The first use case is access to the private application on the data center. The second use case is access to the cloud application on the cloud, plus the branches connected to the branches.

When discussing how easy or difficult it is to manage Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud managed console, I find it very easy. Cisco Secure Access is similar to Umbrella and Meraki; it requires just a few clicks to configure what I need or what use case I have.

The features I have found most valuable in Cisco Secure Access include Data Loss Prevention, Web Security Gateway, Cloud-delivered Firewall, and CASB. All of these features are amazing on Cisco Secure Access.

Regarding the integration of Secure Access with CASB functionality for exposing shadow IT within my organization, it gives me powerful capabilities to control shadow IT and its integration and features for Data Loss Prevention.

For sales, it is easy to tell the client about the benefits because it is simple, with only one or two lines for pricing. For pre-sales, it is very good as I can configure it in two clicks on CCW. The use cases can be summarized in just two or three slides of presentation. The user experience is very easy because the security is invisible to end users, meaning they do not suffer from strict security preventing them from doing their job. I find it an amazing product, and as it is an upgrade for Umbrella, it has all the good sides of Umbrella while removing some bad sides.

Based on my experience, the main point for improvement is the full integration on the Meraki dashboard. Cisco Secure Access with Meraki MX forms what we call a SASE solution. However, currently, Cisco Secure Access does not appear on the Meraki dashboard; they are still using Umbrella, which does not fully unify with Cisco Meraki.

Regarding functionality, I do not find things that need to be improved, except that Cisco should make the security web gateway, URL filtering, IPS, and fire-walling more robust for large businesses. These features are suitable for small and medium businesses but may need enhancements for larger enterprises.

For large businesses, it does need some improvement, but if it improved, I think it will not be enough as it is targeting small and medium businesses. This is not a drawback, just correct sizing.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Access since its launch, which is about two years ago.

For stability, I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine. It is a new product, and although two years is not long enough to fully judge stability, I have not found anyone who complains about Cisco Secure Access or even its predecessor, Cisco Umbrella.

Regarding scalability, cloud solutions inherently allow for scaling up and down without issues, but as I mentioned before, it is primarily for small and medium businesses. I cannot judge its applicability for enterprise use at this stage, but for certain, I would give it a nine.

For technical support from Cisco for Secure Access, I rate them ten out of ten. Cisco is known for its exceptional support, with a lot of team resources available.

Regarding the initial setup for Cisco Secure Access, I find it very simple, and it is a native cloud solution; it is not on-premises at all. If Cisco decided to create an on-premises version as a unique delivery option, it would be an outstanding out-of-the-box solution.

For pricing, I consider this one of the few drawbacks of Cisco. Cisco is known for its high pricing, so I would give them a six.

In my opinion, the main competitors in the market for Cisco Secure Access are vendors delivering SASE solutions such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, and maybe Huawei, but I do not have a real branding name for these. I have not done in-depth comparisons with these products, but we can compare features such as DLP on Cisco versus Forcepoint.

Cisco Secure Access operates on the Cisco native cloud and not AWS or Azure; it operates in Cisco data centers.

I can recommend Cisco Secure Access to other users, especially if their country approves cloud solutions for their people. I am 100% confident in recommending this solution. I rate this review an eight out of ten.

The use case depends upon the vertical, such as manufacturing or enterprise. Mostly customers are looking for secure remote access to their applications. They may have a vendor ecosystem where they do not want to install any client. If they are looking for a clientless VPN like ZTNA, Zero Trust Network Access, that is where it fits. Mostly they want to move away from the centralized filtering point of view, even if it is a proxy. They want to facilitate access wherever they are geographically distributed. Because Cisco Secure Access PoP is there everywhere in major regions, this helps.

If they have a use case of a user sitting in an office and a user sitting remote, and a vendor accessing their applications from outside their network, you cannot expect anything installed in the vendor laptop, which is a non-domain laptop. That time, you need to have a solution that supports secure access of that application for that vendor who is sitting outside the network and is not a domain user.

Private application access is definitely there with the resource connectors. The concept of resource connectors is there to ensure the backend traffic from the application to the user. I have use cases, but I mainly worked on SaaS web traffic where I position SSE. Internal traffic is there, but not much discussion. It is hybrid only. There are customers who are adopting data center and coming out from cloud to data center, and vice versa. Definitely it will be Hybrid Remote Access.

The price and license for Cisco Secure Access are fine. Cisco documentation is always good. As a product, in terms of Cisco SSE, I appreciate the feature set. It is simple. The product is giving whatever you need from a customer point of view. Suppose point A to point B if you have to send data, you need not worry about anything such as your data might get compromised or somebody can do a middleman attack because everything is secure. They are sending the traffic encrypted and categorizing the traffic based on the type, whether web traffic or internet traffic, and doing the security mechanism that is needed for the traffic type. You can tick mark that flexibility is there.

Cisco SSE has an AI model, so you can write the policies if you just write it in plain English, it can do that. It can also drill down to AI Canvas, which is the new product that Cisco has launched.

I sold ThousandEyes and had done proof of concepts. ThousandEyes is a good product. However, the major flaw for ThousandEyes is the way they are calculating and giving the costing to the customer. The way the units consumption pricing is structured is not that great. That is the biggest flaw, and that is where people are not adopting it. The success rate of ThousandEyes when going with a digital monitoring concept is that it will address from endpoint to the application level and cover all domains. However, the way you are structuring your pricing with respect to the consumption of the units is a major issue. The pricing structure is not good in ThousandEyes. Apart from this, it is a good product. It can identify the issues related to an endpoint, if it is a remote user, if it is an internet issue, or if it is an application issue. The HTTP response time and latencies, everything it is giving. However, when a customer is trying to adopt it, the pricing structure is not good.

I have been using the solution for one and a half to two years.

Performance is addressed in a different way. Suppose I have a user in a branch in Europe, or if I have a branch in Australia or if I have a branch in India, they are sending to the nearest PoP, SSE PoP. You can form a tunnel from your branch. In that case, the connectivity reaching out to Cisco Secure Access PoP is being addressed. They are having redundancy also because it will have two tunnels. If this tunnel fails, still you can reach out to Cisco Secure Access cloud.

There are no scalability issues because SASE is scalable.

Cisco TAC support is better compared to any OEM. That is what I feel. However, what happens with the TAC engineers is once their shift timing ends, they will just exit the call. Again, we need to explain to the other engineer. Even they will not refer much to the notes captured by the previous TAC engineer, and we are starting again. When their shift is done, they close the call. That is not proper support.

There are some customers who are using VPN still and maybe they are very slow in terms of technology adoption. The flaw of VPN, everyone knows now, and everyone is realizing the flaw because the moment I just enter into the network, I can go and have a lateral movement across the complete IT infrastructure. It is giving the whole access of the particular network. Whereas ZTNA will predominantly give you access as per your role, allowing you to access only that particular subnet or particular URL or particular application. In that way, you are segregating and you are not allowing certain lateral movement. That means they cannot enter into your holistic complete network. That is the basic difference and the basic flaw, and people are realizing it, but few people are not adopting ZTNA in terms of technology.

The setup is an eight out of ten.

We work with Palo Alto and we work with Zscaler, the same kind of thing. Zscaler is the one that started the proxies, the cloud proxies. We are very much aligned with Cisco.

We have done one major project with almost 350 outlets of one of the customers. It is fine.

I am not sure about Cisco Secure Access setup costs as I did not feel any issues. ThousandEyes I can address, but for Cisco SSE, I think the licensing structure is fine and easy to set up, quick, and documentation is good. Everything is fine.

I prefer Zscaler is good. After Zscaler, Cisco is good.

Ask for references and friends feedback. We work with Palo Alto and we work with Zscaler. Zscaler started the proxies, the cloud proxies. We are very much aligned with Cisco. It's a good product, but the major flaw is the way they are calculating and giving the costing to the customer. The units consumption pricing is not that great. My overall review rating for this product is an eight out of ten.

The product also optimizes firewall capabilities for geographically distributed operators and enhances proxy-based architectures with Secure Web Gateways and CASB for cloud or SaaS applications. By integrating with identity providers like Azure Entra ID or Okta, Cisco Secure Access facilitates the transition from VPN to ZTNA while ensuring compliance with principles like least privilege access.

Additionally, it incorporates identity and device risk scores for dynamic access policies to respond to varying risk thresholds. The service is particularly useful for managing old VPN infrastructure replacements, firewall optimizations, and bridging the gaps between old and new secure access technologies.

The product also addresses unique geographical challenges, such as ensuring secure internet access for oil rigs in remote locations. Furthermore, Cisco Secure Access's multi-tenancy and Policy Verification features are crucial for managing multi-organization environments and ensuring policy accuracy, respectively.

Hybrid Private Access is particularly useful in regions where replacing existing gear isn't feasible due to cost concerns. Lastly, the product's AI-driven features like AI Access and AI Assistant ease policy management and triage, reducing the time and efforts needed in these processes.

The integration with identity providers facilitates this transition and aligns with Zero Trust Network Access principles. The platform offers capabilities like Secure Web Gateways, Firewall-as-a-Service, and CASB for enhanced cloud-based functionality. Its Policy Verification runs checks to prevent policy misconfigurations, a necessary feature for managing multi-organization environments.

Moreover, the product's AI-driven capabilities streamline policy management and triage, enhancing operational efficiency. Hybrid Private Access and multi-tenancy capabilities make it resource-efficient and particularly useful for unique geographical challenges. The product is scalable, adjusting to new requirements easily, and is backed by robust technical support.

Furthermore, while the AI capabilities of Cisco Secure Access are useful, they are not seen as major differentiators compared to competitors such as Palo Alto.

Additionally, though the existing threat intelligence is sufficient for most use cases, extending the integration scope with other tools, especially concerning AI supply chain risk management, could enhance its functionality.

Regarding the multi-organization management capability, it is akin to multi-tenancy, helpful for service provider infrastructures with multiple clients or single customers with diverse business units. It brings intuitive infrastructure management without providing unique features compared to competitors.

AI supply chain risk management, while theoretically beneficial, may not give an edge unless thorough integrations with additional tools are pursued. Furthermore, the choice of not implementing low-cost workflows was based on a need for higher security enhancements.

I would rate this review overall at a seven out of ten.

Cisco Secure Access provides application-level access. Usually, it's full network access, but with this tool, application-level access can be given. It removes the dependency of VPN, and then user authentications are continuously based on identity, device, and risk, which is an add-on there.

The Zero Trust Network Access feature is being used.

The integration of CASB functionality for exposing shadow IT within the company is smooth. Technical skill and knowledge are needed to evaluate, analyze, and deep dive on those things. From the tool's response, it is very good, and there is visibility on everything that is needed or necessary.

The integration of Cisco Talos influences threat detection and response capabilities. The integration of Cisco Talos is similar to every Cisco Umbrella, and the experience has been smooth. The knowledge, their KB, and FAQs are very good, and their support is very good. When in trouble, readily available documents or information are accessible.

I support the US government. From a customer perspective, the use cases tend to be where we are guarding edge devices that we don't have necessarily 100% positive command and control. The devices have data transport that traverses in some cases ISPs, so we can't really control who's adjacent to those networks. We often deploy in those types of environments. Where we can use dark fiber, we prefer to, but that's not always an option.

I'm probably pretty agnostic with respect to that. We have a federal mandate to reach these next-generation firewall requirements. Stateful packet inspection and things of that nature are the things that we're interested in. We have some programs adjacent to us that definitely do that, but my programs don't require that.

We get a significant discount with Cisco, and their support is definitely top-rate.

Cisco does a decent job with logging. Sometimes you may need to tweak a few settings, but with their more recent products that support Python and Java among others, you now have more programmatic control in the latest versions of IOS.

If the FTD devices themselves, the Firepower Threat Detection system, those are the firewalls themselves, the individual appliances, weren't so tightly coupled to FMC, I'd probably appreciate them as a product more. The learning curve was a little higher just because it's a large departure from their original ASA devices. If they could be managed individually as easily as they can be managed through FMC, I'd probably be a bigger fan.

I have used Cisco products for decades at this point. With respect to ASAs and FTDs, FTDs are fairly new, but I have used ASAs for the better part of a decade.

It is definitely top-rate. In fact, I know that my particular group didn't even have a service agreement in place for the better part of a year and those guys were still very responsive to emails and communications.

We've been using them so long, it's hard to remember being a newbie, but I don't find their products particularly hard to set up. They have great documentation.

In our deployments, all of our web-based access to any of those devices is actually cut off. We do everything through a secure socket. The only situation where we are compelled to use a web interface is for the FMC, specifically for configuration; however, our management is primarily conducted at the console level whenever possible.

We don't find them hard to manage, especially as a group. The bigger challenge was managing them outside of their FMC product. They prefer to be federated to some extent, and they really weren't designed to be individually managed. They prefer to be managed from a central location. But if you have an environment that lends itself to central management, for the most part, it's not an issue.

We acquire through an organization, and we are the ones that implement.

Price-wise, we get a significant discount with Cisco. I actually prefer Juniper products. From a professional perspective, I prefer Palo Alto and Juniper probably more than I do anybody else. But I can't make the argument when we get 50% and 60% discounts, which we don't get from Juniper or Palo Alto.

Because we operate with what could only be called a skeleton crew, a monitoring solution to the extent possible is dependent heavily on logging, which these applications allow. We do a heavy amount of logging and we do a great deal of log parsing through ELK stack and SolarWinds and Splunk. Any tool that provides telemetry through logging is a particularly good fit for us because we have to really automate our monitoring. We don't have the manpower to sit there and look at multiple applications and things on a regular basis. It all has to come to a central location and has to be pretty automated, red light, green light type stuff.

If you have the budget, make sure to get a solid understanding of what's out there. There might be some other products that you might prefer, but if your budget is constrained, you can make it work with Cisco products for sure.

I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.

Managing Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud management console will not be difficult if you experience it once. This means once you have hands-on experience, you know how to operate it. In the first time, you might have a challenge because you need to understand the system. However, once you understand it, it will not be difficult anymore.

I find the zero trust approach helpful and beneficial in securing standard applications, which means you are accessing the applications directly instead of giving privilege to access the network itself. This is very beneficial in the context of security and is very effective.

Regarding the threat detection and response capabilities, because it's integrated in the cloud, users don't have to configure it to integrate with Talos. The feed that it has is already there, detecting malware and blocking it by itself from the Cisco Secure Access. The Intel is there, and we do not need to manually integrate with Talos.

My personal thinking about Cisco Secure Access is that because I'm also catching up on this solutioning, I'm not really seeing any improvement because I'm still learning. So far, it's good; I do not have any comment on this.

Regarding features about the UI, the pricing, and the learning curve of Cisco Secure Access that can be improved, the AI is already embedded in the solution. Because I haven't explored much and am not an expert, the features might be there, but I haven't tested them out.

When it comes to thoughts on the pricing, setup cost, and licensing cost of Cisco Secure Access, I cannot comment as I only did SSE for Cisco and did not have experience with other products. In terms of price comparisons, I cannot provide much insight.

The more competitive the pricing for Cisco Secure Access becomes, the better it would be for customers.

Throughout my experience with Cisco Secure Access, I have had some stability and reliability issues, including lagging when accessing the portal. Sometimes the response is fast, and sometimes it's slow, with response information that can be either correct or wrong. However, I consider these minor issues because they recover in a few minutes afterwards, though there are still glitches present.

In evaluating my experience with the technical support and customer service of Cisco Secure Access, during the POC, we did not leverage tech support at that particular moment; instead, we engaged directly with the SE team, the Cisco System Engineer teams.

Regarding the experience with the initial setup of Cisco Secure Access, it is important to communicate with the customers on the requirements, so they understand and prepare whatever we need to set up the POC. We need to communicate effectively with them and let them know what we need. Once our requirement is fulfilled, we can proceed. The key point is that communication with the customer must be maintained.

Once we have all of the requirements, the setup of the product itself is not that difficult. The first time requires understanding many things, but after the deployment and gaining experience, it becomes quite straightforward.

I give Cisco Secure Access a seven because I did study other products as well. While I haven't deployed any other SSE product, I went for the training. The way of deploying and the solution is quite seamless, but that's my current assessment without hands-on experience with the other products.

As a partner with Cisco, this relationship is more related to the partners agreements, which is why we are selling Cisco Secure Access.

My impressions of Cisco Secure Access on protecting organizations from threats such as phishing or ransomware attacks are based on my recent POC. There aren't many use cases I have shown to the customer, but I can confirm that the solution is effective.

I would evaluate my experience with the Cisco team as an eight on a scale of one to 10, where 10 is the best.

My advice for other users who would like to start working with Cisco Secure Access is to find a good service integrator. As I come from the service integrator background, my advice to end users is to collaborate with a reliable SI that has the expected expertise on the solutions they are going to purchase and enroll.

The overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is 7 out of 10.

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is remote access.

As an aerospace company, security is highly important for us, and we have various security schemas across the company. We try not to treat everybody as the highest schema, so Cisco Secure Access gives us the ability to detect and put users where they need to go and not just shove everybody into the whole secure area.

I find the posture checking feature of Cisco Secure Access the most valuable, and I also appreciate the ability to tag clients to place them into the right segment.

We're just getting started with Zero Trust Network Access, and we have a long way to go in that aspect. We haven't expanded any usage; more of the posture and things we've done more with technology.

They've protected us from threats like phishing and ransomware.

The only improvement I see for Cisco Secure Access is the way that we're using it; we're not fully integrating it into our client consoles, which affects the user experience. That's more of an internal issue than a Cisco issue.

I struggle with the integration of CASB functionality for exposing Shadow IT within our organization. As a company of engineers, they tend to do smart things and just go around you, so it's always a challenge for us.

Regarding the integration with Cisco Talos, it's something that we're not utilizing as best as we can. We should leverage Talos more.

From a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included. The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for seven years.

Cisco Secure Access has been pretty stable. I can't really speak to downtime or performance issues much; I know we've had a few. I don't have the details to say whether it was a Cisco problem or an internal issue.

The way that we're using Cisco Secure Access today, it doesn't scale with the growing needs of our organization, however, if we leveraged more of the cloud services, it would fit better.

I don't really get involved with customer service and technical support. From a cloud team perspective, I'm aware of generally how we approach it. On a scale of one to ten, I would give customer service and technical support an eight.

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Access, I have used another solution.

I wasn't involved in the deployment of Cisco Secure Access. That said, I'm not aware of major issues.

I don't see ROI with Cisco Secure Access right now; it's more of an internal issue. We have too many access platforms, and we need to consolidate. If we could solidify our access platform and eliminate non-duplication, the ROI would look much better than it does right now. That's our problem, not a Cisco issue.

I don't get involved in pricing scenarios; however, from a licensing perspective, Cisco can improve. It gets very complicated about what's included and what's not included.

We're definitely looking at more SaaS-based solutions such as Zscaler and Palo Alto before selecting Cisco Secure Access, dabbling in them yet never fully committing.

We did not purchase the solution via AWS Marketplace.

We consider a change since we're trying to achieve a user experience that's lighter weight.

I'm not an administrator, so I can't really speak to the ease or difficulty of managing Cisco Secure Access through a single cloud-managed console.

I would advise other potential customers or organizations considering Cisco Secure Access to take a closer look. They've added some features in the last year or so that have advanced significantly. They've caught up from the market where other people were ahead of them. I rate Cisco Secure Access seven out of ten.

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access are security and managing access.

Zero Trust Network Access has helped my organization in securing standard applications because it's mandated to have it. It provides peace of mind knowing that we have that deployed in our network.

Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally, QUIC protocol is good. It complies with the new standards.

The impact of Cisco Secure Access on protecting my organization from phishing and ransomware threats has been good so far. We've been doing well with no threats.

The features of Cisco Secure Access that I most prefer are easy management or manageability, and overall security. Cisco Secure Access has benefited my organization by allowing people to connect 24/7, ensuring reliability. Managing Cisco Secure Access through its single cloud-managed console is easy.

Cisco Secure Access can be improved with more integration; the more integrations, the better. There are always third-party products that you might have, such as Carbon Black.

I've been using Cisco Secure Access for a few years now. They changed the name, though I'm not certain when the name change occurred. I would estimate at least a few years of usage.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access as overall good. I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of my organization. It adapts each year as more people and devices are getting connected. The process of increasing usage is smooth.

I would rate them an eight out of ten because it's always hard to get very good resources immediately. It always takes escalations to get someone who really knows how to help out. I feel good about the customer service.

We switched from Palo Alto.

I was not a part of the deployment.

We have seen ROI with Cisco Secure Access. We had to switch from a different product, and there was a significant cost reduction. We're able to get many of the licenses down compared to the previous product that we used. We had many more licenses before moving to Cisco Secure Access.

For what you get, it's a fair price in comparison to other products.

We are, in general, a Cisco shop. We went for it because it integrates with the rest of the Cisco products that we have. We didn't consider other solutions.

My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Access is that they should definitely give it a try. It's overall a good product. If you have other Cisco products, it integrates efficiently, and if you need any visibility or easy manageability, it's a very good product.

Cisco Secure Access overall is a great product. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access include everything, such as all of our switching and wireless.

I mostly work on the level one switching side. I deal with all the Catalyst 9300 switches and 9280 wireless routers.

It's pretty streamlined. Everything you need to find is in the GUI interface, and if you have any trouble, it's easy to navigate and get around.

Cisco Secure Access has had a positive impact on protecting our organization from threats such as phishing and ransomware. It provides security and adds additional layers.

I perceive Cisco Secure Access's ability to provide secure access via standard HTTP2, and optionally QUIC protocol, as great and secure.

The licensing is confusing.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for only a year since joining the company last year. However, the company has been using it for almost ten years.

We have not had any downtime.

Cisco Secure Access scales with the growing needs of my organization. It works effectively for our needs.

I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten. They are quick to respond and generally quick to find a resolution and figure out what's wrong.

I have not used another solution to address similar needs in another role.

It was already in place when I got here.

It is confusing. When you look at the prices, you have different licensing and years of licensing that you have to purchase. Additionally, it's unclear what service you get from those licenses regarding end-user support. We have a representative who has to walk me through it every time.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Access is to implement it as it's pretty straightforward.

I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine out of ten.