Cisco Secure Access Reviews

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is remote access.

As an aerospace company, security is highly important for us, and we have various security schemas across the company. We try not to treat everybody as the highest schema, so Cisco Secure Access gives us the ability to detect and put users where they need to go and not just shove everybody into the whole secure area.

I find the posture checking feature of Cisco Secure Access the most valuable, and I also appreciate the ability to tag clients to place them into the right segment.

We're just getting started with Zero Trust Network Access, and we have a long way to go in that aspect. We haven't expanded any usage; more of the posture and things we've done more with technology.  

They've protected us from threats like phishing and ransomware.

The only improvement I see for Cisco Secure Access is the way that we're using it; we're not fully integrating it into our client consoles, which affects the user experience. That's more of an internal issue than a Cisco issue. 

I struggle with the integration of CASB functionality for exposing Shadow IT within our organization. As a company of engineers, they tend to do smart things and just go around you, so it's always a challenge for us.

Regarding the integration with Cisco Talos, it's something that we're not utilizing as best as we can. We should leverage Talos more. 

From a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included. The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for seven years.

Cisco Secure Access has been pretty stable. I can't really speak to downtime or performance issues much; I know we've had a few. I don't have the details to say whether it was a Cisco problem or an internal issue.

The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I don't really get involved with customer service and technical support. From a cloud team perspective, I'm aware of generally how we approach it. On a scale of one to ten, I would give customer service and technical support an eight.

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Access, I have used another solution.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of Cisco Secure Access. That said, I'm not aware of major issues.

I don't see ROI with Cisco Secure Access right now; it's more of an internal issue. We have too many access platforms, and we need to consolidate. If we could solidify our access platform and eliminate non-duplication, the ROI would look much better than it does right now. That's our problem, not a Cisco issue.

I don't get involved in pricing scenarios; however, from a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included.

We're definitely looking at more SaaS-based solutions such as Zscaler and Palo Alto before selecting Cisco Secure Access, dabbling in them yet never fully committing.

We did not purchase the solution via AWS Marketplace.

We consider a change since we're trying to achieve a user experience that's lighter weight. 

I'm not an administrator, so I can't really speak to the ease or difficulty of managing Cisco Secure Access through a single cloud-managed console.

I would advise other potential customers or organizations considering Cisco Secure Access to take a closer look. They've added some features in the last year or so that have advanced significantly. They've caught up from the market where other people were ahead of them. I rate Cisco Secure Access seven out of ten.

On-premises

Our business is in energy. We are using it to provide protection for different remote energy sites and for all the data that we transfer from the solar, wind, and hydrocarbon sites.

Cisco Secure Access interacts pretty easily with another platform that we have in place. The interaction with other platforms has been pretty easy. This was the reason for implementing this product.

Cisco Secure Access has protected our company against threats such as phishing or ransomware, as we have seen it successfully address various cybersecurity vulnerabilities. In the next couple of years, we are aware of an increase in attacks or other risks, with Cisco continually improving its protective measures for customers.

The integration with Cisco Talos has influenced our organization's threat detection and response capabilities positively, as we collect different data information not only for operations but also for purposes such as VIPs and information detection records that we have in storage. We have seen it interact pretty well with the data that we use for different purposes.

The firewall section for IDP is the most used for remote sites. It fits better with all the data we're collecting from the protection site and the information that we provide to another customer. 

We have implemented the Zero Trust Network Access feature of Cisco Secure Access in our OT environment, which is the operational section or protection network. From my perspective, Cisco Secure Access has helped our company in securing standard applications with a rating of nine out of ten.

In my opinion, Cisco Secure Access could be improved by potentially incorporating features that other brands have been using. I see benefits from features offered by competitors, which could enhance the Cisco experience if adapted thoughtfully.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for around seven years.

The stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access are very stable.

Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of our company. If Cisco continues to offer improvements every year with its products, we would be inclined to renew our solution each year. However, if we feel that the product doesn't meet our expectations, we are open to change.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Access has been good. We deal with different products in the US, Europe, and Latin America. We believe that the level of customer support has met our expectations.

Positive

We used another brand previously, which offered protection at a level but had its limitations, leading us to elaborate on choosing Cisco for the better offerings it provides.

We have third-party vendors. It is a good option to get implementation support from Cisco. 

We have a hybrid deployment model with the AWS cloud.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is the security it provides, and I believe the best word to describe it is best security, ensuring our protection.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access have been very competitive compared to other platforms. I believe that if Cisco continues to improve costs or offers something similar to a Cisco credit, it would attract more customers.

We have been implementing different tools over the past months for protection and security against AI and new technology coming from the cloud.

In terms of Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2 and optionally QUIC protocol, I expect that Cisco will improve these features and protocols over the next couple of years. I expect that Cisco will continue to prove itself as we see other technologies doing similar work.

Overall, I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine out of ten.

The main use cases for Cisco Secure Access involve secure access to the network, as they've had some history with malware, ransomware, and things like that. They are focused on better control for remote users and access to the network.

The ease of use for end users is always a big deal. We don't want to make it too hard for them. We're currently working on an end-to-end secure access solution. We are invested in Cisco, but there are other vendors involved as well, and trying to develop a holistic strategy has been a challenge for us. We have to avoid over-securing to the point where it becomes problematic, as too many hoops for users to jump through is always a challenge. It has to be easy because if it's not easy to use, they won't use it or will find back doors to it, which is a problem. That's where we're at with it.

It works well. It hasn't broken. While I don't know enough about all the features yet, it hasn't caused us any problems.

This is my first time in healthcare after being in commercial space for a long time. It's always a challenge because we can't just turn stuff off as we could in the commercial space, since it may interfere with patient care. It takes longer to understand what's going on, so anything that could help give us a faster understanding of what's happening, why it's there, and if it's a risk to us would be helpful. We don't have any good tools right now, which is a problem.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for two months or so.

Cisco Secure Access has been good for stability and reliability; it hasn't crashed in the two months I've been using it.

We have a dedicated account team, so we've got all the people we need to engage with if there's an issue. It makes deploying in a larger enterprise a very easy choice. Having that backing is a comfort because, for more point-specific products or vendors, if you don't know who's going to stand behind them after you turn the lights on, that can be a concern. Cisco ensures support for the technology you use.

Positive

You have to have a good ROI and a compelling story with finance; I've definitely seen that. I came from Amazon, so it was a complete 180-degree turn. Not to say that there were unlimited funds at Amazon, but you didn't have to tell the story as richly. I was on the fulfillment side. Even if it didn't seem fully vetted, but appeared to make sense or had potential to improve speed and delivery, they bid on it pretty early.

It's different here. They want it thoroughly vetted with a deeper ROI. We need to understand the cost of an hour of outage at a hospital, which, at least here, they don't know. However, at Amazon, we knew exactly how much it would cost if a fulfillment center was down for an hour. We have to do a better job of that in our organization, and once we can clarify those points, we will achieve some of the wins needed to get things done.

Cisco is a rock-solid company and a leader in the network space, and I believe they will always provide the right level of support. 

I would rate Cisco Secure Access an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Secure Access for our VPN and other tunneling and authentication functions. We also use Cisco Firepower as our firewall solution and are essentially a Cisco shop otherwise. The integration to all of that is seamless.

The primary benefit is being able to see exactly where a connection or person is getting blocked, and then if we can allow it to either that person by their credentials, MAC address, or using the agent on their laptop, it becomes easier to troubleshoot.

So far, they have met our needs and we have not really experienced much downtime.

I have been in my current position for three years.

We have not experienced stability issues.

It has been tough so far since we are just in the POC phase of some of that.

Most of the time we get pretty good technicians who know what they are doing and can help us with whatever we need. It is just every once in a while you get someone who is not as helpful, and it is hard to give somebody a perfect rating.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Cisco Secure Access is one of the main solutions we have looked at. We are a Cisco shop, and we have explored a few others as well, such as ThousandEyes.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access include everything, such as all of our switching and wireless.

I mostly work on the level one switching side. I deal with all the Catalyst 9300 switches and 9280 wireless routers.

It's pretty streamlined. Everything you need to find is in the GUI interface, and if you have any trouble, it's easy to navigate and get around. 

Cisco Secure Access has had a positive impact on protecting our organization from threats such as phishing and ransomware. It provides security and adds additional layers.

I perceive Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally QUIC protocol, as great and secure.

The licensing is confusing.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for only a year since joining the company last year. However, the company has been using it for almost ten years.

We have not had any downtime.

Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of my organization. It works effectively for our needs.

I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten. They are quick to respond and generally quick to find a resolution and figure out what's wrong.

Positive

I have not used another solution to address similar needs in another role.

It was already in place when I got here.

It is confusing. When you look at the prices, you have different licensing and years of licensing that you have to purchase. Additionally, it's unclear what service you get from those licenses regarding end-user support. We have a representative who has to walk me through it every time.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Access is to implement it as it's pretty straightforward. 

I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Secure Access as a VPN where people are able to connect back to Cisco Secure Access, and from there we have an infrastructure that comes down to the inside enterprise level. We open a port for the firewall to be able to have VPN access.

We use Cisco Secure Client and Cisco Secure Endpoint, so there are two different clients that are able to have VPN access back to the users. Cisco Secure Client is really efficient for all the users and mostly for the enterprise, so I would say Cisco Secure Client would be the primary one.

Cisco Secure Client is really efficient for all the users and mostly for the enterprise, so I would say Cisco Secure Client would be the one.

At the firewall, we manage identity through identity management. We also have Cisco ICE as an identity management tool. We have TACACS+ and RADIUS to be able to find out who is actually trying to hit the access and who is not.

We have integrated it, and ICE is playing a crucial role in that.

I do not have answers for that now, though it is an interesting question. Hopefully, that is something I have to investigate based upon what problem I have and bring it up, but I do not really seem to be having any problem with that right now.

I have been there for two and a half years so far. Since I am aware of it, it has been two years. I do not know what is behind that, but since I am aware of it, it is two and a half years.

Based upon the user levels, users have a little bit of a problem, but as IT people, we deploy it and there is no inconsistency with that. Everything looks to be fine from my standpoint. If we see there is a problem, then there is no point in putting that infrastructure into an environment. Everything is efficient and strong enough for now.

If they have access, they will reach out to us, and then we support them.

We open a ticket with Cisco, and the support team usually handles most of the communications.

They are all good. I do not really have an answer for that question, but since I have not heard anything negative, it would be positive.

They used to have Cisco DNA, but this is not something I have known. Based upon the references and documentation that I have seen, they used to have Cisco DNA. After that, when I joined, we were using Cisco Secure Client. From then on, that is what I am aware of.

Cisco Secure Client is what we use.

We do not use other solutions.

It is a pretty much small shop, so it is okay. It is simple and it is basic efficiency for us to be able to manage. I guess that question is probably with the management systems, and I do not deal with the numbering systems.

It is decent.

I would rate it to nine for now, and during the deployment, I was not there, so I do not really have an understanding of how smooth and how efficient that was. I rate this review a ten overall.

On-premises

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I support the US government. From a customer perspective, the use cases tend to be where we are guarding edge devices that we don't have necessarily 100% positive command and control. The devices have data transport that traverses in some cases ISPs, so we can't really control who's adjacent to those networks. We often deploy in those types of environments. Where we can use dark fiber, we prefer to, but that's not always an option.

I'm probably pretty agnostic with respect to that. We have a federal mandate to reach these next-generation firewall requirements. Stateful packet inspection and things of that nature are the things that we're interested in. We have some programs adjacent to us that definitely do that, but my programs don't require that.

We get a significant discount with Cisco, and their support is definitely top-rate.

Cisco does a decent job with logging. Sometimes you may need to tweak a few settings, but with their more recent products that support Python and Java among others, you now have more programmatic control in the latest versions of IOS.

If the FTD devices themselves, the Firepower Threat Detection system, those are the firewalls themselves, the individual appliances, weren't so tightly coupled to FMC, I'd probably appreciate them as a product more. The learning curve was a little higher just because it's a large departure from their original ASA devices. If they could be managed individually as easily as they can be managed through FMC, I'd probably be a bigger fan.

I have used Cisco products for decades at this point. With respect to ASAs and FTDs, FTDs are fairly new, but I have used ASAs for the better part of a decade.

It is definitely top-rate. In fact, I know that my particular group didn't even have a service agreement in place for the better part of a year and those guys were still very responsive to emails and communications.

Positive

We've been using them so long, it's hard to remember being a newbie, but I don't find their products particularly hard to set up. They have great documentation.

In our deployments, all of our web-based access to any of those devices is actually cut off. We do everything through a secure socket. The only situation where we are compelled to use a web interface is for the FMC, specifically for configuration; however, our management is primarily conducted at the console level whenever possible.

We don't find them hard to manage, especially as a group. The bigger challenge was managing them outside of their FMC product. They prefer to be federated to some extent, and they really weren't designed to be individually managed. They prefer to be managed from a central location. But if you have an environment that lends itself to central management, for the most part, it's not an issue.

We acquire through an organization, and we are the ones that implement.

Price-wise, we get a significant discount with Cisco. I actually prefer Juniper products. From a professional perspective, I prefer Palo Alto and Juniper probably more than I do anybody else. But I can't make the argument when we get 50% and 60% discounts, which we don't get from Juniper or Palo Alto.

Because we operate with what could only be called a skeleton crew, a monitoring solution to the extent possible is dependent heavily on logging, which these applications allow. We do a heavy amount of logging and we do a great deal of log parsing through ELK stack and SolarWinds and Splunk. Any tool that provides telemetry through logging is a particularly good fit for us because we have to really automate our monitoring. We don't have the manpower to sit there and look at multiple applications and things on a regular basis. It all has to come to a central location and has to be pretty automated, red light, green light type stuff.

If you have the budget, make sure to get a solid understanding of what's out there. There might be some other products that you might prefer, but if your budget is constrained, you can make it work with Cisco products for sure.

I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.

On-premises

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is to secure our network. A specific example of how I'm using Cisco Secure Access to secure my network is that we use it for our customers as an internet service provider to ensure everything is safe.

In my experience so far, I haven't noticed any best features that stand out with Cisco Secure Access. One feature that does sound useful to me is Zero Touch.

The Zero Trust feature in Cisco Secure Access works very well, but I have no idea about its specifics. Some common positive impacts I mention include faster troubleshooting, which I have noticed since using Cisco Secure Access.

Cisco Secure Access has helped with faster troubleshooting because when we were troubleshooting a loop in a network of our customers, with just a few clicks, I found where it came from and where it was going, so I closed this interface and everything is good.

I am using the AI Assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access, and it has helped in improving my security administrative tasks by summarizing pages or outputs of troubleshooting, which is helping so much. The most helpful thing the AI assistant has done for me is making recommendations for solutions during troubleshooting, which helps me focus on what to think about.

I think Cisco Secure Access can be improved, but as I said, I'm still new in this field, so I can't say something now. I plan to improve my skills more and gain more experience, and maybe I can send them an improvement by mail or something similar. I do not have more to add about the needed improvements.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for approximately two months.

In my experience, Cisco Secure Access is very stable, and I do not have issues with downtime or reliability.

Cisco Secure Access' scalability seems to keep up with my needs as my organization grows.

My experience with customer support for Cisco Secure Access has been okay, but it is not very fast.

Negative

I did not previously use a different solution before Cisco Secure Access, so I'm not sure about that.

Cisco Secure Access is deployed in my organization on-premises. I'm not sure if we use VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access. I haven't used the Experience Insights feature powered by ThousandEyes yet; I know about ThousandEyes, but we do not use it yet.

I'm not sure if I have integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access. I haven't used policy verification in Cisco Secure Access as I am still new and do not configure any policies. I help mostly with troubleshooting something that's already running, just looking for anything wrong here and there.

I do not have anything unique to add about how I or my customers are using Cisco Secure Access.

Since using Cisco Secure Access, I haven't seen a return on investment and I do not have this information regarding saved time, money, or fewer employees.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Access, we evaluated a few solutions such as Cisco Meraki, Cisco ISE, and Catalyst Center.

Since I started using Cisco Secure Access, I have noticed positive impacts on my organization. My advice for others looking into using Cisco Secure Access would be to try it; it is very nice to have in a good environment, such as service providers. I would give this product a rating of 8 out of 10.

On-premises

I use this solution for securing security controls like Secure Security Control (SSC) for local Internet breakouts. It offers a unified security policy across Google sites, providing secure web gateways, DNS and web security filtering, and multi-malware protection. These features are essential for comprehensive security.

The main feature of interest to me and the customers is DNS security and Integrated Secure Web Control (ISWC).

There is a need for improved global coverage since the service relies on the cloud provider's data centers. We are seeking more granular and global coverage to meet our demands. 

Modernization is needed, specifically in the enhancement of security features and functionality. Utilizing AI-oriented features is also important, considering what other vendors offer and their marketing strategies.

According to the vendor's claims, the solution is adaptable and scalable. I would rate scalability at eight to nine out of ten.

I am not able to read their resources, but I understand they have a good support organization. This stems from their original business in networking, integrating router and switch operations, as well as security devices. I assume the same organization now bridges into customer support.

Neutral

Cisco is not well accepted in the market since they are somewhat behind their competitors.

I would rate the initial setup at seven out of ten. The commercial aspects are significant here, primarily the recognition level compared to other dedicated suppliers approaching the market with stronger messages.

I am on the presale side, and the delivery aspect is handled by other people in the organization.

Prices are determined in the Compass. I do not refer to the suggested detail or the suggested list price, however, it is highly case-oriented. In the competitive landscape, they offer some advantages with Cisco deal IDs. However, renewal prices have been surprisingly high.

They have a strong brand and are supported by Cisco's traditional organization. 

I would rate them seven out of ten overall. 

Google

We primarily use Cisco Secure Access based on customer requirements, especially in the BFSI sector. They require Cisco Secure Access for their external branches and remote users. We mostly work with BFSI sectors who need Cisco Secure Access for their network. We have been resellers and integrators for this solution for more than eight years.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the level of security it provides. Cisco's dedication to the security industry is evident with how it remains up-to-date on current situations and recent attacks. Updates are frequent, and firmware upgrades are delivered promptly. It is very easy to stay updated, which is crucial for maintaining security.

The main area for improvement is pricing. Prices are high when compared to competitors, which makes it challenging to position the product with customers. If Cisco wants to enhance its product position in regions like South Asia, it needs to consider its pricing strategies seriously.

We have been working with Cisco Secure Access for more than eight years.

Implementation is very easy. Even if challenges arise, relevant documentation is readily available.

The solution is stable enough, and I did not experience any latency or performance issues.

Cisco Secure Access is scalable. I did not find any issues with scalability, and we did not receive any negative feedback from customers.

Our engineers are very satisfied with the features, technical assistance, and documentation provided by Cisco.

Positive

This solution is very easy to install.

Implementation requires two people. For maintenance, the same number of people is involved.

The main issue with pricing is that it is higher compared to other competitors, making it challenging to work with customers unless they specifically request Cisco. Also, the discount rates provided by Cisco for Asian countries are not sufficient.

Apart from Cisco, we also deal with Palo Alto, Fortinet, FortiGate, and Check Point.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is nine out of ten. Although I could rate it ten out of ten, the pricing factor brings it down to nine. In terms of technical support, I would rate it nine out of ten.