What is our primary use case?
We use it to secure our email system, to cut down on all the bad emails that we would otherwise receive.
The reason for implementing the product was the huge increase in spam and junk mail which occurred when we were adopting these devices. There have been some changes in the way that email is delivered since then, and one or two of the major spam sources have been taken down or prosecuted or jailed. Today, we have less blanket-spam, but we have more targeted phishing emails or spear phishing.
The combination of emails with links that encourage users to give away their user login information can cause problems. When someone's account is compromised it can result in access to our global address list and access to emails that the compromised user may have sent. Therefore, they have details of the format and the style emails that our company uses. We have communication threads that they can take advantage of because they can inject their fake emails into an existing communication thread and try to fool a supplier or client into giving more information or, worst-case, giving money to the wrong person.
How has it helped my organization?
When we first had Cisco hardware, we were having significant problems in that we were getting something like 10,000 emails per device per hour. We have four devices, so if we calculate that up it was like 1,000,000 emails a day, and most of those, about 99 percent, were junk mail or spam.
We had a major problem with email, and introducing Cisco ESA systems was a set change for us. It reduced the number of unwanted emails by a huge factor. That has continued to be the case, from when we first got the devices, until today.
Previously, we had other email security appliances, and they were overwhelmed by the volume of email that we are receiving as a company. The introduction of the ESA systems had two effects for us:
- They significantly reduced the number of emails that were even considered for delivery or for being accepted into our company for internal routing.
- It gave us another line of defense. We use the ESA systems as our first line of defense which we then follow up by another manufacturer's email security appliance, which gives us a second level. Subsequent to that, we've adopted another layer of email security. So we now run three layers.
What is most valuable?
Initially, the most valuable feature for us was the SenderBase Reputation, because that reduced the number of emails that were even considered by the system by a huge number, before we ended up processing them to get through the spam, the marketing, and the virus-attached emails.
Since then, customized filtering has been very effective and useful for us.
In addition, Cisco has developed the product with its Talos product. They've developed the ESA systems so that instead of just specifically stopping known spam sources and using that to stop virus-infected emails, the Talos solution which they're now providing has a lot of attraction because it helps to prevent phishing emails.
Things such as Sender Domain Reputation, which is a relatively new feature, are attractive because when there's a pop-up domain, which might be a look-alike of your own company domain, or it might be a look-alike for some other company like Microsoft, it gets a bad reputation, and the ESA systems will reduce the possibility of these emails delivering to the recipient's desktop.
What needs improvement?
We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The system is very stable. We have had very little downtime and the system is, in general, reliable.
We have occasionally had hardware problems because we are using an appliance-based solution, but that might change. We may consider going to virtual systems. In general, we have had a good experience with this product. The hardware, given occasional failures, has been very reliable. There is an upgrade process for keeping the system running with the most current, recommended version of AsyncOS. We have had very few problems where an upgrade has gone wrong. We've been very pleased with the solution.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability is good because when you have appliances such as we have, if you have the infrastructure and the available resources, you can install additional virtual appliances. From the point of view of scalability, if there were a problem with performance, it is possible to add other systems or devices, even though they are virtual, and they all fall under the same control interface. They are all a part of the same cluster so they are all relatively easy to manage.
We currently have 11,000 employees and a large number of those users hold email accounts and email addresses.
We have a 24-hour operation because our company is located in 62 countries, so we have to respond relatively quickly because email is important. We have a department that deals with IT security and likely, at a minimum, we would have six people who have the capability to work on these systems. But in reality, because the systems are very stable, we have three or four people who regularly work on them. All the people who maintain the system are currently in the same department as me and all of them are considered IT security officers. They deal with other systems as well as the email.
How are customer service and technical support?
Cisco's technical support is, perhaps, taking a different approach to the way that IronPort managed systems. Cisco tends to try and answer questions or problems by email more, initially, rather than talking to someone on the telephone. Sometimes that's not quite as good as IronPort was.
But, in general, Cisco is good in that when we have a question they will respond quickly. But equally, because we've had these systems for several years, there is a good pool of experience in our security team so that we don't regularly have to ask questions of Cisco support.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We switched to using IronPort because it gives us a second line of defense from spam, phishing, and all the other problem emails. One of the reasons was that there was a major spike in the number of spam and junk emails that people were sending from when we first got these systems.
The other system that we had was suffering from performance problems because it was being overwhelmed by the volume of emails that were being delivered to Fugro. The other product was still a good product, but it didn't have the performance to handle the volume of email. With the IronPort system being used as a first line of defense, it probably would have done everything that our previous system did, and we could have just removed it from our email processing.
However, we wanted to retain the old system because it had some nice features to do with additional email filtering. Having IronPort as a first line of defense was really good, and then, it was possible to do special filtering and other email reaping on this other system. The other system could then perform at a good level because it was not being overwhelmed by the huge volume of spam, junk, etc.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup was very straight forward. Having said that, we had a lot of experience in email systems before we set up these devices. But to get the most out of the functionality of the devices it took us some time to implement custom email filters. These were detecting targeted phishing email, although they weren't called that back in the days when we first got this type of hardware.
This was in the days before it was common to have virtualized systems. The systems we had at the time were probably the type that might have been considered by a small ISP. At the time it might have been Cisco ESA 310 or 320 systems. It was a long time ago. We have had those systems on contract since then. We've regularly upgraded the systems when the contract has been renewed.
We've had the systems configured in a cluster where the cluster spans more than one email gateway. Email gateways are located in different countries, so although we have different places where the email can be delivered to Fugro and from where Fugro sends email, the systems are all managed from the same interface and console, even though the systems are in different countries.
What about the implementation team?
Because we had the systems before Cisco bought IronPort, we used some assistance from the then-IronPort company for the initial set up. But our own personnel were involved in training courses, so most of the configuration was done by Fugro people.
The IronPort consultants were very good. Because the company was keen for business, they were keen to assist us. At the time, we were, perhaps, one of the more unusual cases because of the quantity of junk, spam, and other types of emails that were being sent to Fugro recipients. IronPort, at that time, was very responsive, very helpful, easy to deal with and, usually, very knowledgeable about the product.
What was our ROI?
It would be fair to say we have seen return on investment using this solution, but I'm not the person who spends the money or places the orders so I do not have detailed information on it.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We did evaluate other options, but it was a long time ago so I'm not sure I can remember which other options we considered.
What other advice do I have?
Having a good understanding of the product helps in the implementation process, so do some upfront training before you adopt the product. Be closely involved with Cisco support or the Cisco implementation team which will help to make sure that configuration is well adjusted and suited to your company.
I've used the product for more than ten years. Prior to that, it was IronPort. Cisco bought IronPort. We were using the IronPort products before Cisco bought them. We're currently using AsyncOS version 12.
We've used this product for so long, and we've been very happy with it, that we do not have a direct comparison against other products that are available today. That said, and accepting the fact that email security systems are not cheap, this product is still a front-runner and, combined with the new things that Cisco is doing, it has a lot of scope and capability. I would suggest this product would be about a nine, if ten is the best.