Cisco Secure Endpoint is well suited for keeping track of the many different and points that we have in our organization. All of these devices can easily be monitored with Cisco Secure Endpoint. It can monitor our servers and our desktops and laptops in our environment. It isn’t as appropriate for our student devices. However, those aren’t as critical since they are just Chromebooks.
FortiClient is really well suited for providing remote employees super quick access to a local network without needing much technical know-how. The virus scanning and web-blocking is also really great at making sure to keep the spam, ads, and other malicious web connections at bay. I have not run into any specific scenario that FortiClient has not been well suited - All of the scenarios in which I have used FortiClient have all functions really well for me.
Once we, I guess one turned out that path because we have a small IT team, one of the big factors that came into play is how easy it was to deploy and the kind of security it provides for your endpoint devices. For us, it's got all those AI capabilities that really help. So traditionally when there was an incident on Alert on an antivirus program, you'd have a couple of guys run across the office to try to pull a plug. One of the awesome features with Secure Endpoint is its isolation mode that clamps down endpoint devices and then just isolate it. It's connected to, I think Cisco's tell us the threat intel environment. So they've got up-to-date metrics and fixes on threats out in the wild. And once they detect that, they apply it across your whole brand. So yeah, really effective for us.
One of the things that really stands out is the retrospective detections. So say something's detected two weeks later of a product that you had on your system. Initially it scanned it past, but then they discover vulnerability. The product has the ability to come back and retrospectively apply restrictions on specific applications you have on your environment. So I think that's one key winner.
[FortiClient] splits the traffic very well. For example, when users connect a VPN to the office they are connecting to the internal system which uses VPN traffic. If users access the public internet they use the internet traffic, but [Fortinet] does not route this traffic back to the office.
The interface has many views that all look the same, except that functionalities are different. This makes it incredibly difficult to find the action you want to take.
Built-in exclusion sets are missing a number of notable Anti-Malware products and must be manually implemented.
High learning curve due to complexity of the solution and the range of features it contains. Provided documentation is hidden in a small icon at the top of the page which is often off-screen when needed.
Color choices lead to panic situations during deployment. 1 questionable file could lead to the main display showing a large, bright red alert which makes customers think their whole environment is compromised.
font way too small on login, unable to select an option, for example, to see each letter of password as typed promotes errors at login
login errors and failure rate extremely high as [reported] by all our physicians and other providers: not infrequently one will have to return to office after hours in order to complete charts or access charts to answer patient after hours questions
frequent disconnects in spite of excellent internet signal
Because the software is very simple and easy to use, very efficient, and has a stable connection that allows the user to perform tasks without problems. Also, this software does not need to be configured by IT technicians, since it comes with a very developed and understandable set up guide.
AMP is very difficult to use compared to other products we've seen. It's hard to understand why there are so many different logins for the various products that supposedly integrate with AMP. We had weekly phone calls for months to implement the product yet none of the IT department really enjoys using this product or feels comfortable with the accuracy of detections. The number of false positives is high.
Usability is pretty solid. It is not as easy to manage and adjust if you are not a trained IT professional, which requires smaller companies without IT staff to reply on outsourced IT partners. The user interface is a bit clunky, but you can generally figure out what you need to do, it just takes a little bit of time and effort.
In terms of technical support for Cisco Secure Endpoint, the support has been pretty good. All the cases I submitted were solved in a reasonable time frame, and it was a good experience. However, I find that not as many vendors have the expertise I would expect.
FortiClient is a security suite with which we can keep our equipment well-protected. And it is that in a system like Windows, which is always the target of all kinds of attacks, it is not enough to have a simple antivirus.
Cisco Secure Endpoint is an advanced EDR solution that is highly effective and scalable. Our experience previously with MalwareBytes and Microsoft Defender was not horrible, but these products were not as effective and did not integrate well with our other security products to allow us to monitor and react quickly to address threats that were within our network. Key to any security effort is mitigation and the ability to quickly identify and respond so any damage can be avoided or limited.
Meraki MX has a much more basic set of features compared to FortClient and the Fortinet ecosystem of devices and software. Setting up a FortiGate with FortiClient can take a little more time, but the feature set is much richer. We use Meraki MX is a few offices, but are now converting many of them over to the FortiClient and Fortinet suite of security devices and software.
AMP has been able to catch some serious infections and stop them from doing huge damage in our environment.
The overall cost of AMP vs the cost of not having this protection and getting hit with malware, or other nefarious damage to your environment is well worth the money.
