Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Reviews

We use the product as a primary firewall for remote VPN.

One of the most valuable features of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is its integration with intrusion prevention and security intelligence.

Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability.

We've been using the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for five years.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten. They are making certain improvements in the feature.

We have 1500 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center users in our organization. It is highly scalable, and I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

While there have been instances of good support and services, there have also been times when they fell short of expectations.

Positive

We encountered some difficulties during the setup process, particularly with Wi-Fi configuration. While it wasn't overly challenging, it needed to be more straightforward. Assistance from Cisco support was available, but it required some effort, including using command-line scripts in addition to the graphical interface. The deployment timeline varied depending on the specific setup and office locations, but typically, it could take a couple of days if managed in-house. 

I rate the process a five out of ten.

Our in-house team handled the deployment without the involvement of third-party integrators or consultants.

The platform is costly.

The platform has significantly enhanced our organization's operations by providing secure communication channels between different office locations. It includes establishing secure tunnels for office-to-office communication and enabling remote users to access internal resources securely.

It offers good value for the investment. While it provides powerful features and support, there might be occasional challenges with internal support.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

I like its system management and filtering options as a layer seven firewall. You can also use a multi-mode environment, which means you can use multi-ISP. You can utilize that particular standard, and that is helpful. 

Moreover, there is an SDM in Cisco, though we are using Cisco FMC. FMC manages multiple FDT devices, and an entire organization can be managed over Cisco.

Some duplicated values and security standards are not working in some high-application protocols with Cisco's next-generation firewalls.

I have worked with Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for five years.

Sometimes we face issues because VDP updates are happening frequently from Cisco. At that time, I have sometimes seen it rebooting FDT devices. It stabilizes once the solution updates the new policies. It is stabilizing now, whereas earlier, there were some bugs.

The solution is very easy to scale. Three people in my organization are working on it.

The core customer support is good, but they don't help us immediately. For example, if it is a P1 issue, they do not contact me immediately because it takes time to contact us. It will take time to resolve the issue if it's an emergency.

The installation is not that easy and not that tough also. When you learn Cisco, you can do the initial setup step by step. Some specific knowledge of rules is required to set up the solution. The deployment process takes more than a week, and five engineers are required to deploy it. Only two engineers are enough to maintain the product.

The solution is expensive. We have a multi-license, and we pay extra for support.

It is better to go with Palo Alto right now. Palo Alto is better from a price point-of-view, and some applications are better with Palo Alto than Cisco. However, Cisco is easy to learn compared to other solutions, and many people are learning to use Cisco. There are many documents for Cisco on the Internet. I rate Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center a nine out of ten.

We use the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center to manage our firewall devices. Every configuration is applied to the management center, and any policy will be pushed and deployed to the firewall. We use the solution for management, reporting, and logging analysis.

The solution has a great UI and a policy deployment mechanism, and all the configuration is easily manageable for the firewalls.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's logging functionality could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for four years.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is a stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is a highly scalable solution.

The solution's technical support team is very supportive.

Around 20 people are required to deploy and maintain the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center.

The solution has great functionality and a user-friendly interface. It also has great functionality for reconstruction. It's also automated and can be integrated with other devices, services, or interfaces.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center a nine out of ten.

I use FMC for managing my device and utilizing Cisco features effectively, especially when I define a quality switch and have a license to protect my network from my device by using my regular model or tricks. It is easier if I use FMC. 

Frankly speaking, when I want to see logs, attacks, and incoming tricks to my network, FMC helps me to have the visibility. It is easy to use basics, and that is why I use FMC.

I like the dashboard since it gives me a lot of information. However, Cisco should improve the local unit Secure since it is not quite smooth to see real-time graphics compared to other devices. 

It provides full visibility of my devices, whether I have six or ten devices. When I want to check the stats of my devices and of the Internet connectivity, I love the dashboard of Cisco Pencil.

I expect more integration with AI. I expect Cisco to be easier for users in India, especially for junior users. For a junior one, it may somehow be complex, especially when configuring something. I remember version 6.4 had an integration with Eddie, allowing me to define a policy according to my users, however, the latest version, lacks this integration. The logging of FMC should be improved as it does not offer real-time solutions like DazaSodo.

I have used the solution for a bit more than two weeks now.

I would go with a rating of three out of ten for the stability issues.

I would rate scalability capabilities as ten out of ten.

I would rate customer service as eight out of ten. 

Positive

I just set up the device. It takes control files, frankly speaking. However, when I try to integrate with the existing company's network infrastructure with a running and good migration plan, it took about three hours.

Most of the time, I do the setup by myself. That said, I have a consultant that helps.

I do not see a significant return on investment for that. There are a lot of solutions which can provide the same features. Cisco is more of a brand, yet it is more expensive.

I would rate setup cost as four for now.

I did look at other vendors also. My area of specialization is Secure, so I try to work with different vendors with a specific security solution.

The overall product rating is eight out of ten. It is a good product.

It acts as a security center that deals with anti-malware, antivirus, and protection against network attacks.

It acts as a safeguard against external threats such as viruses, malware, and offers URL scanning. Cisco Secure Firewall's strength lies in its regular updates and automated blocking of threats, reducing the need for manual intervention.

The most valuable aspects are the antivirus and URL filtering.

Cisco Firepower has been effective in solving various problems, but it could be improved by making it simpler and more user-friendly like Fortinet. Additionally, making it available for offline practice through an emulator would be beneficial.

I've been working in my organization for the past six months, and during this time, we deployed it in our office. Previously, we were using a basic Cisco ASA firewall, and we managed it using the ASDM. Now, we've upgraded to a more advanced firewall and manage it through the MMC.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Scalability needs to be improved and I would rate it a six out of ten. 

They don't offer sufficient materials on their website, unlike Cisco. Moreover, the FMC (Firepower Management Center) is expensive, and there is a lack of helpful materials available online. The existing documentation can be quite extensive and challenging to comprehend.

Positive

They opted for the Cisco Firepower Management Center due to new, more complex threats that the basic ASA couldn't effectively handle. They did evaluate other options like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Juniper, but their management recommended Cisco, leading them to choose it.

I rate it on a scale of one to ten, with one being highly difficult and ten being very easy. In terms of technical analysis, I would rate it a three. It's also rather difficult to deploy.

It took about one or two hours consistently because it's quite heavy to deploy.Initially, I need to set up a virtual machine, which is the first step. After that, I deploy it as a virtual machine, and then I go through the process of configuring the license features and adding the devices. This is a somewhat lengthy task.

It is rather expensive.

I will advise them to explore simpler solutions like Palo Alto Networks or Fortinet UCC, which offer more straightforward options. I would rate it six out of ten. 

The platform's most valuable feature is the intrusion prevention system (IPS). It offers many customization options.

We encountered challenges, particularly when building use cases for this firewall, as it requires specific OS versions and firmware upgrades, which can lead to increased downtime.

It adds an administrative burden on the operation team, as it is essential for managing the firewalls.

I recommend they work on usability and ensure the solution is more user-friendly. It includes improving the connectivity and functionality when bugs occur.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for one year.

I rate the product's scalability as a nine, particularly for larger hardware appliances.

The technical support team is responsive and supportive. 

Positive

The platform's deployment can take about two days to complete especially if all components need to be configured.

The product pricing is reasonable and falls in the mid-range.

Setting up the solution's management center is relatively easy, but we occasionally face bugs that require additional troubleshooting.

I recommend taking comprehensive backups and preparing thoroughly for implementation, especially when managing multiple nodes.

Overall, I rate it as a seven out of ten.

We use the product to manage our infrastructure.

The product's user interface is very easy to use and convenient.

The product's setup could be easier.

I have been using the product for one and a half years.

My company has 15-20 users for the product.

The product's setup was moderate which was not too easy or hard. We had encountered some hiccups but we managed through it.

I would rate the product a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is to manage and secure our network infrastructure. In our environment, we use it to handle multiple devices from a central control point.

The platform's most valuable feature has been its centralized management capability, which allows us to monitor and control multiple devices from one location. It is crucial for effectively managing our extensive network infrastructure.

The product could be improved by simplifying its user interface and reducing complexity. Additionally, better integration with other tools and more intuitive dashboards would enhance the user experience.

Future releases should include improved AI-driven analytics for efficient threat detection and response. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for approximately one year.

The platform is stable. However, there could be occasional issues due to its complexity.

The platform scales well, handling increased traffic and more devices as our network grows.

Customer service and support have been adequate but could have been more exceptional. Response times can be slow, and resolutions are sometimes less effective than required.

Positive

We previously used WatchGuard and Microtech. We switched because we needed more advanced features and better centralized management capabilities.

The initial setup was complex due to the product's intricate configuration options and requirements.

We implemented the solution with the help of our in-house team. 

The ROI has been moderate. 

We evaluated several options, including Fortinet and Palo Alto.

Be prepared for a steep learning curve and consider the potential need for additional training or support to fully utilize the solution's capabilities.

Overall, I rate it a six out of ten.