ContentWatch in Salt Lake City, Utah offers ContentProtect, a web content filtering solution.
N/A
Forcepoint SWG
Score 9.7 out of 10
N/A
The Forcepoint ONE Secure Web Gateway (SWG) is one of the three foundational gateways of the Forcepoint ONE all-in-one cloud platform. Forcepoint ONE SWG monitors and controlsany interaction with any website, including blocking access to websites based on category and risk score, blocking download of malware, blocking upload of sensitive data to personal filesharing accounts, detecting shadow IT, and optionally providingRemote Browser Isolation (RBI) with Content Disarm andReconstruction (CDR).
N/A
Pricing
ContentProtect
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ContentProtect
Forcepoint SWG
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ContentProtect
Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway
Considered Both Products
ContentProtect
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose ContentProtect
At the time ContentProtect was selected, Forcepoint (websense at the time) didn't have an inexpensive or cloud type product. The same can be said with Cisco, at that time. Recently, we have reevaluated and are going to be transitioning to Forcepoint's mobile client and …
Forcepoint [Web Security] services are [...] cost-effective and provide better ROI for small/medium and even large enterprises without losing any important features. They also have controls for all the channels and technology areas.
We were not yet ready to replace the firewall, so we chose a separate solution that integrates with our network. We also looked at Ironport but could not get a supported configuration (our partner did not support it).
Forcepoint Web Security provided off-network coverage which was not possible utilizing the on-premises deployment of the Cisco Secure Web Appliance that we were previously using. The Forcepoint Web Security product was more cost-effective for the specific feature set that we …
Forcpoint Web Security keeps my organization's users safe from malicious threats, including zero-day threats. It protects against zero-day threats with real-time threat intelligence and remote browser isolation, and provides deep content inspection for encrypted and unencrypted …
I am aware of another cybersecurity specialist in another organization that utilized the Acronis Cyber Cloud for Enterprise but cannot speak to its usage. I can only say that the Forcepoint products and history of support alongside its powerful reputation is one of the largest …
Forcepoint Web Security stacks up against them because Forcepoint is easy to install and get running. Forcepoint also has great support and notifies our organization when there are updates. I also appreciate the analytics and features Forcepoint has to offer.
To be honest, once using Forcepoint for our Web Security, I have not wanted to look anywhere else. The dashboard gives me quick insight of threats, productivity, and bandwidth usage. Again, this is a layer in my security and it fills many holes. I feel safe and I do like I can …
Forcepoint was one of the first web security appliances deployed by our organisation for content filtering and protecting from other complex web threats.
We chose Forcepoint Web security over other vendors as it is the best in its class in my opinion. It is used by a number of large organizations and government agencies and it has enormous expansion/integration capabilities with other modules e.g. CASB, DLP which all play a …
I purchased an up-and-coming product called SurfControl in 1999. Although I don't know who acquired SurfControl or when, I know that I just stuck with it, and I haven't had to evaluate another web security product in over 20 years, and that's a good thing.
FortiGate offers more granularity over the cloud, but the hybrid seems to be just what we need. We will be moving forward with the hybrid deployment over FortiGate. We would like to thank the POC engineers for helping us make this decision. We look forward to a fruitful …
Forcepoint's preassigned policies are a great way to get started. Sourcefire was much more transparent on what was happening to each packet and where it came from and to. But adding in rules and fine tuning the URL filtering was difficult. It took considerably more effort to …
We have looked at proxy products ranging from firewalls to endpoint clients, Forcepoint Web Security has made a central environment that scales easily, allows for policy enforcement off-premises, that works with many web technologies, with little to no compatibility issues. We …
If you are looking for something relatively inexpensive to lock down specific computers, it would be a useful tool. If the computers themselves aren't too locked down, implementation and management shouldn't be too difficult.
Over the years, [in our experience], the maintenance of the Forcepoint Web Security solution proved to be more cumbersome and troublesome with each version upgrade. In addition, it did not transition well to support the large increase of remote workers. We also experienced weird incompatibilities with the client. We have since replaced this solution with Zscaler Internet Access, a cloud-based secure web gateway solution with a client that behaves as expected, is more flexible, and requires significantly less administration.
This package is one of the few that offers a category, quota time, that allows us to limit certain categories and or websites for staff that would normally be blocked for customers and may not be something that is needed in their day to day job duties. We allow staff one hour a day, broken down into six 10 min increments, to visit sites for shopping, travel arrangement and other areas that are more of a personal need than a business need.
Forcepoint has a wide selection of categories that can be enabled, quota timed or restricted at a top-level or you can go more granular and drill down to subcategories to allow for only partial access.
Our primary policy is a restricted list, so that does as advertised. We had one location that had blocks based on categories (adult, illegal, etc). We continually had issues with sites getting completely blocked due to unrelated content. For example, Yahoo had a beer ad on the page, alcohol was blocked, so Yahoo became blocked for the period of time that ad was displayed. We had this happen multiple times and eventually switched to a different solution at that location.
I've had issues with their cloud portal not working. I don't have to edit our configuration often, but on numerous occasions, i was unable to get the configuration page to load after login, sometimes for days. The platform just wasn't stable when I needed it to be.
We run many of our remote rooms as frozen (after logoff they reset to the image). This works fine most times, but when content protect needs a configuration change pushed down, someone needs to go 'thaw' the computers, download the updated configuration, and re-'freeze' the computer. It would be nice if that information was just dynamic from the cloud and didn't need to be pulled down.
The categorization used for policies is very limited and not flexible or easily customizable.
The user access logs contain a lot of useless information. I understand this is very hard to tackle as I've seen this across any product that logs web activity.
I would like to see more customization options of website block pages.
It is very stable, the organisation has "locked in" the product and has no plans to change or try another product. We have already renewed our 2019-2020 licenses. It is user friendly and people catch on easily when they first use it. The only downtime is when we install Microsoft updates! It has excellent reporting which help in determining how the organisation's Internet is used and also during both internal and external IT audits.
Despite the intimidating Linux CLI when you use the appliance for troubleshooting, the web security usability compensates as most of the Administration of the system is done there. It is GUI based and has an easy to use UI where one can navigate around rather easily like getting reports, checking alerts, looking the whole setup under deployment to check if all services are running in one place though there are other parts to the system.
The is a quick first response to acknowledge your issue and the Engineers never take more than two hours to fix an issue and we hardly get issues looking at the fact that the system is pretty stable. There is also a robust Knowledge Base in the site for known problems.
Research known issues with upgrading from the Support Knowledge base, this will enable you avoid road blocks along the way and reduce your dependence on Forcepoint Support
At the time ContentProtect was selected, Forcepoint (Websense at the time) didn't have an inexpensive or cloud type product. The same can be said with Cisco, at that time. Recently, we have reevaluated and are going to be transitioning to Forcepoint's mobile client and removing ContentProtect from our environment. The cost is actually now less and we will be able to get both more dynamic control and also give us more detailed reporting on the traffic from clients.
To be honest, once using Forcepoint for our Web Security, I have not wanted to look anywhere else. The dashboard gives me quick insight of threats, productivity, and bandwidth usage. Again, this is a layer in my security and it fills many holes. I feel safe and I do like I can just let it do its thing
It was a relatively inexpensive and simple solution when we needed one relatively quickly, which is a positive. The inexpensive price has kept it in the environment.
The lack of reliable reporting has lead to the need for an alternate monitoring solution in a few cases. Network level reporting was used, which is a separate expense, configuration.
Time has been lost waiting on the portal and then troubleshooting support tickets when sites that shouldn't have been blocked have been blocked. It has resulted in changes for locations that needed dynamic category filtering as opposed to a finite list.
The blocking of sites based on add traffic or sub-sites (rather than just blocking that content like other solutions) has resulted in downtime during classes when those sites were listed in the lesson plan and had previously worked.
