AWS Control Tower vs. Cisco Duo

AWS Control Tower is great if you have multiple organizations or disciplines inside a company that needs to be separated for billing purposes or separation of concern. Multiple accounts is part of AWS's well-architected framework and are generally a good idea. AWS Control Tower makes central logging easy which enables those logs to be quickly picked up by a logging tool to provide even more reports and insight. For smaller organizations, AWS Control Tower may seem like an over-engineered solution

Incentivized

Cisco Duois is well suited in all kinds of scenarios where you need to ensure proper security measurements, I think. We can't just rely on our passwords only, as they can be easily stolen through phishing or data breaches thus keeping multi factor authentication is quite essential. I always prefer MFA or at least 2FA for any critical system.

Incentivized

• AWS Control Tower integrates with AWS organizations
• AWS Control Tower provides Account Factory to provision preconfigured AWS accounts
• AWS Control Tower helps to isolate workloads and billing via AWS accounts separation
• AWS Control Tower supports data residency controls out of the box
• AWS Control Tower supports post provisioning actions to newly provisioned AWS accounts: for example it can trigger enabling VPC flow logs in the new account

Incentivized

• Speed - it's fast with almost no delay between triggering the MFA request and receiving the notification on an iPhone
• Security - in addition to the added MFA layer, a simple, 4-digit passcode can be added to the authentication request
• Ease of use - it doesn't scare users. It's simple to install, configure, and use.

Incentivized

• This level of abstraction leaves you vulnerable to not knowing exactly what's been created, and that can enable you to mess things up.
• Because it provisions things on your behalf, you might end up paying for resources you don't need.
• The import process of existing accounts, which we did not end up pursuing, is tedious and manual.

Incentivized

• Documentation is oftentimes missing key information for proper implementation. This is circumvented by reading third-party guides or contacting support for additional details.
• They do not push Fail-Closed as much as I think they should. Fail-Open is fairly trivial to bypass and it should be made known to the customer during setup how much this will affect overall security.
• More vendor integration is something that is always craved by administrators. There are so many third-parties to integrate with.

Incentivized

There are a lot of competing solutions on the market; however, Duo "just works", and there is little to no learning curve for the new members to be acclimated to it. As long as that continues I see it as the preferred option moving forward

Incentivized

There is no way to easily close an AWS account whether it was created manually or via the AWS Control Tower. It takes too many steps to close it vs to provision a new AWS account

Incentivized

La interfaz es intuitiva y fácil de navegar, lo que permite a los usuarios administrar sus dispositivos y acceder a las políticas sin problemas. La integración con las aplicaciones SSO y SaaS facilita aún más el proceso de acceso, mejorando la experiencia del usuario.

Incentivized

In the last 5+ years we've been using Duo, there may have been 1 outage that impacted us. We do receive periodic notifications of issues but, for the most part, they impact carriers or functionality that we either don't use, or do not care about.

We do not see any degradation of performance of the protected applications. There are occasional lags in receiving the push but no show stooppers.

Since it’s a reputable company, I have received technical support when needed and I trust that if anything else happens I can contact them with any issues. I haven’t experienced bad customer service and I totally feel supported while using this authentication method. No complains so far and the high rating!

Incentivized

There was no in person training but checking the box was the only way I could complete all of the questions.

This was not organized training but the videos that Duo provides to teach you how to install a particular integration are top notch.

Implementation was straight forward and you can isolate different scenarios in order to test new application setup or add to an existing setup. Gui interface is pretty easy to understand and follow. I had no experience with Duo and still manage to easily set up new policies and rules.

Incentivized

Using AWS Systems Manager and other slightly lower level components has been helpful for us to manage parts of our AWS presence at a more granular level than AWS Control Tower was designed for. It's not at all an apples-to-apples comparison as they solve different use cases, but for us, the use case associated with AWS Systems Manager was a better fit for our specific needs and skillsets. We did not need everything that AWS Control Tower was doing for us.

Incentivized

Ultimately we ended up going with Cisco Duo because we are a Cisco shop. All of our networking infrastructure, our phones, our wireless environment is Cisco based. It made logical sense to stay with a product that we already have a line of support with. With a smaller support / tech group we depend on outside Cisco support. That support is already here for us, so we stayed with a Cisco product.

Incentivized

So far, the only limits we've encountered were tied to our imagination. Duo's strong list of supported integrations is amazing.

• AWS Control tower allowed us to drop several third-party vendors for security appliances and logging, which saved us considerable funds.
• AWS Control tower reduced the amount of time we spend deploying AWS accounts.
• AWS Control tower reduced the amount of time we have to spend on quarterly security audits.

Incentivized

• It's one of those things that only costs money in the sense of you have to convince a leadership team to spend money to save money, right? Like a compromise is far more expensive than duo paying for duo. So specifically it's really just about trying to prevent problems. And so while it costs money and we don't have a direct return on investment that we can point out immediately, I would still always advocate for it just because it keeps security. Paying for security is cheaper than getting compromised essentially.

Incentivized