Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Cisco Web Security Appliance [WSA]), powered by Cisco Talos, protects by automatically blocking risky sites and testing unknown sites before allowing users to link to them, helping with compliance. It is available models S690, S390, and S190.
N/A
UniFi Cloud Gateways
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Ubiquiti Networks supports enterprise network security and wireless WAN via the WiFi integrated UniFi Cloud Gateways, including the Dream Router 7, and the UniFi Express 7.
McAfee Web Gateway can be much more expensive, we tested it and it really is excellent in the usefulness it offers; however, the team did not adapt very well to how expensive the tool can be. On the other hand, Cisco Secure Web Appliance offers much more comfortable payment …
At home I have a McAfee service that does similar tasks and helps manage the users of my internet. McAfee seems more user friendly and easier to set exceptions.
Cisco Web Security Appliance (WSA) is a potent tool. When it comes to handling emails and links from blacklisted IP, Cisco Web Security Appliance (WSA) does a better job. However, considering the price to performance ratio, Mimecast is way ahead of Cisco Web Security Appliance …
Considering we're with Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliances for the last 9 years, as I stated, we don't have too much experience with other producs. What I can say is that in the past, we evaluated Websense before it became Forcepoint and we also used MS ISA Server for …
We previously used BlueCoat ProxySG appliances. The system worked well overall, but the hardware, licensing, and support costs were just too high to continue using the product. The hardware costs, in particular, were unacceptable. It was relatively easy to convert our …
Websense has more resources devoted to categorizing the internet. The product is one of the best and most expensive. The Cisco WSA isn't as experienced, but is also significantly cheaper. Its an active product line getting investment and improvements. It is worth a look. …
Cisco IronPort was the most flexible and easy to deploy. The use of a central manager even simplifies the process even further. Maintenance is seemeless and upgrades go well without having to install constant hotfixes.
We used several other products (evaluation and production) in the past and are testing some of them now. According to my experience I can say that Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliance has a lot of positive moments. It doesn't mean that other products worse or do not have such …
We have transitioned third-party partners and our own internal offices away from consumer, prosumer, or SOHO grade systems such as high-end ASUS, TP-Link, and even Xiaomi routers. For the same money, we can have a more properly architected network that has better performance, …
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current …
Wifi signal and management are superior. I have many Sonicwall TZ units with Wifi that are basically useless and added a Ubiquiti unit in place of the Sonicwall Wifi. Netgear nighthawk has a good wifi system but doesn't have the range Ubiquiti does. Netgear is great for the …
In the past, we used D-Link wi-fi devices, where centralized management was not possible, distributing the same SSID through several devices. Which cost configuration time and instability in the use between one point and another, because eventually, this transition between a …
When looking into Cisco options for WWAN, there were two issues we encountered. Up front as well as yearly maintenance costs for each device was considerably more expensive than the Ubiquiti options. And, although the Cisco options have more options to configure, it requires …
amer is literally rebranded Ubiquiti wireless points. They make you pay the annual fee. We cancelled our contract and were able to wipe the firmware and add them back to the Ubiquiti controller. Amer is a big waste of money.
Based on the platforms I have evaluated, I think the WSA is a great fit for any organization that needs a proxy server that provides control over what web sites are accessed or when they can be accessed. I think it is probably overkill if you simply need a proxy server for bandwidth savings or because you need to proxy general Internet access without extensive filtering needs.
The Ubiquiti Wireless WAN solution can be used in both small and large corporate environments. However, as it has a rather high cost, its cost-benefit is greater in medium and large corporations, as small corporations may not take advantage of as many resources as the integration between Wi-Fi devices. In medium and large corporations, resources like this represent a very great facility in network management and in the availability of the connection in a transparent way at different points of the company, together with the security of isolated networks logically being made available by the same Wi-Fi device.
It does a great job of filtering emails based on IP reputation. This feature works particularly very well. Cisco has a vast database of IP reputation scores and therefore offers very few false positives and negatives.
It checks each email thoroughly without any compromise of privacy. Any malicious link present in the body of the email makes its way to the quarantine. The IP reputation scores also help in this case.
Because it's one of those products you almost don't realize it exists from the end user. From the administrator perspective, you can do everything on its web interface and it's very intuitive to manage, once you know the concepts behind identities, acls, etc. Also, once you build the control structure, I mean, you link 'local' groups with your own Active Directory groups, as we did here, you don't need to be managing those things on the appliance itself.
Our experience with Cisco's support was terrible. Other than the fact that they don't respond to service-related emails with urgency, they also keep on changing the policies that affected us. Recently, they came up with a new look for the same software, which was insanely slow. Renewal of keys for the old interface took months. Overall, the support was not very friendly from the users' point of view.
We have not needed to contact support, except to replace one device that was damaged in shipping. The company immediately issued an RMA without delay, and we had our replacement product within a week
Considering we're with Cisco IronPort Web Security Appliances for the last 9 years, as I stated, we don't have too much experience with other producs. What I can say is that in the past, we evaluated Websense before it became Forcepoint and we also used MS ISA Server for webfilter. As you may imagine, IronPort is a very very superior product.
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current Ubiquiti solution, this shift cost both time and stability during configuration.
Having a much safer work system has given us the guarantee and security of always staying out of danger.
The prevention system is important for us and always keeping our devices, web and emails free of any malicious agent has allowed us an excellent workflow, without distractions or inconvenience in the development of projects.
Thanks to the fact that we have kept our work system safe, we have saved ourselves a lot of inconvenience, time spent, avoiding equipment damage, payments to solve problems, among many other problems that thanks to Cisco Secure Web Appliance we have been able to solve.