Cisco AMP is unnecessarily difficult to administer
July 24, 2021
Cisco AMP is unnecessarily difficult to administer

Score 5 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly Cisco AMP)
We are currently using Cisco AMP across the entire organization. All endpoints with the exception of a few servers have the agent installed. Our main use for AMP is to protect and clean any malware that may enter our environment. AMP provides an enterprise grade anti-virus/anti-malware solution with centralized cloud management.
Pros
- AMP remediates threats without administrator intervention
- AMP provides a detailed dashboard of new threats or events that occur
- AMP is very configurable, policies can be scoped granularly
Cons
- The dashboard should be easier to use
- The agent updates are very cumbersome to manage
- AMP support is difficult to use compared to Meraki. Lots of hoops to jump through to get someone on the phone.
- Cisco AMP has been very difficult to implement.
- Cisco AMP has not proven to be better than the last AV we used.
- We have wasted a lot of time trying to figure out false detections.
- Arctic Wolf
We've provided Arctic Wolf API access to AMP to help monitor our detections.
Compared to Malwarebytes Enterprise, AMP is significantly harder to configure, update, implement, use. The overall burden that AMP puts on the IT department is rather high.
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation