Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

It is the primary data firewall for our organization and our data centers.

We have faced multiple issues regarding bugs with Cisco Firepower products. A running product is hit with bugs most of the time, and we had a lot of challenges in using the Cisco Firepower product, actually. In the future, we are planning to replace it, or at least use it instead as a secondary firewall.

The content filtering is good. 

The maturity needs to be better. The product is not yet mature. A running product is hit with the software bugs most of the time, and whenever we then log a case with the tech team, they're sometimes helpless with that. They have to involve the software development team to fix that bug in the next release. It's not ideal. Being an enterprise product, it should be mature enough to handle these types of issues.

I've been using the solution for the last three years. 

The performance is okay, however, the product is not stable. It is all hit with CVL software bugs routinely. That portion requires attention from Cisco and the tech support in this area is somewhat delayed. An open ticket can sometimes take more than two to three months to resolve. For the production setup, it is tough to rely on the tech team alone for the closure of the case.

The solution is very scalable. 

Cisco support is always available. However, multiple times, it has been tough for them to fix the software bugs in the product. They have to then deploy their development team for the same ticket.

Earlier we used the Cisco ASA Firewall. Now, it has been phased out. Firepower is categorized as the next-generation firewall, however, we haven't found the utility of that level in this product. It lacks maturity at many levels.

We have two data centers at two geographical locations. We have two firewalls - one in one data center, at the perimeter, and another at a different location.

The initial setup was okay. We had more of an in-between partner doing the installation part since the product was also new to us. The product was part of my overall product solution. We procured a firewall and another ACL fabric portion for the data center. Overall, the solution installation took over seven to eight months.

We had two people assist with the deployment process. 

We used an integrator for deployment. Overall, the experience was positive. 

There is no ROI. It is functioning as a normal firewall, as a data center perimeter, however, we expected much more than that. At times, there has been downtime with the firewall, and our custom modifications have won at a very high level. The product has to be mature when it is being used at the enterprise level.

The solution offers mid-range pricing. We can get a cheaper product like Fortinet, and we can get a costlier product like Palo Alto, and these are all in the same category.

There's only one license based on the support. Cisco Firepower is priced on the support of the product that we require: with SSL and without SSL. Currently, we are not doing any SSL inspection. We have an ATP report firewall.

When we were looking for a product, we put it through tender and we put out specifications of the product that we required. Cisco had the lowest price. We evaluated the L1 after it was technically qualifying. That is how we acquired it.

We looked at Palo Alto, however, it was far too costly.

We are a customer and an end-user. 

It was earlier named Sourcefire. Cisco acquired that company and rebranded it as Firepower.

We are actually a public cloud provider. We offer data center services to clients.

I'd advise others considering the solution that, for implementation, the product needs some stability and maturity to be offered as a next-generation firewall at an enterprise level. If a company is in need of an enterprise-level solution, they need to be aware of this.

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

The product needs maturity in terms of running without hitting a bug. We have used other products also. A running product is never hit with a bug. It is normally some vulnerability or something that needs to be attended to, however, a running product is seldom hit with a bug and the operation gets stalled. We rarely find this kind of thing in an enterprise scenario. That is what we ask from Cisco, to build a stable product before offering it to customers.

We use the Cisco firewall for a number of things. We've got VPN tunnels, IPsec tunnels. We also use it for basic network layer filtering for our internal service, because we have a number of services that we offer out to clients, so that is the first device that they come across when they get into the network.

We have a network of six remote sites and we use proxy to go to the internet, and from the internet Cisco is the first line of defense. We have internet banking services that we offer to our clients, and that also makes use of the Cisco firewall as the first line of defense. And we've got a number of servers, a Hyper-V virtual environment, and we've got a disaster recovery site.

We had VAPT (vulnerability assessment and pen testing) done by external people to see our level of security from inside and outside and they managed to find some deficiencies inside. That's when they recommended that we should put in network access control. By integrating the ASA with Cisco ISE, that is what we are trying to achieve.

The whole idea is to make sure that any machines that are not on our domain should not be able to connect to the network. They should be blocked.

We also have Cisco switches deployed in our environment. All our active switches are Cisco. The ASA is integrated with them. This integration was done by a combination of our Cisco partner and in-house, because we did this at the time of setting up the infrastructure in 2016.

The benefits we see from the ASA are connected to teleworking as well as, of course, having the basic functionality of a firewall in place and the prevention of attacks. The VPN is also helpful.

Among the most valuable features are the reports which are generated according to the rules that we've put in place to either block traffic or report suspicious attempts to connect to our network. They would come standard with any firewall and we're always monitoring them and taking any corrective steps needed.

We have the ASA integrated with Cisco ISE for network access control. The integration was done by our local Cisco partner. It took them about a month to really get the solution up and running. I would like to believe that there was some level of complexity there in terms of the integration. It seems it was not very easy to integrate if the experts themselves took that long to really come up with a working solution. Sometimes we had to roll back during the process.

Initially, when we put it up, we were having issues where maybe it would be barring things from users completely, things that we wanted the users to access. So we went through fine tuning and now I think it's working as we expect.

We have been using Cisco ASA NGFW since 2016, when we launched.

The ASA is utilized 100 percent of the time. It's up all the time as it's a perimeter firewall. It's always up. It's our first line of defense. It's quite robust, we've never had issues with it. It's very stable.

We haven't maxed it out in terms of its capacity, and we've got up to about 200 users browsing the internet at any given time. In terms of throughput, we've got an ASA 5525 so it handles capacity pretty well. There aren't any issues there.

We have a Cisco partner, so if ever we did have issues we'd go through them, but up until now — this bank has been open for four years — we've never had an issue with the Cisco firewall.

We went with Cisco because it's a reputable brand and we also have CCNP engineers in our team as well. It's the brand of choice. We were also familiar with it from our past jobs.

The ROI is the fact that we haven't been attacked.

It's a brilliant firewall, and the fact that it comes with a perpetual license really does go far in terms of helping the organization in not having to deal with those costs on an annual basis. That is a pain point when it comes to services like the ones we have on FortiGate. That's where we really give Cisco firewalls the thumbs up.

From the point of view of total cost of ownership, the perpetual licensing works well in countries like ours, where we are facing challenges with foreign exchange. Trying to set up foreign payments has been a challenge in Zimbabwe, so the fact that we don't have to be subscribed and pay licenses on an annual basis works well. If you look at FortiGate, it's a good product, but we are always under pressure when renewal time comes.

Where Cisco falls a bit short is because of the fact that, if I want IPS, I have to buy another license. That's why I have my reservations with it. If I want Cisco AnyConnect, I have to buy another license. That's where we have challenges. That's unlike our next-gen FortiGate where everything comes out-of-the-box.

My advice is "go for it," 100 percent. If ever I was told to implement a network, ASA would definitely be part and parcel of the solution.

The biggest lesson we've learned from using the product is about the rapid growth of the product's offerings.

In terms of the maturity of our organization's security implementation, I would like to believe that we are about midway. We still need to harden our security. We need to conduct penetration testing every two years and, resources permitting, maybe yearly. The guys out there who do cyber security crimes are becoming more and more advanced, so there is a need for us to also upgrade our security.

We have a two-layer firewall setup, which is what is recommended as the standard for the payment card industry. We probably need solutions linked with cloud providers from the likes of Cisco, and to put in some bank-grade intrusion detection solutions. Because we have already adopted two technologies, Cisco and FortiGate, we might be looking at solutions from those two providers.

We're also looking at end-point security solutions. We've been using the one which comes with our Office 365 and Microsoft product, Windows Defender. We are going to be trialing their new end-point management solution. We are trying to balance things from a cost point of view and providing the right level of security.

In addition to Windows Defender and the firewalls — ASA and FortiGate — and the network access control, we also have SSL for the website.

As for application visibility and control, currently we're just using logging. We don't have the Firepower installed, so it's just general logging and scheduled checks here and there. As for threat visibility, for us the ASA is a perimeter firewall. Behind that firewall we have an IDS and an IPA. We actually have the license for Firepower but we haven't implemented it; it was just an issue of priorities at the time.

We had implemented our Cisco API and Cisco Stealthwatch. We use the Cisco Secure Firewall for easy integration that can collaborate with all these Cisco solutions. My operations will also have less maintenance and the same existing team.

Cisco Secure Firewall's security solutions, advanced malware protection, and DDoS communication are very good. With Cisco Secure Firewall, the security is very much manageable because it protects all the incoming and outgoing traffic of our several telecom IT rooms.

The solution's deployment is time-consuming, which should be minimized and made more user-friendly for us.

The solution's graphical user interface could be made more user-friendly, and the configuration can be simple.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for five years.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a stable solution.

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall ten out of ten for stability.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a scalable solution. Around 400 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is complex and requires Cisco-certified people.

Two engineers were involved in the solution's deployment, which took one week.

We have seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall because it provides advanced malware protection and seamless integration with my existing solutions.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a moderately priced solution. We have to pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

The solution’s maintenance is very easy, and one person can do it.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten.

As a manufacturing company, we have to use many different concepts of firewalls. That's one reason we had to use a trusted firewall for security and trust reasons.

We use a top-down architectural level mostly. For this reason, Cisco Secure Firewall is the top product for us.

I would say that this solution has saved our organization's time because we are certified engineers and experts. It helps us to connect quite well with our customers on a professional level.

The features I have found most valuable are the ASA firewalls. I like to have features like most integrated systems in ACI.

I think that the solution can be improved with the integration of application-centric infrastructure. It could be used to have better solutions in one box.

I have been using this solution for around seven or eight years.

I've used different concepts of solutions before Cisco. Cisco is much better than Juniper, Brocade, or Foundry, as it is much easier to use and get directions from. It is also easier to integrate Cisco if you compare it with other customer concepts, such as Juniper, Brocade, or Aruba.

I am not involved in all Cisco firewall deployments. We also have an architectural team. We deploy based on a top-down level architecture and implementation structure.

When it comes to pricing, quality is important to us. When looking at products, we prefer quality over speed. Cisco is on that quality side mostly.

We are currently using the Cisco Firepower firewall, which is dependent on the situations in the data center and regional data center concepts. 

The way that this solution helps secure our infrastructure end-to-end is by enabling us to easily integrate all end-to-ends for monitoring.

Whether this solution saves us time depends on the situation. We use highly secure networks on the national security level and that's why it helps to use different products as Cisco is one of the best.

Overall, I would rate this solution a nine, on a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best.

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is protection in our OT network. We have our OT network behind the commercial network and we do dual firewalls. The Cisco Secure Firewall is on the commercial network side and a different vendor and management group are on the OT network side.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not necessarily improved our organization as much as it has protected it against the impact of cyber threats. Our organization runs manufacturing plants that have hazardous material and we don't want that manufacturing process to be impacted by break-in exposure and cyber threats.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a good solution. In some ways, it is a reactive solution and we have it sitting in a whitelist mode rather than a blacklist mode. It seems to work fairly well for us.

It would be better if we could manage all of our firewalls as a set rather than individually. I would like to see a single pane of glass type of option. We also use another vendor's firewalls and they have a centralized management infrastructure that we have implemented. This infrastructure is a bit easier to manage.

We have used Cisco Secure Firewall for probably 10 years.

Cisco Secure Firewall has been a very stable solution for us. In general, if you keep it up to date and do sensible management on it, it will be a very stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall has met our scalability requirements as far as traffic and management goes.

We have an excellent account team and they go to bat for us inside of Cisco. We have access to TAC and Smart Net and that all seems to be working out very well. Cisco has a good team in place.

We did not previously use a different solution for this particular use case. 

I was not involved in the initial deployment of the solution. 

In this specific use case, the biggest return on investment is that we do not have incidents. This ultimately – in some of our factories – ends up being a health and human-safety use case.

We have all smart licensing and that works well. 

We ultimately chose Cisco Secure Firewall because it came with a strong recommendation from one of our strong partners.

My advice to those evaluating the solution right now is this: understand what you're trying to protect and what you're trying to protect it from. Also, understand how the solution is managed.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not necessarily freed up our staff's time as much as it has secured the infrastructure and the OT network behind it. Cisco Secure Firewall was not built as a time-saver. It is not a cost solution. It is a solution meant to isolate and control access to and from a specific set of infrastructure.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not helped us consolidate tools and applications. It allows us to get access. What we're seeing more and more of is business systems like SAP looking to get access to OT systems and this is how our systems get that way.

Cisco Secure Firewall requires the sort of maintenance that any software product would: updates, asset management, etc. Worldwide, we probably have 30 to 40 people managing the solution on the OT side on the various sites and then probably 10 to 15 people on our account team with our outside partner.

We mainly use it for ICS security.

We definitely feel more secure. We have more control over things going in and out of our network.

Cybersecurity has been our top priority because of the last few attacks on our peers in the oil and gas industry.

The IPS solution helps us to not only navigate north-south traffic, but also east-west traffic.

Third-party integrations could be improved.

Not everything works out-of-the-box. Sometimes, you have to customize it to your needs. 

I have been using it for two years.

It is stable for the most part.

There is maintenance needed for software, firmware, and updates. Three or four people keep up with the updates, etc. 

It is pretty scalable. We can add as many devices as we want.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We previously had a different platform. We wanted to converge multiple platforms into one.

I switched companies. So, I have more experience with Palo Alto.

We saw immediate benefits after deployment from having more control and visibility.

Pretty much everything is included in the price for what we are using.

We looked at Check Point, Palo Alto, Fortinet, and a bunch of others. The management and support for the CIsco product is better.

Listen to your customers and see what their needs are.

The whole stack provided by Cisco is a holistic solution for cybersecurity experts, like myself, and companies who are looking to secure their network.

You should partner up with a good team to view all products available, which cater and are customized to your needs.

We haven't found any gaps where it is lacking.

I would rate this product as eight or nine out of 10.

We use it to control the traffic between our inside and outside networks. 

We use the same firewall for the vendor by creating an IPv6 HyperSec VPN between the company and the vendor. 

It is a security solution. We needed to protect our traffic from the outside to inside. That is why we are using this firewall.

Cisco ASA is pretty good. We use it for Layer 3 and as our main firewall, protecting the entire organization. All our Internet traffic goes through it.

Their CLI is pretty good. 

In order to do an upgrade, we need to upload the software to the firewall, then upgrade the secondary and do a failover. Uploading this software into the firewall is old technology. For example, if you look at the Cisco Meraki firewall, you can schedule the software upgrade. Whereas, here we can't.

Recently, we have been having an issue with the ASA firewall. We haven't found the root cause yet and are still working on it. We failed over the firewall from active to passive and suddenly that resolved the issue. We are now working to find the root cause.

I have been using the Cisco ASA firewall for the last four years.

It is pretty stable. I haven't seen many issues during the past four years.

It has the scalability to replace the firewall with a higher model number.

The scalability meets our needs and future needs.

The technical support is really good. If we open up a case, they are pretty good. As soon as we open up a case, they assign a case manager. Also, they have an engineer on call. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

They had this firewall when I joined the company.

We also have Palo Alto that we use as a firewall for Layer 2.

I haven't really used the GUI features that much.

We have not integrated with any other Cisco solutions yet, but we have been thinking about integrating with Cisco Umbrella.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for the various firewalls.

Cisco is powerful when it comes to detecting intrusions. It's better than, for example, Fortinet.

Cisco has multiple products - not just firewalls. The integration between other items provides a powerful end-to-end solution. It's nice and easy. There is one management system and visibility into all of the features. Using the same product is more powerful than using multiple systems. Cisco is known by most customers due to the fact that at least they have switches. However, when clients say "we need an end-to-end option" Cisco is there.

The stability is very good.

Technical support services are excellent.

Before an ASA, it was a live log. It was easy and comfortable to work with. After the next-generation firewall, Firepower, the live log became really slow. I cannot reach the information easily or quickly. This has only been the case since we migrated to next-generation firewalls.

There is some delay between the log itself. It's not really real-time. Let's say there's a delay of more than 20 seconds. If they had a monitoring system, something to minimize this delay, it would be good.

It would be ideal if I could give more bandwidth to certain sites, such as Youtube.

I work with Fortinet also, and I find that Fortinet is easier now. Before it was Cisco that was easier. Now Fortinet is simpler to work with.

On firewall features, Fortinet is better. Cisco needs to become more competitive and add more features or meet Fortinet's offering.

I've been using the solution since about 2003, when I originally implemented it.

The solution is extremely stable. We don't have any issues whatsoever. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It works well. Occasionally, it may need patches, however, there's very little downtime.

The scalability of the solution is very good. We have no trouble expanding the solution.

They have multiple products that fit in multiple areas. They also have virtual firewalls, which are working well in virtualization systems. They have the data center firewalls feature for data centers. It's scalable enough to cover most of the use cases that might arise.

Cisco offers excellent technical support.  They're useful and very responsive - depending on the situation itself. Sometimes we require the support of agents and we've found Cisco to have one of the best support systems in the market.

I also work with Fortinet, and it's my sense that, while Fortinet is getting easier to use, Cisco is getting harder to deal with.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's pretty straightforward.

A full deployment takes between two and three days. It's pretty quick to set up.

The pricing is neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle. If you compare it to Fortinet or Palo Alto, Fortinet is low and Palo Alto is very high. Cisco falls in the middle between the two.

As far as deployment options go, they often have more wiggle-room with discounts, especially for larger deployments. Therefore, in general, it ranges closer to Fortinet's pricing.

We're partners with Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

I work with on-premises deployments and virtual firewalls, however, I don't use the cloud.

The solution works well for medium-sized enterprises.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd recommend users to layer in solutions. At the perimeter, if they have two tiers, I'd recommend Palo Alto as the first and then Cisco ASA as the second. Cisco can work on the data center or Fortinet. In the case of Fortinet, they have the best backline throughput from all of the other products.