Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
reviewer1895532 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Network Engineer at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
The VPN solution works much better than our previous solutions
Pros and Cons
  • "So far, it has been very stable."
  • "The user interface is a little clunky and difficult to work with. Some things aren't as easy as they should be."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it for border firewalls, VPN access, and site-to-site VPN tunnels.

It is deployed at a single location with about 2,500 users.

What is most valuable?

So far, the remote VPN access has been a perfect solution for our company.

What needs improvement?

The user interface is a little clunky and difficult to work with. Some things aren't as easy as they should be.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for five years.

Buyer's Guide
Cisco Secure Firewall
March 2025
Learn what your peers think about Cisco Secure Firewall. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far, it has been very stable.

It does require maintenance. There is a team of two who manage it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We haven't scaled it much at this point.

How are customer service and support?

The technical support has been good so far. I would rate them as eight out of 10.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

The VPN solution works much better than our previous solutions.

We previously used Palo Alto. The switch was driven by Cisco's pitch.

How was the initial setup?

It was fairly straightforward. We stood it up side by side with our nesting firewalls. We did some testing during an outage window, then migrated it over.

What about the implementation team?

We used a partner, CDW, to help us with the deployment. Our experience with CDW was good.

Internally, it was just me for the deployment.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing seems fair. It is above average.

What other advice do I have?

Take the time to really learn it, then it becomes a lot easier to use.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
reviewer1885305 - PeerSpot reviewer
Analytical Engineer at a pharma/biotech company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Keeps away threats trying to come into my organization
Pros and Cons
  • "With the pandemic, people began working from home. That was a pretty big move, having all our users working from a home. More capacity needed to be added to our remote VPN. ASA did this very well."
  • "It can be improved when it comes to monitoring. Today, the logs from the firewalls could be improved a bit more without integrating with other devices."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it for our VPN. We have a remote VPN and then a VPLS connection. Overall, it is a pretty big design.

We were looking for an opportunity to integrate our Firepower with Cisco ASA.

We mainly have these appliances on the data center side and in our headquarters.

How has it helped my organization?

It did help my organization. The firewall pretty much covers most stuff. They have next-gen firewalls as well, which have more threat analysis and stuff like that. 

The firewall solution is really important, not just for our company, but for every organization. It keeps away threats trying to come into my organization.

With the pandemic, people began working from home. That was a pretty big move, having all our users working from a home. More capacity needed to be added to our remote VPN. ASA did this very well.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable features are the remote VPN and site-to-site VPN tunnels.

I use the solution to write policies and analyze the data coming in via the firewalls.

What needs improvement?

It can be improved when it comes to monitoring. Today, the logs from the firewalls could be improved a bit more without integrating with other devices.

I would like to see more identity awareness.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for over six years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is pretty good. They are keeping up the good work and making updates to the current platform. 

How are customer service and support?

The support is good. They have been there every time that we need them. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have used Check Point and Palo Alto. We are still using those but for more internal stuff. For external use, we are using the Cisco client.

How was the initial setup?

The initial deployment was straightforward. We have worldwide data centers. For one data center, it took three days from design to implementation. 

What about the implementation team?

It was a self-deployment. It took eight people to deploy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It was pretty good and not expensive on the subscription side. Cisco is doing a good job on this.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We also evaluated Zscaler, which is more cloud-based. It was pretty new and has a lack of support on the system side.

What other advice do I have?

They have been keeping up by adding more features to the next-gen and cooperating with other vendors.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. It is pretty good compared to its competitors. Cisco is doing well. They have kept up their old traditional routing and fiber policies while bringing on new next-gen features.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Cisco Secure Firewall
March 2025
Learn what your peers think about Cisco Secure Firewall. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Michael Mitchell - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at Utah broadband
Real User
It is secure and very reliable
Pros and Cons
  • "The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10."
  • "We wanted to integrate Firepower with our solution, but it didn't have the capability to accommodate our bandwidth since they only had two 10 gig interfaces on the box. We run way more than that through our network because we are a service provider, providing Internet to our customers."

What is our primary use case?

We use it as a security solution. It is our firewall.

We run three data centers and have three ASAs at each data center.

What is most valuable?

It is pretty user-friendly and straightforward to use.

It is secure and very reliable.

I like the heartbeat between the two devices that we have. Because if something fails, it immediately fails over.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using ASAs for 15 years at two different companies.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Cybersecurity resilience has been outstanding because it is very stable. There are not a whole lot of upgrades that we need to do for the firmware.

Four engineers support it. From time to time, there are firmware upgrades that we need to keep up to date with. Sometimes, we need to run debugs to figure out what's going on with it, and if it needs a patch, then we will figure it out. Usually, Cisco has been really good about getting us that.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is actually pretty exponential. In the grand scheme of things, we are a small network. We only have 15,000 subscribers. However, if we need to expand, it is reasonable.

How are customer service and support?

The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We haven't really used anything different. The only thing that we run inline with Cisco ASAs is Barracuda Networks. We kind of run that in tandem with this firewall, and it works really well.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We wanted to integrate Firepower with our solution, but it didn't have the capability to accommodate our bandwidth since they only had two 10 gig interfaces on the box. We run way more than that through our network because we are a service provider, providing Internet to our customers.

What other advice do I have?

Do your homework and know what you are doing. Know how to use your product, stay current, and hire smart people.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Voice and data infrastructure specialist at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
User
Stable with great management of dynamic routing and good technical support
Pros and Cons
  • "The initial setup was not complex."
  • "Cisco is not cheap, however, it is worth investing in these technologies."

What is our primary use case?

One of the things that we have solved the most with this solution is the P2P connection that we have with different clients. It gives us greater connection security with good management of the configured rules. 

Likewise, it has made it easier for us to have this type of equipment under monitoring, and, since we have implemented them, we have not been presented with any performance problems in the equipment as they have not presented CPU or RAM saturation or that for some reason it fails without any cause. We all have them managed and monitored. We always receive an email notifying us if there's something that the equipment has detected as well.

How has it helped my organization?

The ASA firewalls have undoubtedly helped us to improve our infrastructure throughout the corporation and currently we have just over 50 firewalls - all of them in different parts of Mexico. 

This infrastructure has been improved since, in our corporation, we handle the dynamic EIGRP protocol, which Cisco owns, and this solution has given us a geo-redundancy in our company. In case of presenting a problem with a firewall or a link, it performs an immediate convergence where end-users do not detect a failure, helping us to maintain a 99.99% operational level at all times.

What is most valuable?

I am very happy to use this type of Cisco equipment in my infrastructure. It has given us the most value is the management of dynamic routing, in this case, EIGRP. This protocol, together with a series of additional configurations, has helped us to maintain an automatic redundancy in all our infrastructure, keeping us with very high numbers of operability and without failures that take more than 1 minute or that have not been resolved automatically. With this solution, we only speak with our suppliers either for a link or equipment report, and even if the box or circuit is out of operation, the operation continues to work without problems.

What needs improvement?

Today, ASA firewalls are leaving the market and are being replaced by firepower equipment - a technology with which I am not very familiar. However, in the training or research, I have done on this new product, I see that it has many additional tools such as centralization of the administration through a single team (in the case the firepower management). It is something that we do not have, yet we are already considering it since this type of technology will help us to have better management and better administration of the equipment through a single platform. The management of additional services with this new module will certainly help us to have the internet network much more secure with connections to the outside.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've used the solution for more than seven years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is great in terms of stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is great.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support is great.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Fortigate.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was not complex.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the implementation in-house. 

What was our ROI?

We've seen an 80% ROI.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Cisco is not cheap, however, it is worth investing in these technologies.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We always evaluate various other options.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Director, IT Infrastructure Department at Zemen Bank S.C.
Real User
Provides role-based access, helps in securing our environment, and is easy to use
Pros and Cons
  • "The remote access, VPN, and ACL features are valuable. We are using role-based access for individuals."
  • "Other products are becoming easier to access and configure. They are providing UI interfaces to configure, take backup, synchronize redundant machines, and so on. It is very easy to take backup and upgrade the images in those products. Cisco ASA should have such features. If one redundant machine is getting upgraded, the technology and support should be there to upgrade other redundant machines. In a single window, we should be able to do more in terms of backups, restores, and upgrades."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it as a firewall for our data center and headquarter. We are also using it for DR. We are using Cisco ASA 5500 Series.

How has it helped my organization?

It is a security device, and it is useful for securing our environment. It provides role-based access and other features and helps us in easily securing our environment.

It provides visibility. It has been helpful for packet inspection and logging activities for all kinds of packets, such as routing packets, denied packets, and permitted packets. All these activities are visible on Cisco ASA. There are different commands for logging and visibility.

We use Cisco ASA for the integration of the network. Our company is a financial company, and we are integrating different organizations and banks by using Cisco ASA. We are using role-based access. Any integration, any access, or any configuration is role-based. 

What is most valuable?

The remote access, VPN, and ACL features are valuable. We are using role-based access for individuals.

IPS is also valuable for intrusion detection and prevention. It is a paid module that can be added. I'm using it for security, VLAN management, segregation management, and so on.

It is easy to use. In our region and our country, Cisco is well known, and most of the companies are using Cisco products. We have been using Cisco devices for a while, and our company primarily has Cisco devices. So, we are familiar with it, which makes it very easy to use for us. Even when we compare it with other products, it is easier to use.

It is easy for us to manage it because it is a familiar product, and it has been a part of our environment. Now, other products are providing free training, free access, and free license, because of which things are changing. So, you can easily become familiar with other products.

What needs improvement?

Its licensing cost and payment model can be improved. Cisco doesn't provide training and certification for engineers without payments. Other companies, such as Huawei, provide the training for free. Their subscription and licenses are also free and flexible. Other products are breaking the market by providing such features. 

It doesn't support all standard interfaces. It is also not suitable for big companies with high bandwidth traffic. Its capacity should be improved.

Other products are becoming easier to access and configure. They are providing UI interfaces to configure, take backup, synchronize redundant machines, and so on. It is very easy to take backup and upgrade the images in those products. Cisco ASA should have such features. If one redundant machine is getting upgraded, the technology and support should be there to upgrade other redundant machines. In a single window, we should be able to do more in terms of backups, restores, and upgrades.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for almost eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable. It needs to be configured based on the standards and functionality. We have one device that has been working for more than 10 years, which indicates it is stable, but it requires licenses to upgrade features.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It doesn't have an expansion card. So, it may not scalable for huge buildings. It also lacks a lot of standard interfaces. Other products are providing capacity for a data center. Other technologies are expanding their interface bandwidth from 10 gigs. In my opinion, Cisco ASA doesn't have this capability.

How are customer service and support?

Their support is very good. We have a support license, so their support is very good. They are tracing us and following up with us to solve the problem on time.

How was the initial setup?

Its setup is easy. We are familiar with Cisco ASA and other Cisco products, and they are easy to configure. A lot of resources are available on the internet, so it is easy to set up for anyone with basic training. It is easy in different types of environments, such as universities and colleges.

It generally doesn't take more than a day, but it also depends on the size of the organization. If an organization is very big and if you need a line-by-line configuration for access role and VPN, it can take a bit more time.

Cisco is constantly upgrading and providing features based on current requests. We usually plan deployments at the end of the year and at the beginning of the year. Everyone plans for new products, new configurations, and new expansions based on that.

What was our ROI?

Any security product provides a return on investment. Any gap in security may cost an organization more.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is expensive. There is a cost for everything. There is per year license cost and support cost. There is also a cost for any training, any application, and any resource. Things are very costly to do with Cisco.

Other brands are cheaper. They are also more flexible in terms of training, subscription, and licensing. They give lots and lots of years free. They provide more than Cisco.

What other advice do I have?

I would advise understanding its features, advantages, and disadvantages as compared to other solutions. It is simple, but its cost is a negative point. 

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of 10.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Project Engineer at Telindus B.V.
Real User
Talos continuously enriches intelligence so that you get information about upcoming threats on time
Pros and Cons
  • "The most important feature is the intensive way you can troubleshoot Cisco Firepower Firewalls. You can go to the bit level to see why traffic is not handled in the correct way, and the majority of the time it's a networking issue and not a firewall issue. You can solve any problem without Cisco TAC help, because you can go very deeply under the hood to find out how traffic is flowing and whether it is not flowing as expected. That is something I have never seen with other brands."
  • "The Firepower FTD code is missing some old ASA firewalls codes. It's a small thing. But Firepower software isn't missing things that are essential, anymore."

What is our primary use case?

Telindus, our company, is an integrator. We sell Firepower and we do use it ourselves. I use all the different versions of the product. 

We either replace our customers' other brands of firewalls with Firepower, or we upgrade their old Cisco ASA Firewalls to the new Firepower firewalls. The type of device we advise them to install depends on the customer's requirements and the throughputs needed.

Our primary use case for Firepower is for big networks.

What is most valuable?

The most important feature is the intensive way you can troubleshoot Cisco Firepower Firewalls. You can go to the bit level to see why traffic is not handled in the correct way, and the majority of the time it's a networking issue and not a firewall issue. You can solve any problem without Cisco TAC help, because you can go very deeply under the hood to find out how traffic is flowing and whether it is not flowing as expected. That is something I have never seen with other brands. That is why, when people move from another brand to Cisco, they never leave Cisco. They see that advantage.

Something I like about Firepower, in general, is that it still relies on the old ASA code. That's something customers really like because when they go into the CLI, they remember, "Oh, that's the ASA, that I am familiar with," but it's enriched with all the next-gen features of Snort. When a customer has knowledge of the ASA codes, they can do intensive troubleshooting because they know the device.

Customers also like Talos, which is the intelligence behind all of Cisco's security products, including Firepower. Talos is very good and is actually the most important part of a security product. It's important that you have something in the background that is continuously enriching intelligence so that you get information about upcoming threats on time. That keeps you protected as soon as possible when a Zero-day happens. Something that customers like about Cisco Firepower, in combination with Talos intelligence, is that full-time people are working in the background to provide information to Cisco security products.

Customers really want visibility into their networks. For example, they want identity management and that is something you can use Firepower for. With it, in addition to an IP address going somewhere, you can also see the username. That's a big advantage of Firepower, and can be set up quite easily.

Also, in very large networks, our customers use Cisco DNA Center. They have automation orchestration for their access network and that works seamlessly with Cisco Firepower firewalls. Security Group Tags can be used from DNA to an edge Firepower firewall. That way, they have microsegmentation within their access network for DNA. And they can extend that to their firewall rules for Firepower. 

Our customers also use Cisco ISE to get user information. ISE is connected to DNA Center. That is something that Firepower works seamlessly with, and we do sell it a lot. We sell a lot of Cisco's other security equipment, and they all send their information to SecureX. Having more Cisco security products means your security information is becoming enriched within the SecureX platform. The integration among these Cisco products is more than easy. Cisco documents everything, in detail, when it comes to how to integrate the different parts. I've never had an issue with integrating Cisco security products with each other.

And for smaller networks, like those our government customers have, what they like about Cisco Firepower, and why they purchase it nine out of 10 times, is its ease of use and the reporting in Firepower Management Center. That is something they really like. They can look up things themselves and they like the SecureX integration.

What needs improvement?

The Firepower FTD code is missing some old ASA firewalls codes. It's a small thing. But Firepower software isn't missing things that are essential, anymore.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall since it came out; from the time Cisco started to use the name Firepower and they bought Snort. That's when they put in the next-generation features. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Firepower is rock-stable. So far, I have not seen any failed firewall. The only thing that was not quite stable in the past was Firepower Management Center, but since version 6.6 that has also been rock-stable. I haven't had any failed components in the last couple of years. I did have them two years ago and further in the past, where firewalls were not functioning and needed a reboot, but since 6.6, the stability is very good. We don't have priority-one tickets anymore.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In the Netherlands, where I work, we don't have very big customers requiring very high throughput. So I cannot say anything about clustering where you can pile different ASAs or Firepower devices together to increase performance when you require it. 

But scalability, in general, is pretty hard. Competition-wise, sometimes it's hard to sell Cisco security products because, in my opinion, Cisco is quite honest about the real throughput they are able to provide. Other vendors may be giving figures that are a little bit "too perfect." Sometimes it's hard for us to sell Cisco firewalls because a customer says, "Well, when I go to other brands they say they have double the throughput for half the price." Well, that's great on paper, but... 

In general, after we have installed Cisco firewalls, our customers are very pleased by the performance. They also like that they can tweak settings to get more performance out of the firewall by enabling specific policies for specific traffic, and by disabling inspection for very internal data center traffic. That provides a big boost to the overall firewall performance. When a customer complains that we didn't scale it correctly, and they say it's not performing as well as they expected, I'm always able to tweak things so that it performs the way the customer requires.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have interacted with Cisco's technical support many times. Nowadays, it sometimes takes a while to get to the person with the correct knowledge, but that is happening in the world in general. First-line people are common around the world and they are trying to figure out if an issue is actually a second-or third-line issue. But when you do reach the correct department, and they know that you are knowledgeable and that you are really facing a high-priority issue or a strange behavior, Cisco's support does everything it can to help you fix things, including involving the development department. I'm very happy with their tech support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Most of the time we replace Sophos, Check Point, SonicWall, and Fortinet firewalls with Cisco firewalls. Customers really like the overall integration with SecureX. They see the advantage of having more security products from Cisco to get more visibility into their security. We also replace old, non-next-generation firewalls from Cisco; old ASAs.

How was the initial setup?

The initial deployment of Firepower is a straightforward process. For me, it's pretty easy. If you have never worked with it, I can imagine it might be complex. 

Cisco makes it easier all the time. You can now deploy a remote branch by managing the device on an external interface. In the beginning, with previous software versions, that was hard. You needed to configure the file as a remote branch, but for that you needed the central Firepower Management Center to configure it and you didn't have a connection yet. It was a big issue to set up an initial firewall remotely when there was no connection to the Management Center. But that's been fixed.

In general, you just put down some management IP addresses and configure things so that the devices see each other and it starts to work. It's far from complex.

Generally, the initial setup takes four hours. The implementation strategy depends on the customer. I always have a conversation with the customer upfront. I explain how the connectivity works for Cisco Firepower, and then I say that I want to be in a specific subnet field. Then I start configuring the basics, and that is the part that takes about four hours, for Firepower Management Center and two firewalls in HA. Then, I start to configure the firewalls themselves, the policies, et cetera.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have experience with SonicWall, Fortinet, Juniper, and Sophos firewalls, among others. We work with Fortinet and Palo Alto. It's not that we only do Cisco. But I can say from my experience that I am really more convinced about Cisco products.

What customers really like about Cisco, the number-one thing that they are really happy about within Firepower—and it was also in the old ASA code, but it's even more a feature in Firepower—is that the configuration is in modules. It's modular. You have different policies for the different functions within your firewall, so that your access control policy is only for your access lists and that's it. You have a different network address translation policy. It's all separated into different policies, so a customer knows exactly where to look to configure something, to change something, or to look at something which is not working properly.

Also, with Cisco, when a customer is not totally certain about a change he's going to make, he can make a copy of the specific access control policy or the NAT policy. If something doesn't go right, he can assign the copied policy back to the device and everything is back to the way it was. 

These are the biggest advantages our customers see. When a customer doesn't have any knowledge about firewalls, I can explain the basics in a couple of hours and they have enough familiarity to start working with it. They see the different modules and they know how to make a backup of a specific module so that they can go back to the previous state if something goes wrong.

What other advice do I have?

My advice is "buy it." A lot of people prefer a specific brand and it's fairly hard to convince them that something else, like Cisco, is not bad, as well. They are so convinced about their existing firewall that they want to keep that brand because they are familiar with it and they won't need to learn a new firewall. It's hard for a customer to learn how a firewall works in the first place.

But my advice is that people should read about how Cisco security, in general, is set up and how it is trying to protect them with Talos. They need to understand that Cisco security is very good at what it does. They shouldn't blindly believe in what they have at the moment. I always hear, "My firewalls are good enough. I don't need Cisco. I will just buy the same ones, but new." Cisco Firepower is superior to other firewalls and people should not be afraid to dive in. By educating themselves about the firewall, they will be fine in managing it.

Practically speaking, Cisco firewalls are easier to manage than the firewalls they have at the moment, but they need to make the leap and try something else. That is the hardest part. When I do show them what they are capable of, and how you can configure all kinds of different things, they start to understand.

We don't have many customers that use other vendors' security products together with Firepower. We convince nine out of 10 customers to go over to Cisco fully. We do have customers who don't do that, and then we try to find a way to get the solutions to work together. For example, we try to integrate other brands' switches or firewalls with Cisco security products, but most of the time that is pretty hard. It's not the fault of Cisco. It requires that the other brands speak a protocol language that will support integration, but in the end, it's not perfect and the integration does not work very well. The majority of the time, we are not able to integrate into other security products. Cisco is using standard protocols, but the other vendor is abusing some sort of protocol and then it doesn't work well.

I don't prefer using applications in firewall rules, but our customers do use the application visibility and control, and it works perfectly. Firepower is very good at recognizing the application and is very good at showing you the kind of application that has been recognized. Customers use that in their access control policy rules, and I have never heard bad things about it. Cisco Firepower works very well in recognizing applications.

I get questions from customers because they do not understand threat messages generated by Firepower. Sometimes, it's hard to read what exactly the message is saying. In my opinion, that is not something that is specific to Cisco security or Firepower, rather it is an issue with security in general. Most networking people get these fancy firewalls and they get fancy security events. It's hard for some of them to understand what is meant, and what the severity level is of the message. It's more that a networking guy is trying to read security events. Firepower is doing a good job, but customers sometimes have problems understanding it and then they stop looking at it because they don't understand it. They assume that Firepower is taking the correct actions for them.

Firepower is not a fire-and-forget box. It is something you actually do have to take a look at. What I tell customers is, "Please enable Impact-One and Impact-Two messages in your mailbox, and if it's really something that you cannot understand, just forward it to me and I will take a look for you. Most of the time they are not very high-impact messages. There are only one or two high-impact messages per month.

There are customers who say, "We want you to review the messages in Firepower once a week." I have a look at them when I have time. We try to help the customer check security events once a week or so. That's not great, but it's always a question of finding a good balance between the money a customer can spend and the security aspects. When we do monitor all the events, 24/7, for a customer, you can imagine that it is quite expensive.

I configure every customer's automatic tweaking of IPS policies so that the IPS policy is enabled for the devices seen by Firepower, for recognition of what kinds of clients and hosts are in the network. Other than that, we do not do a lot of automation within Firepower.

Since 7.0, I don't have a lot of things to complain about. If I do have suggestions for improvements, I will give them during the beta programs. The speed of the FMC is very good. The deployment time is much better. They added the policy deployment rollback. That was something I really missed, because if I destroyed something I was able to undo that. Now, for me, it's actually almost perfect.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
PeerSpot user
Deputy Manager at Star Tech Engineering Ltd
Reseller
Automated policy application and enforcement free up time for us
Pros and Cons
  • "The dashboard is the most important thing. It provides good visibility and makes management easy. Firepower also provides us with good application visibility and control."
  • "One issue with Firepower Management Center is deployment time. It takes seven to 10 minutes and that's a long time for deployment. In that amount of time, management or someone else can ask me to change something or to provide permissions, but during that time, doing so is not possible. It's a drawback with Cisco. Other vendors, like Palo Alto or Fortinet do not have this deployment time issue."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for malware and IPS.

How has it helped my organization?

The automated policy application and enforcement have freed up time for us, on the order of 30 percent.

Also if one Cisco antivirus implementation is the subject of an attack, all other Cisco implementations get that information rapidly, in real time. All the other firewalls are in sync when it comes to malware attacks, through the update of the database. That is good.

The visibility it provides into threats is good. Every day we find lots of malware attacks targeting our network, but they don't get through to the network.

What is most valuable?

The dashboard is the most important thing. It provides good visibility and makes management easy. Firepower also provides us with good application visibility and control.

Cisco Talos is well known around the world and everyone trusts Talos for malware intelligence. It is number one. It is also the most secure for Snort rules. It is more secure than others because its real-time analysis is better.

In addition, Firepower Management Center is helpful. 

We also use Cisco ISE and the integration between it and Firepower is okay.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for four or five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a stable product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is good.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is good. When my NOC or my engineers have needed support the feedback I've had is that tech support has been good at critical moments. They have given us good service.

How was the initial setup?

There was no issue with the initial setup. It's straightforward because Cisco gives us lots of documentation. It's not a big deal, for me. In four or five years I have deployed 35 to 40 Firepowers for financial organizations and corporate offices.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We also use Palo Alto, Fortinet, Sophos, and Check Point.

One issue with Firepower Management Center is deployment time. It takes seven to 10 minutes and that's a long time for deployment. In that amount of time, management or someone else can ask me to change something or to provide permissions, but during that time, doing so is not possible. It's a drawback with Cisco. Other vendors, like Palo Alto or Fortinet do not have this deployment time issue.

The other issue is the upgrading process, with Cisco. Sometimes, if we use a standalone device we need to create maintenance windows at that time and we need to restart Firepower. But with other vendors, like Palo Alto, there is no need to update in that way.

If they mitigated these two things, Cisco would be number-one in the world in the security domain.

What other advice do I have?

We have not integrated Firepower with Cisco SecureX because it needs IOS 6.6. It's a limitation. If we have an external device, we would need downtime and in a financial organization, management will not allow us the downtime.

In my experience, the deployment procedure with Cisco is not the easiest, it's not plug-and-play. I hope that Cisco will give us that type of implementation.

Overall, I would rate Firepower at eight out of 10.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
PeerSpot user
Senior Network Engineer at BCD Travel
Real User
User friendly and easy to use GUI, but stability and scalability need improvement
Pros and Cons
  • "If you compare the ASA and the FirePOWER, the best feature with FirePOWER is easy to use GUI. It has most of the same functionality in the Next-Generation FirePOWER, such as IPS, IPS policies, security intelligence, and integration and identification of all the devices or hardware you have in your network. Additionally, this solution is user-friendly."
  • "We cannot have virtual domains, which we can create with FortiGate. This is something they should add in the future. Additionally, there is a connection limit and the FMC could improve."

What is our primary use case?

We are currently using this solution as a VPN and an internet firewall in some locations. In our data center, we are still using FortiGate as an internet firewall but we are evaluating other options.

What is most valuable?

If you compare the ASA and the FirePOWER, the best feature with FirePOWER is easy to use GUI. It has most of the same functionality in the Next-Generation FirePOWER, such as IPS, IPS policies, security intelligence, and integration and identification of all the devices or hardware you have in your network. Additionally, this solution is user-friendly.

What needs improvement?

We cannot have virtual domains, which we can create with FortiGate. This is something they should add in the future. Additionally, there is a connection limit and the FMC could improve.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for approximately three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is not stable. There seems to be always some issues. This is not ideal when you are running a system in a data center environment.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There is room for improvement in the scalability of this solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

I was satisfied with the support we received.

How was the initial setup?

When I did the installation three or four years ago it was challenging. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This solution is expensive and other solutions, such as FortiGate, are cheaper.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have evaluated FortiGate firewalls and when comparing with this solution there is no clear better solution, they each have their pros and cons.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend a Next-Generation firewall. FortiGate has a Next-Generation firewall but I have never used it. However, it would be similar to the Cisco Next-Generation FirePOWER, which has most of the capabilities, such as running all the BDP sessions and having security intelligence in one system. 

I would recommend everyone to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a six out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Cisco Secure Firewall Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2025
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Cisco Secure Firewall Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.