Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway Reviews

We are the implementation partner for Forcepoint, and then we configure and integrate Forcepoint into the customer enrollment.

We personally use cloud Websecurity and cloud Email security of Forcepoint.

The initial setup is easy. It's not difficult. 

They have well-integrated web security. They have the enterprise DLP included in the cloud as well.

Technical support has been okay.

The Bitglass part, right now, we are trying to learn it, and then trying to acquire skillsets around it. 

For cloud web security, there are definitely areas where it requires improvement, Policy changes take 20 to 30 minutes for enforcement.

Granular control based on applications can be further enhanced.

I've been dealing with the solution for six or seven years and Websense for the last 15 years.

It is stable. That said, at times we do get complaints from customers. Some of the government and banking sites not being accessible via cloud proxy. At times it is required to bypass them or route it through different data centers. Though Forcepoint has no say in some websites restricting the access if they can out with a solution to detect and bypass or redirect the traffic through a working data center it will add further value. 

We are integrators. We are supporting from 1,000 systems to somewhere around a 10,000 to 20,000 user base.

We have used technical support in the past. There are two aspects. How quickly they respond is one aspect. Then, whatever the answer that they provide, is it of any use. In terms of the response, it varies. Sometimes they will be able to solve it, and then sometimes it may have to be internally taken up to the next level.

Neutral

The initial setup is very simple and not overly difficult. 

I cannot speak to the exact pricing of the solution.

We are integrators. While we typically do cloud deployments off-late, for on-premises, we have deployed Hybrid and on-premises Websecurity deployments.

I'd advise users, if they want to make use of it, to learn the technology and then the approach the product is trying to take. I'd advise users only proceed once they understand it. That way, they'll be in a good position to manage it. As with any technology, learn the basics and building blocks of it.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for internal monitoring of internet access as well as for controlling internet access.

It has got a really good URL categorization database. It is simple to set up. It is also easy to use and quite intuitive. It has got a nice utility for troubleshooting.

We are using a V10000 G3 appliance. It is just a proxy. It is just HTTP, FTP, and HTTPS. Now, as our website has developed and we are using rich time-connectivity protocols, the proxy doesn't have the ability to work with these protocols. It would be nice if the UDP feature was there for it to filter UDP traffic. It needs firewall capabilities for UDP filtering.

Its upgrades can be quite complex, and they don't always go as per the plan. Its reporting could be a bit more granular. 

I have used it for quite some time.

I am satisfied with its stability. We have got a good network infrastructure.

It is easy to scale. You can just add another box to scale it up. 

We are using it for about 3000 users, but it can take a lot more. You have to look at the box you choose and use it as you require.

I have interacted with them. Nine out of ten times, their support is really good. There are different packages you can buy for support. The one we have is really good. We usually get a response within four hours, and they are available seven days a week. They have been helpful, and they do point you in the right direction. If they don't have a solution, they will go back and solve it through another team member.

I can't remember, but I think we used Blue Coat. We switched because at the time, most of the technology modules were embedded into one appliance in Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway, which is how you can reduce the number of boxes you would have in your server, which is really good. In terms of cost also, it was working out better for us.

The initial setup was straightforward. The upgrades, however, are not straightforward, and they don't always go as per the plan. It also depends on your environment and the configuration. The advantage of going for a cloud solution is that you don't have the overhead of managing upgrades and downtime. The advantage of an on-premises solution is that you have more control, which is really nice. You have ownership, and you have the chance to develop your own solution, which is fantastic.

We got help from a third-party vendor.

I would not recommend the version that we have, that is, V10000 G3. I would recommend the later versions. 

Its implementation depends on your working environment. You might want to go for a hybrid version where it is partly on the cloud and partly on-premises. You also have to look at deploying agents on your systems. So, it just depends on how you are planning on working. Are you working from an office or are you going to be working remotely? That would dictate how you implement the solution. It is a fine product for what it does. Going forward, it would need firewall capabilities for UDP filtering.

I would rate Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway an eight out of ten. It needs UDP support and a bit more granular filtering of reports, but all in all, it ticks most of the boxes.

Reporting and automatic updates of website categorization.

• Being able to have managers or department leads run their own reports has saved us an incredible amount of time.
• Web filtering of malicious sites has increased our security posture.

• The documentation is almost too much, it could be laid out in an easier to understand.
• Upgrades can be challenging. For us, it has required a third party to assist.

Seven years.

No, but a few major upgrades were bumpy.

Not once live in production, it seems to just work.

No.

Excellent! We always find ourselves paired with knowledgeable technicians who resolve most of our problems on the first call.

Excellent.

Yes, Blue Coat Systems.

Complex, only in it offers a huge amount of features.

A vendor team, which was very knowledge.

Hard to calculate, but definitely there.

Get a qualified third party to assist with the web implementation.

Yes. Cisco and Barracuda.

Our customers are government agencies, and we recommended Forcepoint to add an extra layer of security to their data centers. It's the second layer of protection on top of a layer from another vendor.  And one week ago, we recommended a data leakage prevention solution from Forcepoint for another agency, but this project hasn't started yet.  

I've only recommended Forcepoint to one client so far, and they've been using it for only a few months.

Forcepoint is more stable than FortiGate and all the others. 

In terms of performance, Forcepoint stands out because it is more scalable than any other solution. It can extend to different types of boxes and integrate well with other platforms and vendors. And it doesn't need to have the same kind of box or throughput to have high availability. So Fortinet is the most scalable of all the security systems in the same category. 

With any box security, we need vendor support during the first installation each time. After that, we don't need any support for operations. But the deployment could be easier. It might take from one day to three days. Usually, that involves an engineer from the vendor and a working team at the enterprise.

I think Forcepoint's price is average.

We make use of a host of features offered by Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway. We primarily use it to analyze cloud-based data which enters and exits our company through external web access. We retrieve all the data for analysis of any external transactions as these relate to the application of messages. 

Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway has improved our organization through its ease of use. It is not a slow product. It has numerous features that give us control over suspicious and malicious transactions. We can also integrate it for security management purposes. 

The most valuable feature of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway is the ability to retrieve and analyze lost data. It also allows us to detect and prevent the release of all messages and to take appropriate actions in consequence.

A feature of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway that can be improved is the speed of data analysis. 

Also, there should be enhanced detection when it comes to the loading of encrypted data. 

A feature we wish to see addressed in the next release of the product involves its administration. 

I do not consider the product to be excellent and would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We have been using Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway for around three years. 

I like the stability of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and feel it to be very useful. 

I would evaluate Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway's technical support for a first time user as an eight out of nine. 

The initial setup of the product did not take long and was uncomplicated. Its deployment took three days.

We deployed by outsourcing to an open source software company and took courses to familiarize ourselves with the product's features. 

Overall, I am not aware of the option to pay for one time use of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway. We sometimes take out a monthly subscription to the product but prefer to do so on an annual basis. 

The versions of Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway that we currently use are 6.5 through 6.7.

We decided to go with it to enhance our main security features. This made a lot of sense, as antenna extensions between users is generally required. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Email Sandbox, DLP and Proxy.

The Sandbox is a very useful solution for sand-boxing malware / phishing etc. from corporate email accounts. No matter whether it's on Office 365, Exchange (on-premise), or Google (or any other cloud). The Sandbox updates on a regular basis, and the flexibility of policy configuration, white-listing is pretty good.

Reports in the sand-boxing, ease of deployment of sensors to ready to go server with one click of a button.

I think there is room to improve the reporting area of the solution and also the investigation part, a basic section where you see the body and headers of each email and the reason it got blocked.

Six years.

If you implement it correctly you wont have an issue.

If you implement it correctly you wont have an issue.

Support by vendor is low-medium. You need to rely on yourself or your integrator.

Mcafee GW. Wasn't satisfied at all both in the general UI and ease of configuration.

Straightforward. Very easy to implement.

Expensive, but with a good reseller you can get a very good price.

I'm familiar with plenty of competitor solutions, tried most of the top solutions.

Get your self a good reseller, and good integrator (don't do it by yourself).

All the proxies have the same features, but the idea here is about URL categorization and the support you have. I found this very interesting in Forcepoint.

In terms of functionality, Forcepoint is the best web proxy available.

I'm an engineer, and as an engineer, I often try to use the best solutions and ones I'm most comfortable with. I like Forcepoint. It's very good for implementation, but it's functionality is great. It has very, very deep technical features, and in-depth introduction features. I really encourage anyone to have it in their environment.

If the solution had a lower cost, it would be easier to implement.

In the 8.5 version of the solution, I took some issue with the interface. 

I'd recommend that the company supports more process to matrix files. We've had issues with that.

The solution should be better able to support itself and operate faster. Sometimes the technical support team takes too long to respond.

I was first introduced to Forcepoint in 2013. At that point, it was Websense and has since been acquired. I've been using the solution in total for about two years. I've spent the same amount of time with the email and web security parts of Forcepoint as well.

The solution is very stable. I didn't see any issue regarding stability. The hub itself is very powerful. It's very good that I can look at the hardware good or node maintenance and see where there are vulnerabilities. 

I implemented it in an environment with multiple users and other environments which included about 20 other items and I've found scalability to be great. You can have a lot of appliances that act as a cluster and you could have high availability on a sort of virtual ID server. You can do additional ID configurations from the other appliances so that typically it extends well. You don't have to have something like download X5. If you have two appliances, you just need to distribute both. For example, you can do it from the configuration. I couldn't find any situation in my work with Forcepoint that was not able to satisfactorily scale. So you can really make it as you wish.

Technical support sometimes takes too long to respond to queries.

In terms of implementation, if you are going to implement Forcepoint, you have to think about how you will deploy it in your proxy environment. You have the ability code, as well as other items. 

If you are implementing Forcepoint in web proxy, it has to be P1 or P2. It has to be on the user onsite as V2 on V5. You could, for some environments, have two interfaces that communicate with each other. You cannot get both to interface, however. If you use the P1 for a user's internet, you then have to make P1 access the internet.

We're a Forcepoint business partner in Egypt.

There are a lot of features already in the application and a lot of features that are added every day, so you have to learn how to implement them. If you decide to use the solution, you have to plan it out and prepare for it. You also have to update your knowledge and make sure your system is updated with regard to the solution. The most difficult part about Forcepoint is that if you take some time away from not working with it you forget features and processes. You need to work on it often and continue learning about it all the time.  

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The primary use that we have for Forcepoint Web Security is for server clusters plus multi-link sites, sites that require not multi-linked ISPs. 

We use Forcepoint Web Security for multi-cluster servers with multi-links so that we can cluster all the multi-links into one link.

For our organization, when we initially deployed Forcepoint Web Security, we were looking to have four different ISP's joined, all the ISP's as one. 

We wanted to utilize all of the network resources in a unified manner. We didn't want to waste other ISP resources. That is the reason why we purchased this firewall.

The most valuable feature of Forcepoint Web Security is creating the easy to install policies that are deployed through the Forcepoint security manual at some stage. Just drag and drop and the policies are there. The cluster is very easy in comparison with other firewalls and the multi-link VPN support is there.

For improvement, we cannot deploy the Forcepoint Web Security firewall directly without ISP. The firewall doesn't have any features because some customers are requesting they will install the firewall without licensing. 

At this time we cannot go further without licensing. Licensing is a must with Forcepoint Web Security firewalls.

I'm not sure that those features are included with Forcepoint Web Security. We checked the other features but we have not checked out their performance.

The stability of Forcepoint Web Security is very good. I have no issues from the customers. They are very happy with the product.

If you are testing any firewalls, there is no downtime with Forcepoint Web Security. We can directly upgrade our firewalls and we can remove the old plans. We can apply newer plans without any downtime.

Scalability with Forcepoint I would rate with an eight out of ten. It is pretty scalable. You can upgrade if you want to expand.

We have a major customer, they are using it with more than 12,000 users. There are currently two security admins and a network admin. They're managing all the firewalls. 

We have a total of 55 firewalls under Forcepoint Web Security. In a year, we are planning to buy new firewalls and expand.

Technical support with Forcepoint Web Security is very good.

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment, like the initial setup, to configure with the licensing, can be done in two days.

Our use of Forcepoint Web Security is not built on the calculation or the policies, i.e. how the configuration will take place. Based on that, we have two different areas.

The pricing on Forcepoint Web Security is fair. Fair pricing at current market rates, if you are comparing with the competition. 

Forcepoint Web Security is better than Fortinet because Fortinet is free. They still come under the enterprise level of security implementation though.

It is easy to deploy Forcepoint Web Security for whatever type of policies there are out there. We can manage any of our firewalls through one console. Our users prefer Forcepoint Web Security over any other firewall. We look for what the policy of the firewall is and through the console, we can run all the firewall settings.

With Forcepoint Web Security, we can push the policies to all the firewalls. For the upgrade, it can be implemented with no downtime.

I would rate Forcepoint Web Security an eight out of ten. It is easy so we can understand what the policies are and which policy belongs to which firewalls. 

There is no downtime when we are building any firewalls. If any firewall goes down, there will be little to no impact.