Most Helpful Review
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
The ease of use. It's pretty easy to use and navigate the UI... to either block or whitelist a web address.
The most valuable features are Advanced Malware Protection, URL filtering, and of course Reputation Filtering.
Anti-Spam and Advanced Malware Protection are the most valuable features... and we also have the option to block Zero-day attacks.
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...
We like the in-built features, like the email filtering based on the IP and domain. Cisco has its own blacklisted domains and IPs, which is very good. This filters around 70 percent of emails from spam, and we are seeing fewer false positives with this.
The most valuable feature is the different content filters we are using, such as DKIM.
It has the IMS engine, Intelligent Multi-Scan engine, and it does a good job, right out-of-the-box, of blocking the vast majority of things that should be blocked.
There were detailed logs available. That was a seriously good feature... It turns out these were actually spoof emails that came into our environment. I got to know about them from the log system.
Users were able to do a check by themselves on quarantined emails. They could check if a valid email had been stopped, if it matched up with the SPF certification.
Our problem is that it's a virtual appliance and we're moving to a new platform and, for whatever reason, we can't move it as it is... When we were migrating our virtual machines from the old to the new system, we determined rather quickly that it wouldn't migrate over.
The reporting functionality needs to be improved.
The configuration UI should be made more intuitive. Currently, it takes a while to understand how to do the basic configurations.
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.
The solution needs to improve its advanced phishing filters. It is very good at filtering things which have bad reputations. However, when phishing or malicious emails are new or coming from a legitimate source, we don't feel that the solution is working.
We would like to see more options for the customization of content filters.
It would be nice to have an easier way to check on the health of the system, how stressed these appliances are. Sure, you can do it, but it would be helpful to have an easier way to do it, maybe even at a glance.
They could improve the filters. In my time at the company, there were several times we had to contact support to update the filters.
One of the things that Cisco could improve on with IronPort is the support. Cisco doesn't really have enough engineers who have full, hands-on knowledge of IronPort. Knowledge of it is not something you can find easily compared to other security appliances.
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
It is not that costly. We pay for the solution through a contractor and pay an annual fee.
We were using Proofpoint and then we switched to Cisco... reportability was one of the main reasons we switched, but the biggest one was cost. If you can get an equivalent functionality for a better price it's wise to do so. That's what our primary decision came down to: We could get equivalent functionality at a lower price point.
There were no other costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.
The license was not per user, the license model was per feature. You could choose anti-virus, anti-spam, etc. It was feature-based and charged yearly.
Licensing costs depend on how many users there are. It could range between $5 and $7 per month, per user.
Pricing depends on your environment and which model you want to buy.
In addition to the standard licensing, there is a cost for SMARTnet as well.
We do annual licensing for ESA and SMA together, and possibly SmartNet support. Packaged together, the cost is just under $38,000.
out of 10 in Web Content Filtering
Average Words per Review
out of 45 in Messaging Security
Average Words per Review
Compared 49% of the time.
Compared 29% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Also Known As
|Barracuda Web Filter||IronPort, Cisco Email Security|
The Barracuda Web Security Gateway lets organizations benefit from online applications and tools without exposure to web-borne malware and viruses, lost user productivity, and misused bandwidth. As a comprehensive solution for web security and management, it unites award-winning spyware, malware, and virus protection with a powerful policy and reporting engine. Advanced features ensure that organizations adapt to emerging requirements like social-network regulation, remote filtering, and visibility into SSL-encrypted traffic.
Customers of all sizes face the same daunting challenge: email is simultaneously the most important business communication tool and the leading attack vector for security breaches. Cisco Email Security enables users to communicate securely and helps organizations combat Business Email Compromise (BEC), ransomware, advanced malware, phishing, spam, and data loss with a multilayered approach to security.
Learn more about Barracuda Web Security Gateway
Learn more about Cisco Email Security (ESA)
|Citizen Farmers Finance, Osoyoos Credit Union, Supreme Services, Camden County Technical Schools, Frederick County Schools, Pine Belt Mental Healthcare, Paulsboro Public Schools, Dysart Unified School District, St. Michael's Grammar School, Southfield Schools District, Total Threat Protection - Wade Ford, Alain Pinel Realtors, Southfield Public Schools, Major League Baseball (MLB)||SUNY Old Westbury, CoxHealth, City of Fullerton, Indra|
No Data Available
Comms Service Provider22%
Software R&D Company16%
No Data Available