Overall Satisfaction with Cisco CloudLock
We basically use Cisco CloudLock to protect sensitive information along with another security measure we use with our applications. It includes very critical information like credit card numbers, encryption keys, etc. We particularly use BaNCS where we develop software that has high risk and involves banking. As the scope of the software is large and includes millions we set alerts and trigger risk mechanisms in case of inappropriate or malicious actions from the user side.
- Efficient alert mechanism for inappropriate actions.
- UI is good and well managed.
- We don't have to switch to other portal, we can take action within G suite.
- Although alert mechanism is good but it delays a bit.
- For implementation of DLP we had to hire a expert it took a lot of time to set up.
- Support [in my experience] is not good.
- Alert mechanism is really important.
- Action within the G suite.
- Secure connection with remote access.
- It has very positive impact.
- Less monitoring spend.
- Very cost effective.
It has a better alert mechanism and provides the facility to take action within the G Suite. With McAfee, we did not have these features and it is more cost-effective than McAfee. Although they are similar, now that we have used Cisco CloudLock, I would recommend using Cisco CloudLock rather than McAfee Defense.
Do you think Cisco CloudLock delivers good value for the price?
Are you happy with Cisco CloudLock's feature set?
Did Cisco CloudLock live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of Cisco CloudLock go as expected?
Would you buy Cisco CloudLock again?
For an organization that has thousands of employees and has many projects which involve high-security software development. It is always good that we have another security layer to detect or alert in time to prevent a financial loss. If you are small organizations that don't have these risks and are low on budget then you can leave it, but I would recommend it as cyber attacks are increasing day by day.