Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our customers for the most part use this solution in data centers. 

The feature my customers find the most valuable is the exportability. They also appreciate that the IPS features are easily migrated from Cisco SA to FTDs. 

We have seen some bugs come up with Cisco Secure Firewall in terms of high availability. The solution should be improved to avoid these bugs. 

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for almost a decade. 

Cisco's support is much better than other vendors' support. In my opinion, this is a big advantage for Cisco. The support Cisco offers is upper-level. 

Positive

We previously sold Fortinet devices. However, many of our clients switched over to Cisco because of the price as they are quite cheap. 

We are in the middle of a migration plan to Cisco right now in our company. I am not directly involved. We are working with a Cisco partner but I have been communicating our needs to them. However, I believe the migration process will be smooth for our company. It is crucial to have a solid migration plan in place because we are a core data center, so we have to be careful. 

We are deploying with the help of a partner. 

We do see a lot of ROI from Cisco Secure Firewall. We are in the process of migrating a lot of end-of-support devices with some new ones and the return on investment is there.

Price is a big selling point for Cisco Secure Firewall. They are quite affordable and many clients chose them precisely for this reason. 

This solution helped my clients save money and time. My clients save 50% on time thanks to automation and processing brought on by this solution. 

I have only good things to say about Cisco Talos. It has been quite helpful to our customers.

We primarily use this firewall for IPS, IAM, threat defense, and NAT.

I am from the networking department.

We are using the Firepower Management Center (FMS) and the management capabilities are okay. I would not say that they are good. The current version is okay but the earlier versions had many issues. The deployment also takes a long time. It takes us hours and in some cases, it took us days. The latest version 6.6.1, is okay and the deployment was quick.

I have tried to compare application visibility and control against Fortinet FortiGate, but so far, I don't see much difference. As I try to determine what is good and what is bad, I am seeking third-party opinions.

The most valuable feature is the threat defense. This product works well for threat defense but for everything else, we use Cisco ASA.

This product has a lot of issues with it. We are using it in a limited capacity, where it protects our DR site only. It is not used in full production.

The main problem we have is that things work okay until we upgrade the firmware, at which point, everything changes, and the net stops working. As a financial company, we have a lot of transactions and when the net suddenly stops working, it means that we lose transactions and it results in a huge loss.

We cannot research or test changes in advance because we don't have a spare firewall. If we had a spare then we would install the new firmware and test to see if it works, or not. The bottom line is that we shouldn't have to lose the network. If we upgrade the firmware then it should work but if you do upgrade it, some of the networks stop working. 

We have been using the Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for three years.

Cisco's technical support is the best and that's why everybody implements their products. But, when it comes to Firepower, we have had many delays with their support. For all of the other Cisco products, things are solved immediately.

Nowadays, they're doing well for Firepower also, but initially, there was no answer for some time and they used to tell us that things would be fixed in the next version. That said, when comparing with other vendors, the support from Cisco is good.

We use a variety of tools in the organization. There is a separate department for corporate security and they use tools such as RedSeal.

In the networking department, we use tools to analyze and report the details of the network. We also create dashboards that display things such as the UP/DOWN status.

We have also worked with Cisco ASA, and it is much better. Firepower has a lot of issues with it but ASA is a rock-solid platform. The reason we switched was that we needed to move to a next-generation firewall.

The initial setup was not easy and we were struggling with it.

In 2017, we bought the Firepower 2100 Series firewalls, but for a year, there was nothing that we could do with them. In 2018, we were able to deploy something and we had a lot of difficulties with it.

Finally, we converted to Cisco ASA. When we loaded ASA, there was a great difference and we put it into production. At the time, we left Firepower in the testing phase. In December 2018, we were able to deploy Firepower Threat Defense in production, and it was used only in our DR site.

We do our own maintenance and there are three or four of us that are responsible for it. I am one of the network administrators. We can also call Cisco if we need support.

From the perspective of return on investment, implementing the Firepower 2100 series is a bad decision.

Firepower has a very high cost and you have to pay for the standby as well, meaning that the cost is doubled. When you compare Fortinet, it is a single cost only, so Fortinet is cheaper.

Prior to Firepower, we were Cisco customers and did not look to other vendors.

Given the problems that we have had with Cisco, we are moving away from them. We are now trying to implement FortiGate and have started working with it. One thing that we have found is that the Fortinet technical support is very bad.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We pretty much use it as our edge firewall and data center firewall.

We have a colocation that is the center for all our campuses. That is where our edge firewall is. We use that for VPN as well, and it was a great thing during the pandemic because we were already ready to go with VPN. We didn't have to do anything extra on that part.

The solution has really enabled us to ensure our university is secure.

Cybersecurity resilience has been paramount. Because there is a threat of losing everything if ransomware or another sort of attack were to happen, the cybersecurity resilience has been top-notch.

The multi-context feature is the most valuable, especially in our data center. Having different needs for different departments is part of our organization. We can have five firewalls in one.

I would like it if they made the newer generation a bit simpler. You can do ASA code and FXOS. It is just a bit confusing with the newer generational equipment on what it can do.

I have been using this solution for five years.

I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

We do maintenance for software updates, etc. I don't think we have had any major hardware failures.

We haven't had to really scale up too much.

The technical support is excellent. Every time that we have ever had an issue, we got a result very quickly. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

We have always had ASA since I have been at the company. The ASAs were in place and we have upgraded to newer ASA Next-Generation Firewalls.

I am not a huge fan of Cisco licensing in general. However, I wasn't really involved with the pricing. That decision was made a little higher than me.

We are in the middle of an upgrade to the newer Firepowers.

We have used Palo Alto for another solution and they have a better firewall. It is a whole new GUI to learn. With Palo Alto, you simply get one code, then that is your firewall. With the newer Firepowers, there are two or three different ways that you can run it. So, we currently have our data center running in ASA code, then we are doing it a different way with our edge ASA. My supervisor has complained about all the different ways that the new hardware can be configured and installed.

Stay more up-to-date with equipment. The old equipment is what will get you, e.g., leaving Windows 7 machines on your network or 15-year-old switches.

Heavily research what can do cluster mode, HA pairs, etc. That is where we ran into the "gotchas". You have to run it in certain ways to have it clustered and run it another way to have it as an HA pair.

I would rate ASA Firewall as nine out of 10.

For our customers, Firepower is a classic perimeter firewall. Sometimes it's also for branch connections, but for those cases, we prefer Meraki because it's simpler. If a customer has Meraki and requires advanced security features, we will offer Firepower as a perimeter solution for them. Meraki is for SD-WAN and Firepower is for the perimeter.

Firewalls are not a new technology but they have a very distinct role in an enterprise for defending the perimeter. Firepower is for organizations that have traditional infrastructures, rather than those that are heavily utilizing cloud services. For us, the clients are government agencies and ministries, and we have a lot of them as our customers in Latvia.

Most firewalls do the same things, more or less. Because we have to compete with other vendors, it's the things that are different that are important. With Cisco, it's the security intelligence part. It's quite simple to configure and it's very effective. It cuts down on a lot of trouble in the early phases.

IPS and Snort are very important because they also differentiate Cisco from other vendors and competitors.

I also like that, in recent years, they have been developing the solution very quickly and adding a lot of new, cool features. I really love the new web interface of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center. It looks like a modern web-user interface compared to the previous one. And the recent release, 7.2, provided even more improvements. I like that you have the option to switch between a simplified view and the classic view of firewall policies. That was a good decision.

A major area of improvement would be to have more functionality in public clouds, especially in terms of simplifying it. The high availability doesn't work right now because of the limitations in the cloud. Other vendors find ways to make it work differently than with on-prem solutions.

This is very important because we have customers that build solutions in the cloud that are like what they had on-prem. They have done a lift-and-shift because it's easier for them. They lift their on-prem physical boxes and shift them to the cloud, convert them to virtual, and it continues to work that way. Many times it's not the most efficient or best way to do things, but it's the easiest. The easiest path is probably the way to go.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls for four or five years now, but before that, I worked with ASA Firewalls a lot. It was just a transition. I have been using Firepower almost from day one.

We are an integrator and we resell as well as provide professional services. We do everything from A to Z.

There are a lot of things that can be improved. As a Cisco partner, I usually take the first hit if something doesn't work. In recent years, the solution has improved and is more stable. But it has to continue to improve in that direction.

A Firepower firewall is a very important point of exit and entry to a network. It's a critical piece of infrastructure. They should have high availability.

By comparison, I am also a huge fan of Stealthwatch (Cisco Secure Network Analytics) and I use it everywhere. I've been working with that solution for 15 years but it's not mission-critical. If it doesn't work, your boss is not calling you. If it doesn't work, it is not collecting telemetry and it doesn't do its job, but you are not stressed to fix it. With firewalls, it's a little different.

Tech support really depends on how lucky you are. It depends on when you create a TAC case and in which time zone the case is created. That determines which part of TAC takes ownership of your case. I have had a few unpleasant cases but, at the end of the day, they were resolved. I didn't feel like I was alone in the field with an angry customer.

Positive

We made a gradual transition from ASA to Firepower because they first had this as Sourcefire services. That is what we used to install first for our customer base. Then Firepower defense appliances and firmware came out. It was a natural process.

My view may be a little bit biased because I do a lot of Cisco deployments, and I have a lab where I play all the time. But overall the deployment is not too complicated.

The deployment time depends on what type of deployment you have. If it's a physical deployment, it may be a little bit faster because you don't have to set up virtual machines. But I recently had a project in AWS, and I used Terraform Templates and it was easy. I still had to configure some additional things like interfaces, IP addresses, and routing. 

Because I know where everything is in the UI, the deployment is okay. One thing I miss a little bit is being able to configure things, like routing, via the command line, which is how it used to be done with the ASA Firewalls. But I understand why they've taken that ability away.

With ASA Firewalls, even when you were upgrading them, the experience was much better because it didn't have those advanced Snort features and you could usually do an upgrade in the middle of day and no one would notice. You didn't have any drops. With Firepower, that's not always the case.

It's hard to talk about pricing when you compare firewalls because firewall functionality is almost the same, regardless of whether it's a small box or a large box. The difference is just the throughput. Leaving aside things like clustering, what you have to look at are the throughput and the price.

Cisco's pricing is more or less okay. In other areas where we work with Cisco solutions, like other security solutions and networking, Cisco is usually much more expensive than others. But when it comes to firewalls, Cisco is cheaper than Check Point although it is not as cheap as Fortigate. But with the latest improvements in hardware and speed, the pricing is okay.

To me, as a partner, the licensing is quite simple. I'm responsible for providing estimates to my sales guys and, sometimes, as an architect, I create solutions for my customers and give them estimates. There are other Cisco solutions that have much more complicated licensing models than Firepower. In short, the licensing is quite okay.

Not all of our customers use Cisco and that means we have competition inside our company with Check Point. We also made some attempts with Palo Alto Firewalls, long before we became Cisco partners, but somehow it didn't work for us.

I enjoy working with Cisco because it's more of a networking-guy approach. It reminds me a lot of all the other Cisco equipment, like their switches and routers. The experience is similar.

I haven't worked a lot with Checkpoint firewalls, but I like how they look. What I don't really like is the way you configure them because it's very different from what networking guys are used to doing. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just different. It's not for me. Maybe it appeals more to server guys. Cisco has a more network-centric approach.

We currently have this solution hosted in a service provider's premises. They give us the link for our infrastructure and that is how we manage our equipment. We use the VPN feature to connect with our clients. 

The most valuable feature we have found to be the VPN because we use it often. Additionally, overall the solution is user-friendly and especially the ASDM GUI.

The solution has not had any layer upgrades. It does not have layer five and upwards, it only has up to layer four. This has caused some problems for us.

In the future, it would be wonderful to have an antivirus, log analyzer, and PDF/Excel data exportation features build into the solution. The data export would be great to be able to look at the access list.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable up to a point. We have had some troubles making VPN connections with other technologies, such as Check Point. We have some of our clients that have Check Point equipment on their side, and sometimes the traffic ceases. We then are forced to reset the tunnel in order to get the traffic back.

Currently, we have approximately 20 site-to-site VPNs operations.

We have had no issues with technical support.

We are currently using a Check Point solution because this solution lacks by not having an application layer.

The initial setup is can be complicated if you are not familiar with the command line. There is documentation available by Cisco and once you are trained it is not difficult at all.

We use implementation consultants for the full deployment and it took approximately two weeks to complete.

My advice to those wanting to implement the solution would be that implementations sometimes do not go as planned. You need to do your research to be prepared. 

We are evaluating other solutions because this one is getting close to its expiration. There are no other technologies out there that offer better features than this ASA solution.

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall a six out of ten.

We primarily use it for our clients. We have one or more at each client site - or multiple locations if they have multiple locations.

Typically our clients are up to about 500 users. Most of them are smaller than that, but they go as large as 500. They're using the solution for the full next-gen firewall stacks - intrusion protection, URL filtering, advanced malware protection, or so-called AMP. Those are the three subscription services that Cisco sells. All of our clients have those subscription services enabled at their main location. Typically, they're just protecting users that are behind the firewall. We also use it for site-to-site VPN, and we use it for client-to-site VPN.

In terms of our clients, security is one of those things that, ideally, nobody notices. It improves the functioning in the sense that you don't get hacked. However, from a noticeable, management point of view, the URL filtering is a pretty significant enhancement. People are able to block access to various websites by category. It isn't revolutionary. Lots of products do this. However, it's a nice sort of add-on to a firewall product.

At the end of the day, the solution offers good productivity enhancement to a company.

Cisco's support is great. 

For experienced users, they are pretty much able do anything they want in the interface with few restrictions.

The command-line interface is really useful for us. We script basic installations and modifications through the command-line, which is considered sort of old school, and yet it allows us to fully document the changes that we're making due to the fact that we can save the exact script that was applied and say, "Here are the changes that we made." 

We can have less experienced people do initial takes on an install. They can edit a template, and we can have a more experienced person review the template, and then apply it, and we don't have to worry about whether anyone inexperienced went into certain corners of the interface and made changes or whatever.

Everything is all documented in the file or in the command line script that gets uploaded to the device. It gives us great visibility.

I would say that in inexperienced hands, the interface can be kind of overwhelming. There are just a lot of options. It's too much if you don't know what you are looking for or trying to do.  

The GUI still uses Java, which feels out of date today. That said, it's an excellent GUI.

The biggest downside is that Cisco has multiple firewall lines. The ASA line which is what we sell, and we sell most of the latest versions of it, are kind of two families. One is a little older, one's a little newer. We mostly sell the newer family. Cisco is kind of de-emphasizing this particular line of products in their firewall stable. That's unfortunate. 

They have the ASA line, Meraki, which is a company they bought some years ago where all the management is sort of cloud interface that they provide rather than a kind of interface that you manage right on the box. They also bought Snort and they integrated the Snort intrusion detection into the ASA boxes. In the last couple of years, they've come out with a sort-of replacement to Snort, a line of firewalls that don't use IOS.

It's always been that the intrusion prevention and the based firewalling features had separate interfaces within IOS. They've eliminated IOS in this new product line and built it from the ground up. We haven't started using that product yet. They have higher performance numbers on that line, and that's clearly the future for them, but it hasn't reached feature parity yet with the ASA. 

The main downside is that it feels a little bit like a dead end at this point. One needs to decide to move to one of these other Cisco lines or a non-Cisco line, at some point. We haven't done the research or made the plunge yet.

What I would like to see is a more inexpensive logging solution. They should offer either the ability to maintain longer-term logs right on the firewall or an inexpensive server-based logging solution. Cisco has logging solutions, however, they're very high end.

We've been using the solution for 20 or more years. It's been well over two decades at this point.

The solution is solid. It's a big advantage of choosing Cisco. There are no worries about stability at all.

The scalability of the solution is good. Within our customer base, it is absolutely scalable. You can go very large with it. However, if you really want the highest speeds, you have to move off of the IOS ASA line and onto the newer stuff.

Typically our clients cap out at 500 employees.

Technical support is excellent. They are extremely knowledgeable and responsive. It'd rate the ten out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the level of support Cisco provides.

We did use Juniper's NetScreen product on and off for a while. We stopped using it about ten years ago now.

We had previous experience with the Cisco gear, so we were comfortable with it, and Juniper bought the NetScreen product and sunsetted it. You had to move into a different firewall product that was based on their equivalent of IOS, something called Juno OS, and we didn't like those products. Therefore, when they sunsetted the Juniper products, we looked around and settled on Cisco.

Due to the fact that we're experienced with it and we've scripted the command line, it's extremely simple for us. That said, I think it's complex for somebody that doesn't know the IOS platform.

We're Cisco resellers.

We're always on the latest version. I don't actually keep track of the version numbers myself, however, part of what the service that we provide for our clients is updating their firewalls to the latest version.

We use multiple deployment models. We use both on-premises and cloud versions. They are also all different sizes, according to the requirements of the company.

I'd advise other companies considering Cisco to be sure to factor in the cost of the ongoing security subscriptions and the ongoing SmartNet into the purchase price. Those things, over the years, represent more than the cost of the firewall itself - significantly more. However, I'd advise others to get the security subscriptions due to the fact that it really dramatically increases the security of the solution overall.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate them at an eight. We love the product, however, we feel like it's not Cisco's future direction, which is the only reason I would downgrade its score. To bring it up to a 10, they'd have to make it their main product line again, which they aren't going to do.

The ASAs are a defense solution for companies. Many of them use the AnyConnect or the VPN licenses. They also use it to have a next-generation firewall and to be compliant with GDPR.

The majority of our usage of the solution is on-prem or hybrid. The culture, here in Portugal — even knowing that the future is full cloud, in my opinion — is to only be on the way to full cloud.

All the features are very valuable. 

Among them is the integration for remote users, with AnyConnect, to the infrastructure. All the security through that is wonderful and it's very easy. You connect and you are inside your company network via VPN. Everything is encrypted and it's a very good solution. This is a wonderful feature. You need to make sure your machine has the profile requested by the company. That means having the patches updated. Optionally, you should have the antivirus updated, but you can decide whatever you would like in order to enable acceptance of the end-device in the enterprise network. That can be done with AnyConnect for remote/satellite users, or with ISE for local users.

The intrusion prevention system, the intrusion detection, is perfect. But you can also integrate Cisco with an IPS solution from another vendor, and just use the ASA with AnyConnect and as a firewall. You can choose from among many other vendors' products that the ASA will integrate with. Now, with Cisco SecureX, it's much easier than before. Cisco used to be completely blocked from other vendors but with SecureX they are open to other vendors. That was a massive improvement that Cisco probably should have made 10 years ago or seven years ago. They only released SecureX three or four months ago. 

Cisco ASA also provides application control. You can block or prevent people from going to certain applications or certain content. But the ASA only acts as a "bodyguard." It doesn't provide full visibility of the network. For that, there are other solutions from Cisco, such as ISE, although that is more for identity. Stealthwatch or TrustSec is what you need for visibility. They are both for monitoring and providing full visibility of the network, and they integrate with ASA.

Also, all of Cisco's security products are supported with Talos. Talos is in the background, handling all the improvements, all the updates. If something happens in Australia, for example, Talos will be aware of it and it will update the worldwide Talos network for all Cisco products. Within two minutes or three minutes, worldwide, Cisco products will be aware of that threat. Talos belongs to Cisco. It's like a Cisco research center.

My concern in the 21st century, with ASA, is the front-end. I think Cisco missed the mark with all the configuration steps. They are a pain and, when doing them, it looks as if we're using a very old technology — yet the technology itself is not old, it's very good. But the front-end configuration is very tough. They probably still make a good profit even with the front-end being difficult, but it's not easy. It's not user-friendly. All the configuration procedures are not user-friendly.

Also, they launched the 1000 series for SMBs. They have all the same features as the enterprise solutions, but the throughput is less and, obviously, the price is less as well. It's a very nice appliance. However, imagine you buy one, take it out of the box to connect it and the device needs one hour or two hours to start up. That is a pain and that is not appropriate for the 21st century. They should solve that issue.

Another issue is that when you integrate different Cisco solutions with each other, there is an overlap of features and you need to turn some of them off, and that is not very good.  If you don't, and you have overlap, you will have problems. Disabling the overlap can be done manually or the solution can identify that there is already a process running, and will tell you to please disable that function.

For today's threats, for today's reality, you need to add solutions to the ASA, either from Cisco or from other vendors, to have a full security solution in an enterprise company.

I've been using Cisco ASA NGFW for almost two years.

The stability of the ASA is perfect. There is no downtime. And you can have redundancy as well. You can have two ASAs working in Active-Passive or load balancing. If the product needs a restart, you don't have downtime because you use the other one. From that point of view it's very robust.

You can go for other models for scalability and sort it out that way.

My suggestion is to think about scalability and about your tomorrow — whether you'll increase or not — and already think about the next step from the beginning.

Cisco's technical support for ASA is very good. I have dealt with them many times. They are very well prepared. If you have a Smart Account, they will change your device by the next business day. That is a very good point about Cisco. You have to pay for a Smart Account, but it's very useful.

The initial setup is very complex. You need to set a load of settings, whether from the CLI or the GUI. It's not an easy process and it should be. That is one of the reasons why many retailers don't go for Cisco. They know Cisco is very good. They know Cisco does ensure security, that it is one of the top-three security vendors, but because of the work involved in the implementation, they decide to go with other solutions.

There are two possibilities in terms of deployment. If we go to a client who is the ASA purchaser and they give us all their policies, all their permissions, and everything is organized, we can deploy, with testing, in one full day. But many times they don't know the policies or what they would like to allow and block. In that scenario, it will take ages. That's not from the Cisco side but because of the customer.

One person, who knows the solutions well, is enough for an ASA deployment. I have done it alone many times. After it's deployed, the number of people needed to maintain the solution depends on their expertise. One expert could do everything involved with the maintenance.

When it comes to security, pricing should not be an issue, but we know, of course, that it is. Why is an Aston Martin or a Rolls Royce very expensive? It's expensive because the support is there at all times. Replacement parts are available at all times. They offer a lot of opportunities and customer services that others don't come close to offering. 

Cisco is expensive but it's a highly rated company. It's one of the top-three security companies worldwide.

I can see the differences between Cisco and Check Point. 

Cisco has a solution called Umbrella which was called OpenDNS before, and from my point of view, Umbrella can reduce 60 percent of the attack surface because it checks the validity of the DNS. It will check all the links you click on to see if they are real or fake, using the signature link. If any of them are unknown, they will go straight to the sandbox. Those features do not exist with Check Point.

Cisco ASA is a very robust solution. It does its job and it has all the top features. If you have a solution that is creating a script and you need to deploy many implementations, you can create a script in the device and it will be the same for all. After that, you just have to do the fine tuning. It lacks when it comes to the configuration steps and the pain that that process is. You need to spend loads of time with it at setup. Overall, it does everything they say it does.

It's a very good solution but don't only go with the ASA. Go for Cisco Umbrella and join them together. If you have remote employees, go for AnyConnect to be more than secure in your infrastructure.

You cannot do everything with Cisco Defense Orchestrator. You have a few options with it but cannot do everything from the cloud if you are connected with the console of a device. You don't have all the same options, you only have some options with it. For example, you can manage the security policies, all of them, from the cloud. However, not all the settings and all the things you can do when in front of the device are available with CDO. What you see is what you get.

Most companies using ASA are big companies. They are not SMB companies. There are very few SMB companies using it. There are the banks and consulting companies, the huge ones. Usually the ASAs are for massive companies.

Our reality in Portugal is a little different. I was at a Cisco conference here in Lisbon and the guy said, "Oh, we have this solution," — it was for multi-factor authentication — "and we have different licenses. We have a license for 40,000 and for 20,000 users. And I was thinking, "This guy doesn't know Portuguese reality. There are no companies in Portugal with 40,000 employees."

Large companies who do use ASA use various security tools like IPS and Layer 7 control. From my experience, and from common sense, it's best to have solutions from different vendors joining together. The majority have defense products for the deterrent capacities they need to achieve security. Our clients also often have Cisco ISE, Identity Service Engine. It's a NAC solution that integrates perfectly with ASA and with AnyConnect as well.

As for future-proofing your security strategy, ASA is the perfect solution if you integrate other Cisco solutions. But the ASA alone will not do it because it does not handle some of the core issues, like full visibility of the network, the users, the machines, the procedures, and the applications, in my opinion.

I have been using the Cisco ASA NGFW for about four months. Everything works fine right now. We have only been using this device for a very short period of time. 

• We have about 500 registered users and about 400-600 static users. 
• For 400 to 600 users with wireless devices, we use Cisco ASA NGFW to control device traffic. We're using the new web filters. 
• We use Cisco ASA NGFW as the bit application.

Thus far, we are using it as a web filter to filter the data against incoming traffic. We are an educational organization, so there is no gambling allowed. We don't want to allow students access to gambling sites or adult sites, etc. We use lots of web filters. That's the primary reason I installed the Cisco firewall. 

We are also happy with the Cisco ASA NGFW router firewall. It protects your small server infrastructure, but it's not complete. We purchased the Cisco ASA NGFW for the web filter. That's why we moved to the firewall.

Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization. 

We have an opportunity to grow now. The Cisco ASA NGFW firewall can be upgraded to another version, so it's better for us long term. It is much better because we can control the traffic that students are accessing and downloading. There are still a lot of improvements that can be done. 

For organization security, Cisco ASA NGFW has robust cyber-security features. We are planning to increase the number of firewalls installed, especially for wireless connections.

We installed a Cisco path a month ago. There was a new update for the Cisco firewall and there were security issues.

We like Cisco filtering as a firewall, but in the current market, Cisco's passive firewall is not unique. We don't have any warranty problems with Cisco. 

I asked our carrier several times to provide the exact gap code for me, but there is no Cisco dealer in our region. There is also no software accessibility with Cisco ASA NGFW. You can't always access the product that way. I also tried pfSense.

There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products. 

Cisco products are more supported by lots of companies who are producing technical services for cloud platforms. The certification is very easy in Georgia now. There are lots of people using Cisco in Georgia because their accessibility is better than the other products on the market. I also talked to several guys about the Barracuda firewall.

The Barracuda firewall is very expensive. You need to pay three or four thousand dollars every three months, so it's very expensive for us. We are not a big company.

For our users, there are rules for the students and staff have another RF for authorization. There are small file servers also within the domain controller. 

There is no special restriction for the students. They can print. They can visit outside websites online, but there is no gambling allowed at other sites.The students can access whatever they want over email or HTTP. Only the gambling and the betting sites, they cannot install the software. There are restrictions. 

The students can use their own mobile phones or wireless devices, whatever they want. They are using the shared public key authorization. Our institution doesn't have any restrictions about accessing legal data. Except in Georgia, we have a very big problem with gambling websites. There are a lot of gambling websites, so we are trying to restrict all of the gambling sites at our company. We have a contract for the next year. 

We are growing. In the next two years, we will have an additional 600 users, so we will double the capacity. We will see even more in the next three years. 

It will be like very tough. In about five-year cycles, you need to update the firewall and add other new Cisco devices for the next generation of innovation.

In five years, we will be ready for a complete upgrade cycle for everything. The stability and scalability of the Cisco ASA NGFW are good for when we need to grow. 

For the next five years, everything is fine. After that, we will see because there will be a lot of changes.

Technical support with Cisco is very good. We feel the company is very reliable and very competent. I have very good feelings about the future for project operations.

We had the old version of the Kerio firewall, but because in our country, there is no official dealer for Kerio, we moved to the Cisco ASA NGFW. This is the main reason why we moved to the Cisco firewall.

We announced the tender and bought this product with the installation plus setup included in the price. I was not involved in the installation or in the setup. 

The company just asked a consultant to do it. The whole process, after we announced the tender, took about one to two weeks. The consultant company installed the software. They also helped us to optimize other parts of the network such as the routers and switches.

The setup of the Cisco ASA NGFW was complex, not only for us as a firewall. We have now submitted another tender for a device router with two-node switchless support. We updated almost everything on the Cisco ASA NGFW with the core and distribution level software upgrades.

We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.

The Cisco license was not yearly. It was a yearly license for the firewall. For the router and switch, it was a lifetime license.

The other option we considered was Kerio. I tried to contact their office in Russia, but it is in the UK. I wanted to communicate with them because we cannot buy things without a warranty.

We considered buying Kerio products with the warranty, but they said we needed to send the device to them to repair it. This meant it would take too much time to replace it. In Georgia, we need a local distributor, i.e. a local representative here who we can work with, so that's the problem.

In Georgia, there is no problem using the Cisco firewall, because it's accessible. You cannot use other products, because they are not accessible. That's the whole problem.

I would rate Cisco ASA NGFW an 8 out of 10.