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
Forcepoint SWG
Score 8.1 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
McAfee SmartFilter (Discontinued)
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
SmartFilter (formerly of Secure Computing Corporation, now from McAfee) is an Internet security platform that reached end of life (EOL) in 2014.
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 …
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.