Most Helpful Review
Researched McAfee Network Security Platform but chose Cisco Sourcefire SNORT: A straightforward setup, and flexible enough to activate based on any rule that I want
Researched Cisco Sourcefire SNORT but chose McAfee Network Security Platform: Attack analysis shows who tries to exploit my vulnerabilities
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs. McAfee Network Security Platform and other solutions. Updated: September 2020.
437,064 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
It has reduced the time it takes to respond to attacks. That comes back to the proactive point. It makes us able to lower down in the kill chain, we can react now, rather than reacting to incidents that happened, we can see an instant, in some cases, as it's being implemented, or as it's being launched.
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 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.
The dashboard gives me a scoring system that allows me to prioritize things that I should look at. I may not necessarily care so much about one event, whereas if I have a single botnet detection or a brute force attack, I really want to get on top of those.
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'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.
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 is rather easy to use.
It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions.
The URL filtering is very good and you can create a group for customized URLs.
The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that.
In general, the features are all great. However, if I need to take hardware for ASA, because they need to upgrade to Firepower, we want to create rules. For that, most of the time we go to the command line. Right now Firepower is working really hard on the grid. You can apply all those rules to the grid. Even if you want to monitor the logs, for example, the activity will tell you which particular user has been blocked because of that rule. Firepower's monitoring interface is very good, because you can see each and every piece. ASA also had it, but there you needed to type the command and be under the server to see all that stuff. In Firepower you have the possibility to go directly to the firewall. The way the monitoring is displayed is also very nice. The feature I appreciate most in Firepower is actually the grid. The grid has worked very well.
I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering.
The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering.
The solution can be integrated with some network electors like Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco ISE, and Active Directory to provide the client with authentication certificates.
Overall the solution is very good. It offers great protection and gives us a good overview of what is on the network.
Great monitoring feature.
The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features.
The most valuable features are the customization of the signature and the unlimited amount of signatures in IPS.
The ability to centrally manage all the IPS sensors, track the different security events generated by it, and customize the different policies, depending on their location.
The false positives and the tuning side of it is something that could use improvement. But that could be from our side.
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.
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.
I'd like to be able to get granular reports and to be able to output them into formats that are customizable and more useful. The reporting GUI is lacking.
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.
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.
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.
While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive.
Performance needs improvement.
There are problems setting up VPNs for some regions.
We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco.
To be frank, the product is not really stable, although they're working on that. Whenever I go to the technical community with an issue, they will usually say that it is not there yet, but the technical team are working on it. The issues are not insolvable. I think they should just keep working on the product to make sure that the product can become very stable. The technical support is great. I appreciate that. We have a lot of communities supporting Firepower now, so you can find help for whatever issue you have.
I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time.
If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy.
With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features.
The management console needs to be less complex and easier to navigate.
The management component could be simplified.
Integration with Global Thereat Intelligence could be better. Also, I think management solutions are end of life now at McAfee. Network threat analyzer may be used for endpoint quarantines. Integration between these sides, as well as endpoint APO, will help you quarantine the risky endpoints.
The solution needs to improve the graphical interface. And they had a limitation in some of the sensor modems as well.
The Network Security Managers could be more stable, agile, and work faster. When it comes to instability, there is room for improvement.
Pricing and Cost Advice
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 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 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.
I don't know the exact amount, but most of the time when I go to a company with a proposition, they will say, "This thing that you are selling is good, but it's expensive. Why don't you propose something like FortiGate, Check Point, or Palo Alto?" Cisco device are expensive compared to other devices.
Licensing for this solution is paid on a yearly basis.
We have a three-year license for this solution.
Information Not Available
Questions from the Community
Question: I'm building a next-gen AI powered threat intelligence platform. What's missing from existing solutions?
Top Answer: I that feel there are two old problems still there in the market: 1-Vendors don't talk to each other. 2-Whoever is focusing on endpoint is missing the network and human side and the opposite is also… more »
Top Answer: The two platforms take a fundamentally different approach to NDR. Corelight is limited to use cases that require the eventual forwarding of events and parsed data logs to a security team’s SIEM or… more »
Top Answer: It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar… more »
Top Answer: Licensing for this solution is paid on a yearly basis.
Top Answer: Performance needs improvement. If you compare Cisco Sourcefire with other products, it performs at the same level of compliance. For Cisco Sourcefire, it's not really horrible and it's not really the… more »
Top Answer: The feature I found most valuable is the network threat analyzer in the security platform. It also integrates with GTI, or Global Threat Intelligence. Otherwise, I just use the basic features.
Top Answer: Integration with Global Thereat Intelligence could be better. Also, I think management solutions are end of life now at McAfee. Network threat analyzer may be used for endpoint quarantines… more »
Top Answer: I look at the attack analysis, which shows me which attackers try to exploit my vulnerabilities. I can check the ticket to see if it's blocked or whether it's a false positive. Whatever the case, if… more »
Compared 36% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Also Known As
|Vectra Networks, Vectra AI NDR||Sourcefire SNORT||McAfee NSP, IntruShield Network Intrusion Prevention System, IntruShield Network IPS|
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.
Snort is an open-source, rule-based, intrusion detection and prevention system. It combines the benefits of signature-, protocol-, and anomaly-based inspection methods to deliver flexible protection from malware attacks. Snort gained notoriety for being able to accurately detect threats at high speeds.
McAfee Network Security Platform is a uniquely intelligent security solution that discovers and blocks sophisticated threats in the network. Using advanced detection and emulation techniques, it moves beyond mere pattern matching to defend against stealthy attacks with a high degree of accuracy. This next-generation hardware platform scales to speeds of more than 40 Gbps with a single device to meet the needs of demanding networks. Our Unified Defense Architecture approach to security management streamlines security operations by combining real-time McAfee Global Threat Intelligence feeds with rich contextual data about users, devices, and applications for fast, accurate response to network-borne attacks.
Learn more about Vectra AI
Learn more about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT
Learn more about McAfee Network Security Platform
|Tribune Media Group, Barry University, Aruba Networks, Good Technology, Riverbed, Santa Clara University, Securities Exchange, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association||CareCore, City of Biel, Dimension Data, LightEdge, Lone Star College System, National Rugby League, Port Aventura, Smart City Networks, Telecom Italia, The Department of Education in Western Australia||Desjardins Group, HollyFrontier, Nubia, Agbar, WNS Global Services, INAIL, Universidad de Las Américas Puebla (UDLAP), Cook County, China Pacific Insurance, Bank Central Asia, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, City of Chicago, Macquarie Telecom, Sutherland Global Services, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, United Automotive Electronic Systems|
Mining And Metals Company22%
Financial Services Firm11%
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider23%
Computer Software Company27%
Comms Service Provider23%
Marketing Services Firm5%
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider23%
No Data Available
See our list of best Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software vendors.