Anonymous UserSystem Administrator at a tech services company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"One of the key advantages for us is we define a 24/7 service around it. We use far more of Vectra alerts than we do with our SIEM product because we understand that when we get an alert from Vectra we actually need to do something about it."
"It is doing some artificial intelligence. If it sees a server doing a lot of things, then it will assume that is normal. So, it is looking for anomalous behavior, things that are out of context which helps us reduce time. Therefore, we don't have to look in all the logs. We just wait for Vectra to say, "This one is behaving strange," then we can investigate that part."
"One of the most valuable features of the platform is its ability to provide you with aggregated risk scores based on impact and certainty of threats being detected. This is both applied to individual and host detections. This is important because it enables us to use this platform to prioritize the most likely imminent threats. So, it reduces alert fatigue follow ups for security operation center analysts. It also provides us with an ability to prioritize limited resources."
"The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day."
"It gives you access, with Recall, to instant visibility into your network through something like a SIEM solution. For us, being able to correlate all of this network data without having to manage it, has provided immediate value. It gives us the ability to really work on the stuff where I and my team have expertise, instead of having to manage a SIEM solution..."
"The solution provide visibility into behaviors across the full lifecycle of an attack in our network, beyond just the Internet gateway. It makes our security operations much more effective because we are now looking not just at traffic on the border, but we're looking at east-west internal traffic. Now, not only will we see if an exploit kit is being downloaded, but we would be able to see then if that exploit kit was then laterally distributed into our environment."
"Vectra produces actionable data using automation. That has helped us. It's less manpower now to look at incidents, which has definitely increased efficiency. Right now, in a lot of cases, our mean time to detection is within zero days. This tells me by the time something happened, and we were able to detect it, it was within the same day."
"One of the most valuable features is all the correlation that it does using AI and machine learning. An example would be alerting on a host and then alerting on other things, like abnormal behavior, that it has noticed coming from the same host. It's valuable because we're a very lean team."
"The solution's IPS functionality and firewall functionality are the solution's most valuable features."
"The reports are well written so that you can understand what type of attack has occurred, the originating IP address, and other details."
"The number of the IPS protections is amazing - after the latest update I see more than 11000 in the SmartConsole."
"IPS can protect our organization with any old vulnerabilities or if any vulnerability detected minutes ago IPS can protect us as per our configured policy."
"The most valuable feature is that it protects us against hundreds of different attack vectors, like ransomware. The protection is always being triggered. People try to access websites that are categorized as malware, so when the users do a DNS request for the IP of those malware websites, the IPS Blade replaces the real IP of the website that is malware with a bogus IP. The user gets an IP that doesn't exist and when he tries to access, it won't work."
"This is a very stable product."
"It protects against specific known exploits but also, with SandBlast integration, it is able to protect against unknown or zero-day attacks at the perimeter level."
"I can easily monitor all of our connected devices and I get instant notification of reconnections and new connections, which removes some of the monitoring burden."
"Ir's signature-based. We are also using the anomaly baseline formation, where it links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged. Those are the two most valuable features."
"The solution gives us a lot of visibility into our security."
"The features that I find most valuable are the DDoS protection, IPS/IDS, and Firepower for web application filtering."
"Good IPS and VirtualBox features."
"I think their fingerprints are good in terms of how they whitelist and blacklist."
"The main advantages to Cisco are the scale, the integration, the training, and the possibility of finding somebody to work with."
"In the virtual deployment, you have a couple of choices depending on your needs and how much bandwidth you have that needs to be inspected."
"I configured the system myself and the process was okay."
"The solution has not reduced the security analyst workload in our organization because we still need to SIEM. Unfortunately, while Vectra, for us, is a brilliant tool for network investigations, giving wonderful visibility, it doesn't go the whole way to replace our SIEM that is needed for compliance. So, I still have the same amount of alerting and logging that I did before. It gives us more defined ability to see incidents, but it doesn't give us enough information to satisfy a PCI or 27001 audit."
"We would like to see more information with the syslogs. The syslogs that they send to our SIEM are a bit short compared to what you can see. It would be helpful if they send us more data that we can incorporate into our SIEM, then can correlate with other events."
"You are always limited with visibility on the host due to the fact that it is a network based tool. It gives you visibility on certain elements of the attack path, but it doesn't necessarily give you visibility on everything. Specifically, the initial intrusion side of things that doesn't necessarily see the initial compromise. It doesn't see stuff that goes on the host, such as where scripts are run. Even though you are seeing traffic, it doesn't necessarily see the malicious payload. Therefore, it's very difficult for it to identify these type of host-driven complex attacks."
"One thing which I have found where there could be improvement is with regard to the architecture, a little bit: how the brains and sensors function. It needs more flexibility with regard to the brain. If there were some flexibility in that regard, that would be helpful, because changing the mode of the brain is complex. In some cases, the change is permanent. You cannot revert it."
"Some of the customization could be improved. Everything is provided for you as an easy solution to use, but working with it and doing specific development could be worked on a bit more in the scope of an incident response team."
"Some of their integrations with other sources of data, like external threat feeds, took a bit more work than I had hoped to get integrated."
"I would like to see a bit more strategic metrics instead of technical data. Information that I could show to my executive management team or board would be valuable."
"It does a little bit of packet capture on alert so you can look at the packet capture activity going on, but it doesn't collect a whole lot of data. Sometimes it's only one or two frames, sometimes it does collect more. That's why they have the addition of their Recall platform, because that really does help expand the capability."
"The solution needs enhanced reporting. The reporting on Cisco Stealthwatch and Darktrace is much bigger. The visibility that they grant for the filtering capabilities over large infrastructures are far superior."
"Occasionally there are glitches and errors like false positives, which would be a nice area of this solution to improve upon."
"In my opinion, the Check Point software engineers should works on the performance of the blade - when it is activated with the big number of the protections in place, the monitoring shows us the significant increase in the CPU utilization for the gateway appliances - up to 30 percents, even so we are cherry-picking only the profiles that we really needed."
"I observed on our management that sometimes IPS does not connect to the threat cloud, we have to check and improve it. Otherwise, all of the features are good."
"The only thing they could maybe improve is that we notice right away that the performance decreases when we enable the IPS, especially beyond the CPU and memory usage. If you want to enable the IPS and you have a lot of traffic, it can have an impact. The performance could be improved."
"We have a lot of false positives and the list of IPs are not up to date in terms of their location."
"There is a performance impact on the NGFW post-enabling the IPS blade/Module, which can even lead to downtime if IPS starts to monitor or block high-volume traffic."
"It is generally good, but improving the performance would be the one thing I'd take a look at right now."
"It has room for improvement when it comes to integrating machine learning and AI into it where even if you don't have a baseline that is of length for anomaly detection, it could do more like an AI style machine learning. It learns on its own."
"The solution requires better management. When it comes to central management capabilities, improvements can be made."
"Better integration with other products, such as a SIEM tool, would provide better peer visibility about your security posture."
"Should include additional security features."
"The only thing I think they may need to improve on a little bit is identifying software more correctly when you do network discovery."
"I think that some initiation scripts might be helpful because they would make the configuration easier and more user-friendly for customers."
"Cisco can do better on their documentation because the product is really hard to understand."
"The onboarding process could be made a little bit better."
"We are running at about 90,000 pounds per year. The solution is a licensed cost. The hardware that they gave us was pretty much next to nothing. It is the license that we're paying for."
"The license is based on the concurrent IP addresses that it's investigating. We have 9,800 to 10,000 IP addresses."
"There are additional features that can be purchased in addition to the standard licensing fee, such as Cognito Recall and Stream."
"We have a desire to increase our use. However, it all comes down to budget. It's a very expensive tool that is very difficult to prove business support for. We would like to have two separate networks. We have our corporate network and PCI network, which is segregated due to payment processing. We don't have it for deployed in the PCI network. It would be good to have it fully deployed there to provide us with additional monitoring and control, but the cost associated with their licensing model makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy."
"At the time of purchase, we found the pricing acceptable. We had an urgency to get something in place because we had a minor breach that occurred at the tail end of 2016 to the beginning of 2017. This indicated we had a lack of ability to detect things on the network. Hence, why we moved quickly to get into the tool in place. We found things like Bitcoin mining and botnets which we closed quickly. In that regard, it was worth the money."
"The pricing is very good. It's less expensive than many of the tools out there."
"The pricing is high."
"Their licensing model is antiquated. I'm not a fan of their licensing model. We have to pay for licensing based on four different things. You have to pay based on the number of unique IPs, the number of logs that we send through Recall and Stream, and the size of our environment. They need to simplify their licensing down to just one thing. It should be based on the amount of data, the number of devices, or something else, but there should be just one thing for everything. That's what they need to base their licensing on. Cost-wise, they're not cheap. They were definitely the most expensive option, but you get what you pay for. They're not the cheapest option."
"I think that the price of support is around $40,000 USD or $50,000 USD per year."
"The price of this product should be reduced."
"Enabling IPS does not require any additional license purchase from OEM, as it comes by default with the NGFW bundle."
"The pricing for Check Point IPS is competitive and brings good value for the money."
"The module has a considerable cost but you can save by purchasing a package with several modules instead of making a single purchase."
"Pricing depends on negotiation with the vendor, although I can say that it is moderate."
"The cost of the license depends on the level of support that you have with Cisco."
"This is an expensive product, with the biggest cost being the license that keeps the service going."
"There are licensing fees depending on the features that you are using."
"Cisco products are not cheap and this solution is no different."
"It is expensive. It has separate licensing for all the features, and every feature set seems to require another license. Licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs besides the standard licensing fee."
"The licensing can be billed annually or in multi-year contracts such as three, four, or five years."
"The pricing could be improved. Our customers have a yearly license."
Vectra® is the leader in network detection and response – from cloud and data center workloads to user and IoT devices. Its Cognito® platform accelerates threat detection and investigation using artificial intelligence to collect, store and enrich network metadata with the right context to detect, hunt and investigate known and unknown threats in real time. Vectra offers three applications on the Cognito platform to address high-priority use cases. Cognito Stream™ sends security-enriched metadata to data lakes and SIEMs. Cognito Recall™ is a cloud-based application to store and investigate threats in enriched metadata. And Cognito Detect™ uses AI to reveal and prioritize hidden and unknown attackers at speed.
Check Point IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) combines industry-leading IPS protection with breakthrough performance at a lower cost than traditional, stand-alone IPS software solutions. IPS delivers complete and proactive intrusion prevention – all with the deployment and management advantages of a unified and extensible Next Generation Firewall solution. Learn more about IPS Software.
Cisco Firepower NGIPS provides network visibility, threat intelligence, automation and industry leading threat effectiveness. Gartner has ranked Firepower NGIPS as a Magic Quadrant Leader for seven years running, and the independent NSS Labs testing organization consistently rates it as a “Recommended” IPS solution for eight years.
Check Point IPS is ranked 6th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 10 reviews while Cisco NGIPS is ranked 4th in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) with 18 reviews. Check Point IPS is rated 8.8, while Cisco NGIPS is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Check Point IPS writes "Protects us against hundreds of different attack vectors". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco NGIPS writes "The anomaly baseline formation links the network, then anything that goes away from the norm is also flagged". Check Point IPS is most compared with Darktrace, Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Cisco Sourcefire SNORT and McAfee Network Security Platform, whereas Cisco NGIPS is most compared with Trend Micro TippingPoint Threat Protection System, McAfee Network Security Platform, Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention, Cisco Stealthwatch and Darktrace. See our Check Point IPS vs. Cisco NGIPS report.
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) vendors.
We monitor all Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software (IDPS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.