Symantec Proxy Reviews

We use the policies of Symantec Proxy, particularly firewalls, ATP, isolation, and sandboxing, which are available in both cloud and on-premise deployments of the solution.

What I found most valuable in Symantec Proxy is that it doesn't have any limitations. It also has a simple configuration, with only one window pane, unlike Zscaler, which has multiple window panes. Deploying the agent is also more straightforward in Symantec Proxy.

Marketing needs improvement in Symantec Proxy, as it needs to catch up in sales here in the Asia Pacific region. It has always been a leader, but after Broadcom acquired it, there's been a decrease in sales.

Symantec Proxy licensing renewal also needs improvement.

I've been working with Symantec Proxy for four years.

I've personally worked with Symantec Proxy technical support, and it was excellent.

It's simple to set up Symantec Proxy because it only has one window pane, so if you're new to the solution, it would be easier for you to understand and grasp information.

Symantec Proxy has different expiry dates and renewal dates, which is a problem, so Broadcom should improve the licensing renewal process for the solution.

My company deployed Symantec Proxy both on the cloud and on-premises.

There's a total of eight thousand users of Symantec Proxy in the projects of my company.

I'd recommend Symantec Proxy to others looking into using it.

My rating for Symantec Proxy is eight out of ten.

The solution helps with content monitoring, authentication, and cache. 

The tool's most valuable features are content-to-content filtration and SCCM protection. 

Symantec Proxy needs to include content management capabilities. 

I have been working with the product for one and a half years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate Symantec Proxy's scalability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's deployment a six out of ten. The deployment of the latest version is more comfortable than the older one. Deployment takes one to two days to complete. 

Our customers are enterprises. I rate Symantec Proxy a seven out of ten. 

We are using Symantec Proxy for outbound traffic URL filtering, and antivirus scanning of whatever package is going through the proxy system. It's fulfilling all our requirements.

Prior to the Broadcom purchase, every appliance was application based, but now they have one ISG device and on top of it multiple applications are running. It has a single point of failure. If your device goes down, all of the applications would be down.

I have been using Symantec Proxy for approximately four years.

We ordered a new Symantec Proxy device and it had hardware failures. The second device we received had a similar issue. The stability could improve.

We have approximately 500 users using Symantec Proxy in our organization.

Symantec was purchased by Broadcom and since this has happened the support has not been good. They do not find the solutions to our issues quickly. We had a small problem and it took them two months to receive a response. The support used to be good.

I rate the support from Symantec Proxy a two out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of Symantec Proxy is easy.  The time it took for the full deployment with configuration was approximately five days. Good planning is needed to keep the deployment time down.

There is a license needed to use Symantec Proxy.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Zscaler, and I have not seen much difference in Symantec Proxy compared to other solutions' features. Zscaler is a better option.

I would advise others there are better options compared to Symantec Proxy, such as Zscaler. It has better stability and similar features. I would recommend Zscaler when considering the cost-to-benefit analysis.

I rate Symantec Proxy a six out of ten.

I made my rating based mainly on the support team not currently being good and there is a single failure point being the device.

The solution is a proxy for our users to get onto the internet, and it does actually work. It does block users if they don't have access to those URLs. It's just that it's a very cumbersome solution and there's no real authentication to the user before the user tries to get out onto the internet. So there are quite a few problems with WSS, hence our reason to switch over to something different.

The Symantec antivirus suite and the proxy component are the most valuable feature. That's probably why management decided to purchase the solution.

The solution can be improved by making the deployment much more user-friendly. The deployment methodologies really need to be looked at, and there needs to be authentication for the user so the user has to authenticate before they get onto the internet as such so we know and can track that this particular user is for example going to skynews.com or facebook.com or whatever that URL is. 

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable for the most part,  except sometimes the latency on some connections would go sky-high and nobody could ever figure out why. This forced people to reboot their machines in order to reset the network adapter.

The initial setup is actually quite complex to install because our users don't have admin rights on the boxes and there's no remote install option by an administrator. Users have to come into the office to actually have this installed, which is a big cost to users in the form of petrol and time and money.

The deployment took about six months.

The implementation is mainly in-house with the help of our agents. The users have to bring their computers into our office so an agent can install the solution on their machine.

I don't believe there is a return on investment given that our three-year contract came to an end and we replaced that product.

Our cost was based on a three-year upfront CapEx contract. I would rate the cost a six out of ten.

We had Symantec installed, and the vendor showed us that the WSS proxy was just a bolt-on and it would work as well. So we never really looked at any other products before we went to the proxy WSS service.

I give the solution a four out of ten.

We currently have around 5,000 users but we are in the process of migrating to a different solution.

We require about eight people to maintain the solution including one project manager and one service delivery manager.

I would not recommend this solution as it is quite clunky. It just doesn't work well.

For use cases, I have created an integration with Active Directory for authentication and privilege-based access control. It enables us to manage bandwidth for users based on their privilege levels. For example, if a user wants to use a certain application or resource, we can provide access based on their privileges.

Our second use case was to ensure that the corporate network is only accessible by authorized users to prevent unauthorized access to private emails and other confidential information. It was a domain-wide access use case.

Our third use case was to block unwanted and malicious websites. We tried to achieve this through integration with other security solutions, but it was not successful. Also, we faced an issue with Cislope forwarding, as it is not supported in Symantec Proxy. Therefore, we used a reporter server to forward the Cislope to the C.S.I.M. system.

It was the preferred option of our users and implementation partners. Symantec has helped us in many ways, but the most significant was with its database, also known as Symantec Site Review. It categorizes restrictions on all types of websites, including malware, and integrates with Malware databases. Symantec's in-house application and data provide higher management and understanding of the new upcoming rates and vulnerabilities.

The Symantec database, also known as Symantec Site Review, is a valuable feature that upgrades the categorized restriction on any URL. Symantec also provides another service for malware database integration. This in-house application and data give us higher management and a better understanding of the treatment for new vulnerabilities and rates. Overall, these are the most valuable features for me.

One area for improvement in Symantec is the lack of a reporting server or dashboard integration with SIM. Many clients require this integration, but it is currently not possible. 

Additionally, Symantec lacks dashboards based on their product, and reporting is also not available. To improve this, additional servers or features for reports and dashboards would be necessary.

I have done a couple of implementations in my customer environment. It was the 8.7 version.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Technical support was good before coming to Broadcom. When we used it in Symantec ticket, it was okay. But now that Broadcom has acquired it, we do not get the level of support that we used to get. So it's not good.

The initial deployment was totally user-friendly, and it was just a go. All we needed to do was give the virtual I.D., and it was okay to have it.

I would advise them to use Symantec Proxy, but only after comparing it with other solutions if their requirement is for on-site or infrastructure. For example, if you prefer cloud-based solutions, I would suggest other options over Symantec.

I would rate Symantec Proxy overall as seven, including support. So, that's why I give it a seven out of ten.

We are resellers and we implement this solution for our clients.

The most valuable feature is the caching. It's very important for the performance and the web isolation.

There are performance issues with all of the proxies. In the middle of the project, it will cause some delay. It will disconnect the internet connection. Many clients have complained about it.

We are usually using the latest version. When on-site, we always update to the latest version.

It's a stable solution. It's better than the others.

It's not easy to scale this solution. You need to change the model if you want to scale unless you are using the cloud. Everything in the cloud is easy.

It is difficult to scale an on-premises deployment because you need to change the device.

The initial setup is not easy, you need experience. It's not like other products that are straightforward, this one has an advanced population.

It can take three to four days to deploy, but it depends on the site and the customer's requirements.

It's expensive. Clients often go to other products.

For the future, when sizing, do it for the next five years if it is on-premises so that you won't have to change the device.

You will also need the redundancy backup device, this is very important.

It's a good product.

I would rate Symantec Proxy an eight out of ten.

What we did is we replaced the TMG from Blue Coat, and we deployed the cloud solution to have URL filtering through cloud. When a user starts to work from home, they shift towards the cloud. Whenever they come to the office, they use the Proxy, on-prem solution. It's to secure their users and restrict them within the company policies to ensure they use specific websites or URL categories.

The product is very good, and the URL filtering database is great. 

Their implementation has many options. They allow for granular control. You can make web policies and URL filtering policies. 

It is stable and reliable. 

The solution can scale. 

The deployment is quite difficult.

Their support is not as per the standard, and that makes it quite difficult to deploy the product. It needs very high expertise to deploy the product line.

They're not addressing issues in a timely manner. They seem to be continuously backsliding.

It is an expensive product.

I've been working with the solution for five or six years.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

It is scalable. It's a good product line. That said, they have some issues, some limitations, and some areas of improvement. 

Technical support is not helpful and not responsive. We were very unhappy with the level of attention we received. 

The engineers are not well qualified or well trained. Their response time is not good. They also just aren't accurate enough in their advice. 

Neutral

The deployment is very difficult and it's hard to get effective help to guide you. It's not a simple process. We struggled. 

The cost is too high. It was expensive. They charge a lot of money yet don't give highly productive features.

Symantec acquired Blue Coat, and then Broadcom acquired Symantec, so it's now the product of Broadcom.

I've used both cloud and on-premises deployments. 

We're using an older version, deployed three years back or five years back. People are not deploying or purchasing the product right now. There are so many reasons. One of them is it's quite difficult to deploy. The support is also not good, and the cost is too high.

I don't recommend the product to anyone. Now that we have a next-generation firewall, there are no more requirements for Proxy solutions. Since the next-generation firewall has the same URL filtering, and advanced URL filtering capacity, they have more features than this solution offers. 

I'd rate the solution four out of ten.

We are resellers and we provide solutions to our customers.

We use Symantec Proxy for a forward proxy.

The technical support should be improved.

We have been using Symantec Proxy for one year.

The version we are using is SG200.

It's a stable solution.

We are a small enterprise and haven't had to option to scale. We didn't have any requirements to scale. We have 1,000 users in our organization.

We operate around the clock, in shifts.

Technical support is an area that requires some improvement. I would rate them a four out of ten.

Licensing is based on a subscription.

Currently, we have a subscription for three years.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I am still new to this solution, and learning, for now, I would rate Symantec Proxy an eight out of ten.