Cisco Secure Access

I have been using Cisco Secure Access  for three and a half years since I joined. The primary use case for Cisco Secure Access  is to provide security services across networks. The main job is to securely connect all our employees to any applications or resources from anywhere without relying on traditional or clunky corporate VPN. Cisco Secure Access acts as a single cloud-delivered security checkpoint for us.

In the old way, the existing VPN client connected the laptop directly into the corporate network. Now, when I open my browser and type any URL on the internet, such as for a financial application, Cisco Secure Client runs on my laptop and intercepts this request and securely passes the context to Cisco Secure Access cloud.

My organization works with GDPR compliance, data privacy, and some AI use cases. We have very big financial decisions every day, every year, every month, and every quarter. For us, we have to make sure that the employee data, the customer data, and the metrics we produce are secured.

Cisco Secure Access offers zero-trust network access, which replaces the legacy VPN by granting application-level access instead of full network access. The Secure Web Gateway plays an important role for us. Since we are in the financial sector, we look after bank data and financial institute data, which is related to financial decisions. This is one of the crucial roles for me to make sure that the data is not breached and we are also compliant with GDPR activities.

We have seen a radical optimization in terms of security operations. For a long time, my office bought separate point solutions, such as for DNS filtering. A traditional hardware VPN proxy could not resolve those issues.

Cisco Secure Access handles AI features by providing comprehensive visibility and control over generative AI applications. My organization is cloud-native, so we do not have on-premises deployment. We are using it on the public cloud itself via AWS , which serves as a virtual connector for us.

When it comes to reliability and overall trustworthiness, its AI capabilities help separate into two distinct categories: AI threat detection and enforcement.

Cisco Secure Access continuously checks identity, user context, and device postures. It has a dual capability client. One use case could be a secure gateway for a DNS layer. It is an Umbrella  foundation, which blocks malicious domains at the DNS level.

It also spots any unwanted AI tools which are not governed by the officials. For the admin, the Cisco Secure Access dashboard provides a single, correlated health score for the user's device, network path, and application performance.

AI Assistant is a major operation feature from Cisco Secure Access. Security administrators use it extensively to simplify daily tasks.

In terms of identity management, we have VOYAM, which is our Vodafone internal tool, where all the employees are onboarded. If we do not have Cisco Secure Access connection, it does not allow us to open the applications without a secure network.

Cisco Secure Access is powerful, though there is no solution that is completely perfect. We have seen some pain points. One challenge is that the initial configuration and the policy migration can be quite complex, especially for large companies like us with legacy infrastructure. Another area for improvement could be that adjusting to the zero-trust model requires a cultural and operational shift for both users and the IT team, which can take some time.

Another potential friction point can be the authentication process, particularly if all of the people are repeatedly prompted for multi-factor authentication. All the time, I have to use my email, my password, and then I have to authenticate with the OTP.

I have used the solution for three and a half years since joining in 2023.

Cisco Secure Access is highly stable for my company. I have not seen any downtime. It maintains a strong uptime record because it is cloud-native. However, employees in specific geographic areas might experience intermediate connection timeouts, slow web loading, and some brief delays.

The platform is stable for us. For example, when our organization expanded or acquisitions happened, our employee numbers spiked, and Cisco Secure Access scaled instantly at the identity level. Cisco's platform is built in an elastic global cloud.

The support experience was good. I have seen that the people are highly technical in their expertise.

In terms of the networking, cybersecurity, and automation tools, Cisco Secure Access saves our company a massive amount of time and money. I have seen some reports where my company's use of AI-driven automated networking has saved three hours and twenty minutes per person per day. This is a huge achievement for us.

As an experience, I would definitely rate this at a nine because it really depends upon how we are having the connectivity itself. Cisco Secure Access stopped the repetitive data and the connection is seamless all the time. This makes us less annoyed to connect with the network again and again.

Another reason could be the simplification of IT management through the unified cloud dashboard, which consolidated multiple security functions for us and reduced the policy administrator efforts. In terms of the productivity, optimization, performance, and IT issues, Cisco Secure Access is playing every role. We have integration with Microsoft Azure . Cisco Secure Access makes the transition secure because it eliminates the security gaps during the migration phase. My overall rating for this solution is nine out of ten.

The main use case for Cisco Secure Access  is for posture management, managing network devices, guaranteeing guest access, BYOD, guest, and sponsor portal. I have used Cisco Secure Access  from end to end.

I consider network segmentation as one of the most valuable functions of Cisco Secure Access.

I use the Zero Trust Network Access  (ZTNA ) feature of Cisco Secure Access, and we have currently deployed it for ZTNA. I appreciate the identity management of devices where they are connecting to the network. The device needs to be trusted always, which is actually a good security best practice because it does not involve trusting a device once and then allowing it network access.

I have experience with the integration of CASB  functionality in Cisco Secure Access. The cloud access broker has helped by providing a bridge between the user directory and functionality, allowing the system to enforce data control, compliance, and threat protection. This is good security practice as well.

How easy or difficult it is to manage Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud-managed console depends on who you talk to, but for me, with my experience, it has become very easy and really manageable. Much of the interface has been improved significantly, making management easier. The upgrade of the interface really has changed a lot, which makes it easier to remember.

Automation is something Cisco could improve for Cisco Secure Access. I have seen the way they have done this with SD-WAN, where you have automation of VPN through auto VPN tunneling and the creation of tunneling between SD-WAN. If Cisco could improve Cisco Secure Access in the same way, there should not be as much configuration needed, because companies are really keen when it comes to deployment these days. We need to automate deployment. If they could do that with Cisco Secure Access as well, especially with big branches, it would be great. I have worked with almost 200 branches, so configuration in all these branches is needed for security. If this could be integrated and automated exactly like the auto VPN that happens on SD-WAN, it would be excellent.

Regarding support, I do not know what happened to Cisco. I contact them, and the support has been a pain. The quality of support has dropped so drastically that it is not even funny.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Access since 2012.

Our deployment process is mixed. We are deploying for different clients, so it depends on what client they have.

Regarding support, I do not know what happened to Cisco. I contact them, and the support has been a pain. The quality of support has dropped so drastically that it is not even funny.

The setup process for Cisco Secure Access is very straightforward. Integrating with SD-WAN is really easy.

We are fighting internally with Zscaler because they are saying it is cheaper. Pricing is competitive between solutions. Palo Alto is coming very well as well. I am not sure if Cisco is also looking at that, but they are also coming with a lot of functionality within the Palo Alto space for the SASE  function.

Cisco Secure Access does help me protect my company from threats like phishing and ransomware. The fact that Cisco Secure Access integrates Zero Trust, the secure gateway, and data loss integration does a lot to help with email security because of the integration with Cisco Web Gateway. Training users is also necessary because security involves users as well.

I am satisfied with the functionality of Cisco Secure Access. One of the areas I have not investigated much time on is the integration with the segmentation within the SASE  solution. I have been doing it on my side, but I still need to understand how it integrates and how it can work instead of using the NAC solution. The ICE function could be integrated within Cisco Secure Access. I think that would be better because Cisco has integrated firewall as a service, so why not also integrate the NAC solution as a service in that platform as well.

I have given this review a rating of 9.

The two typical use cases of Cisco Secure Access  are how remote workers securely access both private applications, public applications, and SaaS applications from anywhere.

In my opinion, Cisco Secure Access  is a complete SSE solution. The second good thing about it is that it has very deep end integration with other products which are required to improve security, such as multi-factor authentication and NAC products, all coming from Cisco. Whatever the customer use case may be, not only Cisco Secure Access but other applications coming from the Cisco security product line are available without needing to look outside of that ecosystem. Typically, I can just take it from Cisco and complete the entire solution.

From my perspective, it is quite easy to manage Cisco Secure Access.

The Talos integration for threat detection and response capability is a must for any product, whether running a SIEM  or XDR . The Talos threat intelligence, which is possibly one of the largest organizations that gathers all this data and sends updates, comes free with every Cisco security product. That is really important because security is not static; it is dynamic. New viruses and malware are emerging constantly. Talos ensures that I get updates of everything being seen across the globe so that I am not left behind.

When it comes to protecting against phishing and ransomware, it is pretty good because all identified signatures and non-signature-based protections get updated through threat intelligence. However, as I said, it all depends upon what your attack surface is. If the attack surface is mail, for example, where the bulk of threats get percolated, then it has to be augmented by additional security layers such as email security. Based on the threat attack surface, you have to protect those also with an additional set of software.

The only negative side of Cisco Secure Access is the mindshare. From my perspective, the greatest positive side of Cisco is that it has a very complete story on the entire overall security requirements of a customer, whether it is end user security, network security, or workload security. It covers it all. Having said that, the customer mindshare of looking at Cisco as a security OEM is pretty low. That is one thing which in my mind, Cisco has to really improve.

The second thing is, of course, multiple panes of glass to manage multiple products. That has been a long-standing demand from customers that they should simplify that, and Cisco is working towards it. The third thing is AI integration. Cisco is also aggressively working on AI integration with their products. Mindshare is one of the biggest challenges of Cisco security products, and they have to increase customer awareness sessions to increase the customer mindshare about their security products.

One big challenge which I see with Cisco is their MDR capabilities. They do not provide it as a service, which Palo Alto does provide. Cisco's policy and strategy is to enable partners so that it becomes partner-enabled services using Cisco products. Whereas Palo Alto provides MDR as a service and Sophos provides MDR as a service, Cisco enables partners such as us to provide equivalent services. However, there are multiple enterprise customers who would prefer to go to the OEM for that service. There are multiple big wins which Palo Alto had in India because of their own MDR capability. If I were to fight as a partner with my capability and Cisco products, I surely cannot fight the might of Palo Alto. That is one area where possibly Cisco has to relook.

With regards to my experience with Cisco Secure Access, I have been working with it for at least two years now.

Regarding Cisco Secure Access, I would agree that it is a 99.9% stable and reliable product.

My impression of scalability for Cisco Secure Access is good. Being a cloud solution, it has unlimited scalability. Scalability is not an issue. You can scale based on the number of users and licenses. You have SIA, SPA, and all licenses. Scalability is not an issue since it is a cloud-based solution.

I believe customer service from Cisco is good and not a problem in India.

Regarding the deployment procedure and installation of Cisco Secure Access, it is straightforward and not much of a challenge.

We usually deploy Cisco Secure Access in our Center of Excellence, and we keep demonstrating that to the customers. It is fine and not much of a hassle.

Quantifying the return on investment depends upon what the use case is and the automation we can build up. We just did some study where, with automation and all of that, we can get almost 30% ROI.

In comparing Cisco Secure Access to its competitors in the market, I think the leader is definitely Palo Alto.

Comparing Cisco Secure Access pricing with its peer group, I think they are still comparable in terms of pricing. It also depends upon how desperate Cisco is to win the deal; they can also go better. When I say peer group, I am talking of Palo Altos of the world, and so forth. They are a little bit on the higher side, but still, when it comes to closure of the deal, they get aggressive and they can meet up with the competitive price points.

I have to study more about Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via HTTP/2 and optionally QUIC, so I am not aware of this, and I will not comment on that.

Summarizing all that I have told you about Cisco Secure Access, mindshare, multiple panes of glass, AI integration, and MDR are all aspects that could be slightly better. Those are the areas for improvement. Overall, I would give Cisco Secure Access a rating of eight out of ten.