Overall Satisfaction with WatchGuard AuthPoint
We use it to provide secure access to our WatchGuard SSL VPN system - namely MFA on top of the SSL VPN system built into our M440 Firebox. It is used across the whole organization by almost all employees (excluding those working in picking/packing roles). It addresses my need for heightened security across the organization, and this became hugely important once the pandemic hit and almost all office employees began working remotely and required access to our on-prem network via the WatchGuard VPN SSL client.
- Ease-of-use. Important given the wide range of "tech-savviness" across the org.
- Effective visualization into the system's operation. Important for me and my IT team given the vast number of systems that we are supporting - particularly in remote conditions.
- Ease of setup. While I didn't like the use of Java, the setup process was relatively simple and is easy to understand how it is working.
- Remove the use of Java. I didn't like the dependence and it caused problems early on prior to me realizing what was happening.
- The addition of "operators" could be streamlined. I should be able to easily select an existing AuthPoint user to be added as an operator (i.e., one of my IT staff).
- The timeout graphic/visualization on the mobile app sometimes confuses users who think that something is wrong even after approving the notification.
- Peace of mind. Hard to place a dollar value on it, but it is worth a lot!
- It does add to systems overhead, but it is a necessary overhead and is minimal.
- Overall, it has added significantly to the objective of secure operation within a remote environment.
We use the Microsoft MFA also and I have used the Google Authenticator (only prior to the MS version being released, however). They are similar in terms of functionality of course, but I have not attempted additional integrations using SAML 2.0 or anything like that so cannot comment there.
Yes. I do not like adding to systems overhead - particularly via hardware. So AuthPoint has helped keep costs down in that regard and the simplicity is important given the added complexity of managing in a remote environment (primarily from all the added variables from users' home network/internet connections).
Yes - very well received and we have had very few issues with it. Compliance is not optional - it is either use it or don't work so I have kept things simple in that regard. However, the simplicity of the setup process allows for, in most cases, simple written instructions to be sent to the user at the time of setup/onboarding and in most cases the user is able to walk through this process without issue.
The impact has been substantial. I am a big believer in SSO and look forward to the day when passwords are a thing of the past. In an organization who uses many passwords - particularly for critical applications - password note taking becomes a key security risk. AuthPoint and secure SSO help significantly with this.
Do you think WatchGuard AuthPoint delivers good value for the price?
Are you happy with WatchGuard AuthPoint's feature set?
Did WatchGuard AuthPoint live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of WatchGuard AuthPoint go as expected?
Would you buy WatchGuard AuthPoint again?
Obviously it is well suited to securing access to VPNs configured on existing WatchGuard infrastructure. That is the primary use case I employ. The environment for MFA apps is fairly diverse at this point, and so I've opted to use Microsoft's own MFA tool for securing use to that just for simplicity of setup and maintenance. I do not envision changing that in the near term.