What advice do you have for others considering Cisco NGIPS?

Cisco has a strong brand and the tech support is always available. It's a good fit for our company. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I would recommend Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) to others, although the pricing is high. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

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.

I rate Cisco NGIPS a ten out of ten.

In my company, we operate the solution we use in our internal environment owing to cybersecurity reasons. In general, my company uses simple solutions and routers for protection that are not complicated, which means we don't use anything considered high-tech. For my company, the most important part when it comes to a solution is in terms of OT. I am satisfied with Cisco NGIPS as a product. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I would rate the product a six out of ten. The solution is easy to maintain. We are looking for a solution that is powered by AI which gives enhanced protection and detection.

It is an efficient cyber security solution. I highly recommend it to others and rate it a nine out of ten.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

The solution is a good product so I rate it a six out of ten.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I would rate Cisco NGIPS a ten on a scale of one to ten.

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.

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.

We would recommend this solution to other organizations as it is very easy to use. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I have decided not to update our use of Cisco NGIPS unless they can solve their issues related to software stability, and thus I cannot fully recommend Cisco NGIPS to other customers at this time. I would rate Cisco NGIPS a seven out of ten.

My advice to others is they should look into other vendors and cloud-based solutions. Solutions that don't require you to refresh and get hardware, because nowadays there are new problems for hardware. It's getting more difficult, try to get a more software-based, cloud-centric model solution. I rate Cisco NGIPS a six out of ten.

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 would advise others to use the support from Cisco, they are helpful. I rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution 4 out of 10. Take into account how long it's going to take you to perfect the configuration and how long it's going to take you to find a problem before you buy this product.

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.

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.

I would rate Cisco Firepower NGIPS nine out of 10. For any customers thinking about implementing this solution, I would suggest being aware of the security areas they want to cover. They need to consider the NIST cybersecurity framework and focus on each area of this framework to make sure that there are no security gaps in their environment. Firepower covers three main areas of this framework: detection, response, and identification.

I rate this product a nine out of ten, and would recommend this product to others who are considering using it.

I rate Cisco NGIPS as an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten.

It is a good product, and I would recommend it. I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Compared with other solutions, this is very good. I rate this product a nine out of 10.

I would advise others to make sure that the rest of their equipment is completely compatible with the newest Firepowers. I would rate Cisco NGIPS an eight out of ten. It gives us all the information that we need. We've got to dig for it sometimes, but it is a good product.

If they're looking for a platform that can protect from attack, from external or insiders who want to attack the network, I think Firepower is a good solution. With Security Intelligence, other security features make that platform an awesome platform. I would give Cisco NGIPS a rating of nine on a scale of ten. I think no one platform is perfect. I wouldn't give a 10 to a solution ever because 10 is 100%, and I think no one solution can 100% secure. Not because the platform is not working correctly. Because I think no one platform can be 10 by 10.

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.

In general, I have nothing negative to say about this product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Before this version of the solution, it was like a normal IPS. The source for IPS was bought by Cisco, and now it is integrated into the Firepower Threat Defense. The Firepower Defense is a unified image of both the previous firewall which Cisco had, the ASA, and the source for IPS. Currently, the FTD is like a UTM device, a unified threat management device, because it has firewall capabilities and IPS capabilities. I am going to continue using this solution even though I enjoyed using their main competitors product from Palo Alto. I would recommend this solution to others. I rate Cisco NGIPS a seven out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco NGIPS is to read and understand all of the documentation before you start. Whatever it is that you might need help with, reach out to Cisco support and let them help you. The documentation is available and it is very understandable so you may not need their help. I would say that if you take your time to read it then you shouldn't have any problems in deploying. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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.

I am now trying to implement a more rigorous web application firewall because I don't want to manage the bugs or attacks that are going to come from the outside. I would prefer it is managed by somebody who is an expert in web application firewalls. I want to couple it with additional software for load-balancing to improve speed. Allowing somebody else to manage this will free up my time to run my business, which is better for generating revenue for the company. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is implementing NGIPS is to get in touch with someone who can advise them because every network is different. Properly sizing the appliances is important. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The advice we would give to other organizations is to look at the administrative overhead, and also to pay close attention to when the company is deploying it. We feel that there are certain feature functionalities that might not be mature depending on a company's use case. Everything depends on use cases. A company needs to evaluate its own unique use case, and look at the product feature functionality. A company also needs to look at some of the administrative overhead before they choose the product to make sure that it is suitable for their environment. This solution overall I would rate at seven out of ten. I would say it's a good product if you look at the primary functionality, which is intrusion prevention. It's is one of the best out there, however, the issue is it's been wrapped around an administrative layer which is quite difficult compared to other products. They've got a really good engine as far as IPSs go, and that's the most important thing.

Sourcefire wasn't originally Cisco and it was already a world leader and if I'm not mistaken or quoting wrongly, I think it's from the Snort project. I know the open-source community is still contributing to what Cisco is presenting with FirePower or FireSIGHT IPS. It's an open-source project. You can trust it because of the originality score and with what we've used so far too, I see the difference in the old version and this new one. You get better security compared to these other next-generation IPS out there. In the next release, I would like to see AI machine learning capabilities built into it. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

The advice I would give to others thinking about implementing the solution is to make sure you have a solid knowledge of the network. I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model. Ten years ago, when you sold Cisco to clients, customers complained about the price but they knew they were buying the best product in the market. It is totally different now. If they want to buy the best product in the market, they buy Palo Alto or Check Point. Cisco is trying to catch up to the competition. When we talk about just the IPS manufacturers, I would rate the solution around six or seven out of ten. If we're talking about Cisco as a whole, I would rate them eight out of ten.

This is a great product. My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that I would recommend it to anyone who can afford the price of the license. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This is a good solution that I recommend, but there is room for more features to be included. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This is a solution that I recommend for IPS. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

If someone wants to use Cisco Firepower, the solution is easy. The complete solution is the best for having the full security of a Cisco infrastructure. If I could advise someone with the deployment, I would advise taking the complete solution, in order to have a really scalable and stable solution. Or, if you can't take the complete solution, I'd advise taking a cluster of Firepower to have the scalability and stability. I would rate this solution a 7 or 8 out of 10. If they could add a few of the mentioned features or do something more with the application filter it would be a 9 or a 10 out of 10.

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.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to follow the instructions carefully. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're using it continuously. We plan to increase usage. During setup, I would advise that you must spend more time on planning. If you do, the transition is easier. I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. The time it takes for the product to mature, the maturity journey, the product maturity cycle, takes too long.

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

Get a good demo to test it out or do a proof of concept to see if it it's what you're looking for. I rate it an eight out of ten. Eight because it's good at detecting and stopping threats. Those other two points that would make it a ten are better usability and reporting.