Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use Cisco ASA and Firepower.

ASA is used for AnyConnect connections, that is, for users to connect to the office. It is very reliable and works fine.

We use Firepower in some sites as firewalls to control inbound/outbound access. We use it as a software protection layer. However, because most users are now working from home, few users need it in the office. As a result, in some places, we have switched to SD-WAN.

The network products help save time if they are well configured at the beginning. They help increase security and protect the company's data.

Firepower's user experience should be a little bit better.

I've been using Cisco Firepower for six months.

There are some hiccups here and there, but compared to the technical support from other vendors, I have had the best experience with Cisco's technical support. I would rate them at nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was somewhat easy because we had previous experience with implementation. We copied that strategy or tried to align it to that implementation, but there were some challenges.

We have a hybrid cloud deployment. We have our own data centers and a lot of branches. In the data centers, most Cisco technologies start with ACI. With firewalls for big branches, we find that it's easier to break out to the internet globally rather than to use data centers.

Cisco's prices are more or less comparable to those of other products.

Compared to other vendors' firewalls, Cisco's firewalls are a bit behind. Overall, however, I would rate Cisco Firewall at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We have the Cisco 5585-X in our data center for perimeter security, internet protection, and for applications behind Cisco ASA DMZs. The challenges we wanted to address were security and segregating the internal networks and the DMZs.

Security-wise, it's given us the protection that we were looking for. Obviously, we're using an in-depth type of design, but the Cisco ASA has been critical in that stack for security.

The Packet Tracer is a really good tool. If someone calls because they're having problems, you can easily create fake traffic without having to do an extended packet capture. You can see, straight away, if there's a firewall rule allowing that traffic in the direction you're trying to troubleshoot. As a troubleshooting tool, Packet Tracer is one of the things that I like. It comes up in all my interviews. When I want to figure out if someone knows how to use the ASA, I ask them about use cases when they use the Packet Tracer.

One of the challenges we've had with the Cisco ASA is the lack of a strong controller or central management console that is dependable and reliable all the time. There was a time I was using what I think was called CMC, a Cisco product that was supposed to manage other Cisco products, although not the ASA. It wasn't very stable.

The controller is probably the biggest differentiator and why people are choosing other products. I don't see any other reason.

I've used the Cisco ASA going back to the 2014 or 2015 timeframe.

The ASA has been very stable for us. Since I deployed the ASA 5585 in our data center, we've not had to resolve anything and I don't even recall ever calling TAC for an issue. I can't complain about its stability as a product.

Our Cisco ASA deployment is an Active-Standby setup. That offers us resilience. We've never had a case where both of them have gone down. In fact, we have never even had the primary go down. We've mainly used that configuration when we're doing code upgrades or maintenance on the network so that we have full network connectivity. When we're working on the primary, we can switch over to the standby unit. That type of resiliency works well for our architecture.

TAC is good, although we've had junior engineers who were not able to figure things out or fix things but, with escalations, we have eventually gotten to the right person. We also have the option to call our sales rep, but we have never used that option. It seems like things are working.

Neutral

In the old days, we used Check Point. We did an evaluation of the Cisco ASA and we liked it and we brought it on board.

At that time, it was easy for our junior operations engineers to learn about it because they were already familiar with Cisco's other products. It was easier to bring it in and fit it in without a lot of training. Also, the security features that we got were very good.

The one we deployed in the data center was pretty straightforward. I also deployed the Cisco ASA for AnyConnect purposes and VPN. I didn't have to call TAC or any professional services. I did it myself.

We used a Cisco reseller called LookingPoint. I would recommend them. We've done a lot of other projects with them as well.

It's a great investment and there's a lot of value for your money if you're a CSO or a C-leader. As an engineer, personally, I have seen it work great wonders for us. When we're doing code upgrades or other maintenance we are able to keep the business going 100 percent of the time. We have definitely seen return on our investment.

I don't look at the pricing side of things, but from what I hear from people, it's a little pricey.

At the time, we looked at Juniper and at Palo Alto. We didn't get a feeling of confidence with Palo Alto. We didn't feel that it offered the visibility into traffic that we were looking for.

We use Cisco AnyConnect and we've not had any issues with it. During COVID we had to scale up and buy licenses that supported the number of users we had, and we didn't have any problems with it.

We primarily use the solution in order to create access rules. That's what I use it for mostly. Sometimes, if I need to do some mapping, I may also leverage this product.  

In terms of access, the solution is great at making sure that the firewall has the right IPs, or that the right IPs are passing through where they should be. 

The product does a good job of making sure that the connection is one that the user can trust. It keeps everything secure.

From what I've already done with ASA, I've noted that it's a very simple solution. 

It is a very user-friendly product. I started with the GUI version. There are different versions. You could have the CLA, and the GUI version if you like. Both are really user-friendly and they're easy to learn. 

We haven't been working with the product for too long, and therefore I haven't really found any features that are lacking. So far, it's been pretty solid.

One of the things that would make my life easier on ASA, especially for the CLA, is if it had an ASBN feature, specifically for the CLA. This would allow you to be able to see at once where a particular object group is being used without having to copy out all the object groups that have already been created.

I don't have to see all the object groups that have been created on that firewall. That's just something that I would really appreciate on the CLA, even though it already exists on the GUI.

I've been using the solution for six months now. It's been less than a year. It hasn't been too long just yet.

The solution has been quite stable.

Most of the clients that we deal with use this solution. No one has ever complained about having a breach or anything, to the best of my knowledge, even though we see some people combine different firewalls together, and use them alongside Cisco ASA. So far, we've not had any issue with Cisco ASA. It's reliable and keeps our clients safe.

I've never tried to scale the product. I haven't worked with it too long at this point. I wouldn't be able to comment on its scalability potential.

I've never dealt with technical support yet. I can't speak to their level or response or their knowledge of the product.

In the past, I've worked with Check Point and Fortinet as well.

I've been handling the implementation. So far, it's been good, even with no prior knowledge of the solution itself. It's my first time working with it.

On my team, lots of people are working on different aspects, and most of the setup is being done by those that have more knowledge about the firewall than we have. We don't have anything to do with the setup, we just make sure that we implement whatever connections the clients already have. It's already broken down that way, just to avoid as many mistakes as possible.

We already have a process for implementation based on the number of connections. The maximum we normally work on each connection is maybe 20 to 30 minutes. However, the process could be as little as one minute. It depends on how many connections we want to add at a time.

We're handing the implementation via our own in-house team.

I'm just handling the implementation and therefore don't have any insights on the pricing aspect of the solution. I wouldn't be able to say how much the company pays or if the pricing is high or low.

That said, the pricing isn't an issue. It's more about what's best for the customer or the client. We want to give the client the best service, and very good protection. If a client begins to worry about pricing, we can't exactly guarantee the same level of safety.

Our company has a partnership with Cisco.

We have different clients and therefore use different versions of the solution. Nobody wants to use an out-of-date version, and therefore, we work to keep everything updated.

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

We are using this solution for the site-to-site VPN tunnels and VPN Connections.

I like all of the features.

It is my understanding that they are in the process of discontinuing this device.

They are in the process of shutting down this ASA series and will continue with Firepower.

In the next release, it could be more secure.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for six years.

We are not using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. I have not had any issues.

This product is scalable. We have 100 users in our organization.

We will not continue to use this solution. We will be upgrading to either Firepower or Check Point.

Technical support is perfect.

I was using Dell SonicWall before Cisco ASA Firewall.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

It's easy to install and it doesn't take a lot of time for the initial configuration.

It took an hour to install.

I completed the installation myself. We did not use a vendor or vendor team.

There are licensing costs.

I would not recommend this solution. The technology is old and they should move to Firepower or NextGen Firewall.

I would rate the Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of ten.

The primary use is that it manages all of our incoming and outgoing VOIP transmissions as well as data transmissions between our branches and our third-party bank processor. It has performed well.

The ASAs are very stable firewalls, and they've been very good at protecting our assets here at the bank. They have done exactly what they were purchased for. They have done a great job.

I've always looked at Cisco products as being the industry standard. They're wonderful at being able to lockdown and manage that. 

The only con that I have really seen with it is the reporting structure. FirePOWER is good. It has been a great help because, before that, it was not good at all. 

Three to five years.

The scalability is very good. We use the 5600 models and the lower 5000s. We were able to upgrade as needed. We added a ton of VPN tunnels to them and they handled all that traffic quite well.

Support has been very good, very professional, got right to the point. My third-party administrator got stuck on setting up some tunnels. We called ASA support and they walked him right through how to do it. That was good.

The third-party did all of the setup. I told him what I wanted and he set everything up and got the tunnels for us as well.

The cost of keeping the licensing up on the ASA is very expensive. It has a lot of positives, but the cost of going with it is really starting to be a major negative right now.

Talk to your peers in the industry, find out what they use and why, and then look at exactly what you're using it for. We changed a great deal of our infrastructure, adding a lot of extra tunnels, so that made a complicated product even harder to manage. Look at what you're comfortable in managing with their interface.

We start looking at upgrade cost, our constant licensing cost. I look at other products that rank very high in industry ratings. Now I'm looking at similar products that are a little bit easier to manage. That is another fault of the ASA. They're very complicated to manage, but that’s because they have so many features. It's a very feature-rich product.

When selecting a vendor the most important factors are

• Security - obviously that is number one because we are a financial institution
• stability of the vendor
• how the product is ranked in the market.

In terms of security, right now is a really tough time for us because, even as a smaller community bank, we’re targeted. We have huge targets on us right now from hackers. I have to have a product that is stable, that will hold up, from a reputable company. I'm looking at companies that are top-tier.

I would rate the ASA equipment itself a nine out of 10. The software and manageability would rate a seven and the reason for that is the complexity of it. It is extremely complicated, even for our Cisco-certified person who manages it for us.

For companies prioritizing security, the optimal choice is one that offers a range of feeds to cater to diverse needs. This is particularly crucial for organizations implementing DDoS mitigation. The preferred solutions typically align with the top server vendors, with Cisco, Forti, and Barracuda consistently ranking among the top three vendors we collaborate with.

It's not unexpected, but it's a common scenario where customers request dual layers of security. For instance, when dealing with regulatory compliance, especially in financial sectors regulated by entities like the Central Bank, having two distinct units is often mandated. If a client predominantly uses a solution like Palo Alto, they may need to incorporate another vendor such as Cisco or Forti. Importantly, there's a significant disparity in interfaces and management platforms between these vendors, necessitating careful consideration when integrating them into the overall security architecture.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for the past ten years. 

The solution is extremely scalable and based on my experience, I would rate it 7 out of 10.

Cisco is a well-established company, and it offers accessible support, both locally and through online resources. The abundance of information makes it easy to find the necessary details and assistance.

Positive

The implementation timeline for our firewall is contingent on the readiness of the policy. If the policy is prepared, the deployment can occur within a day. However, if the policy is not finalized, a brief meeting is convened to gather the necessary data for rule establishment. Once the information is ready, the implementation on VMware proceeds. Notably, there is a requisite waiting period, such as fine-tuning for optimal rule configuration, as each customer has unique requirements. It's crucial to tailor the rules to fit the specific needs of each customer, as there is no one-size-fits-all best practice in this context.

It is extremely expensive compared to its competitors and I would rate it 2 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution and rate it 8 out of 10.

We use Cisco Secure Firewall in our own company for site-to-site VPN to access our customers and provide remote support.

We sell the solution to our customers as well. They use the ASA or FMC for dedicated networking, for example, the process network. That is, they dedicate the process network or ASA to the user network.

As a Cisco Secure reseller, I add value with my professional background, for example, in Cisco TAC, to my customers. We choose to sell Cisco Secure Firewall because of our partner status with Cisco.

The most valuable feature for the customers is that they can control what communication is allowed and what is not allowed. That is, they can allow or deny client traffic.

It also secures the internal network to allow specific client traffic or machine traffic.

Cisco Secure Firewall helped reduce our clients' meantime to repair by 40%. This is because they can easily segment the network. It's easy to troubleshoot because of micro-segmentation.

Cisco Secure Firewall should be easier to handle. It uses ASDM, which is not easy to understand. It would be better if there was direct access via HTTPS.

I have used this solution for around five years, but my company has been using it for 30 years.

Cisco's technical support for security is good. The support staff are professional and know what to do. I would give them an eight out of ten.

Positive

The deployment of the firewall is more difficult if you want to use all of the features. However, if you're using it only as a VPN, then it's a little bit easier to deploy.

Compared to Cisco Secure Firewall, other firewall solutions are easier to handle because they do not use ASDM. They have direct access via web browsers.

If you're considering Cisco Secure Firewall, take a look at what you want to use the firewall for and what kind of handling you prefer. If you prefer easy handling via browsers, then you may need to use another solution because ASDM is no longer the state of the art.

Overall, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall at seven on a scale from one to ten.

The I add as a reseller is the professional background.

Our clients use Cisco Secure Firewall to protect them from data breaches. They also use it for site-to-site VPN connections and remote access.

The most valuable features are remote access, site-to-site VPN, and next-generation features.

The management of the firewalls could be improved because there are a lot of bugs.

I've been selling this solution for three years.

Most of our clients have deployed the solution on-premises and are slowly migrating to hybrid and to SaaS models.

When you configure it, it's very stable.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a scalable solution.

Cisco's technical support is good.

We used to sell Palo Alto firewalls and switched to Cisco because it was more cost-effective for clients.

As a Cisco reseller, I try to give our customers the best possible solutions for their problems.

The initial setup is straightforward for smaller organizations, but it can be complex when companies are larger.

Migrating certain components of a client's previous firewall configurations to Cisco Secure Firewall with the migration tool is simple, easy, and quick. However, it would be really nice if we could migrate complete ASA configurations to FTD with the migration tool and not just the policies and objects.

Maintenance-wise, we troubleshoot and make changes if required.

I deployed it myself with, and perhaps with one person from the client's end.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall at seven.