Symantec Secure Web Gateway Reviews

I find the product to be very straightforward. I just install it and forget it as it continuously monitors traffic. It has a super easy interface for allowing and blocking on the fly if needed. These technologies are designed to work in a particular fashion. Most of the time, it might block a legitimate URL, even if there is nothing malicious in that URL. 

However, there is a facility to raise a request to my IT department to unblock it. IT administrators and network administrators can easily allow a URL temporarily or permanently without much hassle.

Typically, Symantec is more or less like any other platform that performs proxy functions. There is not much difference, except in how they handle threats, which is different from others.

We use Symantec Secure Web Gateway to apply URL policies for cloud security, data protection, and SSL.

The product is easy to deploy. It has a faster implementation process compared to other products.

As a proxy, there are many features are available that benefit the customers. This includes caching, the security appliance, the cloud of service, and many other features.

It offers an easy initial setup. 

The reports could be better. For example, the report is installed on the VMware Virtual Appliance. It must support other things like HighBar RE, et cetera.

The cost has risen and it is more expensive than it used to be.

There is not any reporting on the central appliance. If a new developer can add basic reporting, and real-time monitoring, it would be ideal. There is no real-time monitor. It'll be a great enhancement if Symantec can add a real-time monitor to the appliance. Other competitors have a real-time monitor on them. 

One major use case is to allow internet access for some specific sites for all users without authentication. Normally, in our environment, before you go to the internet, we need to grant internet access to your account.

Another use case is where there are some sites that people can go through only from inside the office, but they should not authenticate. We don't want to grant them internet access, but we want them to be able to go to the site. We could easily configure those sites, and the users do not require authentication for them. 

We also used it to block or restrict some sites during the day so that these sites are not able to affect people during their work hours. We were also able to exempt some users from any restriction. People with the manager and higher roles could go to the internet, whereas the access was restricted for people who were not managers.

It is easy to manage. The graphical user interface is quite easy to navigate, and we don't have any difficulty in using it. It is a good solution.

We use this product on all of the traffic that is going outside of the organization. It is used for the blocking of websites, as well as SSL interception and authentication for HTTP and HTTPS requests.

The most valuable features are the website blocking capability and SSL interception.

We manage it through the cloud and it's deployed that way too.

Our primary use case is for our signature-based tool for antivirus. It adds value. 

It's nice to have it in the cloud where we can pull the reporting together for it so we can see what's happening in machines at different locations. That's the most valuable feature. We have it all over so we can see if something had gone wrong with it.

We use it on our user's computers at home and in the office. We do not use it on servers, clouds, or our secure development environment.

Some of the features have been inconsistent since Broadcom bought it. For example, online user interfaces and licensing management have gotten too complicated.

Our primary use case is deploying the product as a web security gateway in conjunction with the Symantec client.  

There are definitely considerable problems with this solution. Most notably, compared to Cisco Umbrella it was a lot more difficult to deploy. The deployment process should definitely be significantly simplified.  

The service pack file system should also be improved or even abandoned. The way the packed files are set up could definitely be better and maybe they do not have to be deployed that way at all. There are better solutions which is demonstrated by the fact that other products and companies no longer handle updates this way. They do it in a way that is easier to handle.