depending on factors such as the number of switches involved. I oversee a maintenance team comprising over 35 skilled individuals dedicated to network and security solutions. Our technical staff is well-rounded, with three experts specializing in Mac solutions, while others are adept in various network features such as routing and firewall management.

The pricing structure should be enhanced.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is not dependent on whatever suite or product you use.

The product is very easy to work with and easy to deploy.

Weaknesses of the product are usually present from the side of vendors. In the case of Cisco's vendors, they do have a presence in the South African region. The fact that Forescout Platform doesn't have a presence in the South African region is a weakness because of which you can't ask for help from them if you have any problems. Though they offer support, Forescout Platform does not offer a vendor like other products do for even East Africa ensuring they deliver better services to their customers. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

Maybe integration with or onboarding an XDR solution is something I would like to see in future product releases.

I have experience with Forescout Platform for about three years. My company has a partnership with Forescout. We are also resellers of Forescout.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I can recommend the solution to medium and enterprise-sized companies. I recommend an open-source product over Forescout Platform to small businesses.

The solution's technical support can onboard more users. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

An advantage of Forescout Platform is that it is easy to deploy.

The deployment process took around a week.

The product's pricing is reasonable. Considering the deployment or the professional service, on the other side, along with the basic service, which was a bit technical, with the product and the licenses, Forescout Platform can compete with other products.

My company does help our customers manage Forescout Platform.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it.

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

We needed some protection in our environment. We use this product in some areas in our network to monitor the security of the endpoints of our users. 

The environment was easy to configure. 

The user management has been very easy for the most part.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

Technical support has been very helpful.

The stability overall is good.

The licensing costs are quite high. With the amount of hardware we have, we need too many licenses to make the product effective and it's ultimately just too costly.

We may have some problems with compatibility - specifically with Cisco switches. We have the perimeter a Check Point firewall as an alarm for VPN connections. We have users integrating the VPN Check Point with Forescout. We can't seem to scale due to compatibility issues and price.

We have been working with the solution for around two years. It hasn't been that long. That said, we are moving away from the solution.

Overall, the stability of the product has been very good. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's been set up very well. We've found it to be reliable and the performance is good.

Our issue, in terms of scalability, is that we have a brittle machine. We struggled to get the licenses loaded. We would need to change the machine in order to develop a certain level of scalability capabilities.

At the moment, we have about 100 users on the solution, however, we require more licenses. Our goal was 1000 users on devices, however, it wasn't possible. The economics were against us.

While I have never personally opened a case with technical support in the past, my colleague has. He found them to be very responsive and helpful. He was satisfied with their level of service.

We did not previously use a different solution. Forescout was our first.

We are just now migrating to Cisco ISE. The problem is that we have around 500 users and we have only 100 licenses from Forescout due to the fact that it is a little expensive for us. We are trying instead to move to Cisco ISE, which has better pricing.

The initial setup was not complex. It was pretty easy. Installation maybe takes one or two days, and the implementation in total takes around two weeks.

We have a partner from Forescout in my country. He came to my company to meet with us. He helped explain a few things and assisted with network displays. 

There were about eight people that handled deployment between our end and the technical support side.

A Forescout representative ultimately came to our company for us. They assisted a little. They understood the cloud very well and were very helpful.

The licenses are quite expensive. Ultimately, we couldn't afford the amount we needed, and therefore we are moving off the product.

We might have paid in the ballpark of $20,000 yearly for our licenses. I do not recall there being other fees over and above the standard licensing fee.

We evaluated Cisco. The difference is the compatibility with our network. Other switches are Cisco devices, and therefore the compatibility and the integration were a little easier. With Forescout we have had some issues with some other access points. With Cisco ISE, we don't have that problem.

I do not recall which version of the solution we are using. We use the on-premises deployment model, however, we also have some clients on the cloud.

I would advise other organizations that, if they have multi-vendors in their network, use Forescout. However, if most of the devices are Cisco, it is best to use Cisco ISE.

It is a great tool and solution. We looked into it with the Magic Quadrant of Gartner and we have seen that it is a leader in the space. However, for us, it just doesn't work as well in terms of compatibility.

I'd recommend the solution. I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

To be able to improve security within our network. We needed Network Access Control (NAC). As such, we reviewed the available vendors who could provide this service to us and selected the Forescout CounterACT (CA) product primarily because we needed to be able to position the product in several regional locations. At the same time, we managed and controlled it locally and dynamically where we have it responding to a single control center. While we have implemented today strictly for wireless access, we will be extending that to include wired access in the future.

NAC: Forescout CounterACT has allowed us to better open our access and control wireless access globally from our HQ. This allows us to monitor the network access for every office globally. This has improved overall security, reducing risk and opening up the opportunity to provide greater end user flexibility. 

The key feature we use is AD integration. That feature needs the least amount of attention once set up. 

Monitoring and logging are the pieces that we use most day-to-day. These are used by both our network and security teams to ensure proper operation with minimal risk. Whether machines attempting access are firm managed, vendors visiting, or IoT, all are available within the CA appliance. We plan to extend the use to further support growth functionalities and new work from home initiatives going forward.

Better reporting and analysis of access (based on client) would be helpful. Also, a tool that allows tracing a user through the rules to authentication.

More detailed analysis during the authentication process, especially for troubleshooting access issues. We have found that troubleshooting RADIUS controls is quite arduous, as it is today. A trace function could easily resolve this by providing a means by which access issues from a certificate to passwords or accounts could easily be identified and remediated.

Two years.

ForeScout CA has proven itself to be very solid.

It is very scalable with a lot of features that we aren't even using yet today.

Technical support has been great. They are very knowledgeable, helpful, and considerate.

We used Cisco ISE but found that it did not have the flexibility that we needed within our organization.

Setup was anything but straightforward, but this had nothing to do with Forescout. This is the nature of NAC solutions in general. 

Setup takes significant preplanning. Don't expect to just drop it in, then have it up and running, even if you already use an alternative NAC product. However, it is worth it.

We used a Professional Services engagement from Forescout, but still experienced a lot of issues.

I don't know.

The fact that we were allowed to spin up as many servers as we had need of to support our geographic requirements while paying for licensing as an enterprise truly set Forescout apart from the crowd and improved the way we could design our access.

We had ISE. As that product reached EOL, we considered whether there were alternatives to a NAC that we should consider but felt that a NAC is a security requirement.