Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use them for firewall purposes. We use the small ones with the partners for the services they need, such as VPN and security.

Their performance is most valuable.

The stability could be better because we have a lot of issues with the stability of Cisco Firepower.

I've been using Cisco firewalls for 20 years.

We have a lot of issues with the stability of Cisco Firepower.

It depends on the model. We are hitting some issues with scalability. It's getting very expensive to scale out.

They sometimes take too long and don't fix the issue quickly, but eventually, it is fixed. I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We have been using different Cisco firewalls for a long time. We are currently using Cisco Firepower and Cisco ASA. Cisco Firepower is better than Cisco ASA, but stability is an issue.

It's now easier than before. You can have virtual appliances.

We mostly have it on-prem, but some customers want on-prem virtual.

We considered using a different solution such as Check Point or Huawei. We chose to stay with Cisco because we're experienced with Cisco and because of the support.

The old versions or models saved us time, but the newer ones take our time. Overall, I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten.

We use them in our data centers and on the client side. We have a small installation of Firepower in our main data center, and we are also using Cisco ASA firewalls. So, we have the old ASA platform and new Firepowers. 

It saves time because it's easy to operate and it's easy to add new zones or firewall rules. It's also easy to troubleshoot. It's a neat platform.

When I was managing these firewalls, I found them easy to understand, easy to deploy, and easy to maintain as compared to some of the other firewalls I have been involved with earlier. The opinion of my coworkers is that it's easy and quick to establish new zones, expand, and maintain.

I'm not very familiar with the largest Firepower models, but competitors like Palo Alto seem to have a more capable engine to do, for instance, TLS/SSL decryption. As I understand, Firepower doesn't let you export the decrypted traffic so that, for instance, the security department can look at the traffic or inspect traffic. It's all in the box. I've heard rumors that this is something Cisco is working on, but it isn't yet available.

We have been using Cisco firewalls for about 10 years. 

Its stability is good. We have a failover standby solution that works fairly well. It can have some improvements, but we are happy with it.

We had an issue where we had to install another cluster for the firewall because we went out of the capabilities on one of them. You need to analyze in advance how much your usage will grow in the future and you have to decide based on that. It's about adding more firewalls. We can scale in this way, and it's good.

Whenever I've used their tech support, they have been successful. They quickly pinpointed the problem and provided swift remediation for all the problems. My experience has been good. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We decided to go for Firepower because we needed to expand, and we have a large installation of Cisco devices in our environment. It's 70% Cisco. We have one location where they are using Extreme equipment, but in that location also, we have Cisco firewalls. Having one vendor leads to ease of management. It's also easy in terms of competence. We have good knowledge of Cisco, so it's easy to maintain and operate a Cisco platform.

For network security, we have a central hub for all the external traffic. That is a huge load of traffic. On those applications, we are using Palo Alto. We have a mixed combination of Cisco and Palo Alto in our central locations.

Using Cisco firewalls has helped to eliminate or consolidate some of the tools and applications. We have some installations of AlgoSec to see what's going on or how the performance is, but we have, more or less, decided that we don't need them now because there is so much information that we can pull from CSM or FMC.

It's easy to deploy and maintain.

We have a partner for Cisco products. We have a contract with a new partner now for the SDA fabric on ACI.

I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine out of ten. 

We use it for our VPN requirements. We wanted to allow people to work from home and we used the ASA to create VPNs through AnyConnect at the endpoints.

It has 

• allowed people to work from home when they otherwise couldn't
• improved response times when there are fires that need to be put out when people are not onsite.

The VPN feature is the most valuable to us because it accomplishes the task well. We're able to do everything we need to do.

I would like to see them update the GUI so that it doesn't look like it was made in 1995.

I've been using the Cisco ASA Firewall for between one and two years.

It's been very stable. I don't think we've ever had an issue with it failing entirely.

It scales well. We've had no issues ramping things up.

We're going to expand our usage of it. We rolled it out to about 200 users and now we're going to expand that to about 1,000 users out of our 3,000-user base. It has been really good.

The tech support is excellent. I've always gotten really good tech support from Cisco.

Positive

We did not have a previous solution.

The pricing could always be cheaper.

The solution always requires maintenance. I have about two people who are the "experts" and they help maintain it pretty well.

Cyber security resilience has been extremely important for our organization because of our customers' demands for security. The ASA has really helped to accomplish that with the VPN. My advice to leaders who are looking to build resilience is don't go cheap, and make sure you have backup solutions and high availability.

It's a good, robust firewall and VPN solution, with lots of knobs to turn. It is effective at what it does.

This product protects our computer systems. I use it as a traditional firewall service. I don't have any special use cases for it.

Firepower has reduced our firewall operational costs by about 25 percent.

Sometimes there is a lack of performance. One of my colleagues is using the firewall as an IPS, but he is worried about Firepower's performance. It is much lower than we expected. They need to improve the performance a lot. With the 10 Gb devices, when it gets to 5 Gbps, the CPU usage goes up a lot and he cannot manage the IPS.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for more than two years.

The most valuable property is the stability. It doesn't crash.

When I have had issues with the software, I don't think they have given me the right answers. The support for the software isn't that good, but support for the hardware is very good.

Neutral

Although I work in Korea, I needed a means of deploying computer systems in other countries. Two or three years ago I was looking for a proper solution that would cover global sites. I chose Cisco products because Cisco has a very large presence all over the world.

Once I got used to this product, it was easy to use other products, but it was not easy for me the first time.

Firepower is a little bit expensive, although there are no additional costs beyond the standard ones.

We have several brands of firewalls in our organization. Compared to them, the ease of management of the Cisco firewalls is pretty good.

When you calculate the capacity you need, you should add a buffer for performance.

There are 25 users of the solution on my team and they are all network security specialists.

I work for an engineering company that has multiple sites located in different locations, overseas and domestically in Pakistan. There are 30 to 35 sites connected to our network. We restrict the website at these locations using the Cisco Firepower module.

The main thing that I love the most is its policy and objects. Whenever I try to give access to a user, I can create an object via group creation in the object fields. This way, I am not able to enter a user in the policy repeatedly. 

Cisco Firepower is not completely integrated with Active Directory. We are trying to use Active Directory to restrict users by using some security groups that are not integrated within the Cisco Firepower module. This is the main issue that we are facing. 

There are some other issues related to their reports where we want to extract some kind of user activity. When a user tries to connect to our website, we are unable to read its logs in a proper manner and the report is not per our requirement. These are two things that we are facing.

Per my requirements, this product needs improvement. For example, I want to use and integrate with Active Directory groups. 

We have been using it since last year.

It is a stable product.

I haven't tried to work with Cisco support.

In the last 10 years, we were using the Barracuda Web Security. Compared with that product, I would give this solution six or seven out of 10 when compared to Barracuda. Barracuda has one of the best web security features, giving access to users by deploying a web agent on client computers at different sites. 

Barracuda Web Security's hardware was obsolete so our management never tried to renew its license. That is why we are trying to use the Cisco Firepower module. We want to understand their web security gateways, web security logs, what it provides, and the kind of reporting it has. We are currently doing research and development regarding what features and facilities it provides us compared to our requirements.

I am happy with the web security. However, I am not happy with the groups, reports, and integration with Active Directory.

We are using the web security, and only the web security feature. Therefore, if someone asked me to give them advice about the Cisco product, then I will definitely not recommend it since it is not fulfilling our requirement. We have different sites located domestically and at overseas sites, which is about 30 to 35 sites. It is not locating any of the clients. This is compared to the Barracuda web agent on the client computer, which is always connected to Barracuda with live IP addresses, pushing and pulling all the procedures and policies to that client and computer. This is why I will not recommend the product to anyone who has a similar situation to ours. .

I would love to use the product in the future, if my requirements are met.

I would rate the product as four out of 10.

We use it to configure the perimeter firewalls. In FireSIGHT, we have two firewalls in a cluster with high ability, then we have five firewalls in Offices. We use those firewalls as a perimeter for Offices.

We have all the devices in the Firepower Management Center system. We always work with Firepower devices in Firepower Management Center.

We have offices around the world. We are in Europe, the USA, and South America.

We have border security with Firepower. We try to curb security issues by using this Firepower firewall.

The solution provides us with good working application visibility and control.

I have access to the web version of Cisco Talos to see the reputation of IP addresses. I find this very helpful. It provides important information for my company to obtain the reputation of IP addresses. The information in Talos is quite complete.

The configuration in Firepower Management Center is very slow. Deployment takes two to three minutes. You spend a lot of time on modifications. Whereas, in FortiGate, you press a button, and it takes one second.

Three years ago, the Firepower Management Center was very slow. The solution has improved a lot in the last couple of years. It is now faster. I hope that continues to improve. 

I have been using it for three years.

We have five devices. In Rome, we don't have a technician and didn't work when we started using it. We had to send a technician to Rome to reboot the system. Now, it is stable with no problems. Also, we lost the link to the high availability firewall in our data center. We only had one device there, and Solutel had to solve this issue.

The scalability is great.

We have five devices in four locations.

Three network administrators who work with Firepower, including myself.

I usually create an issue with Solutel, then they create a case with Cisco Talos or the Cisco technicians. I am happy with Solutel's support.

We deployed in several cities, but not the same day. 

The initial deployment was done by a Cisco partner, Solutel. Our experience with Solutel was fantastic. They are local partners for us and provided us with great service.

We realized that clearly we have issues of security with a lot of attacks. I don't know if it is because with the COVID-19 virus a lot of hackers are at home or working more hours. In the last year, we have seen attacks that are very big, and we need a barrier. So, we use a firewall to block these attacks.

The price for Firepower is more expensive than FortiGate. The licensing is very complex. We usually ask for help from Solutel because of its complexity. I have a Cisco account where I can download the VPN client, then connect. Instead, I create an issue with Solutel, then Solutel solves the case.

Our license for Firepower is their best license.

We have FortiGate firewalls, the security of Office 365 from Microsoft, Cisco Umbrella, and Kaspersky Anti-virus. We are also using Cisco ASA, Meraki switches, and a router from Cisco.

The Firepower Management Center tool is very slow. We also have the FortiGate firewalls and these tools for configuring the firewall are faster.

We have to make a change to our devices in South America. We are currently evaluating Cisco Firepower Series 1000 versus FortiGate. Firepower is more powerful than FortiGate, but FortiGate is more flexible and easier to configure. Because of our last issues with Firepower, it is possible that FortiGate is more stable.

It is a very powerful device. Firepower Management Center is a great tool, but it is a bit slow.

We don't have Cisco Umbrella integrated with Firepower. We tested Firepower's integration with Meraki Umbrella, but we don't use it because you need better firmware.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).

We are using the ASA in our network to create a VPN between six places. We also use it for servers and data synchronization.

The most valuable feature is that it's secure.

It is really stable and I've never had an occasion that due to this firewall, I have had issues with the network, a breakdown, or otherwise.

This is a user-friendly product. Once you have a specialist who can configure it properly, you'll be pretty protected everything you want is in it.

In the future, I would like to be able to use an IP phone over a VPN connection.

I have been working with Cisco ASA Firewall for at least seven years.

The stability is good.

We have not tried to scale our network. It was established a long time ago and nothing has changed since then.

I have been auditing their partners in Bulgaria and I am in contact with them on a regular basis. I have not had any real issues with my equipment but overall, I think that the support is perfect.

We were using the ASA 5505 and our network is faster now, so we are now in the process of upgrading our network to the 5506 model. The 5505 is a 100 megabit product, which is very low.

We had a company that set everything up for us. They have Cisco engineers and I'm paying them annually for next-business-day support. They do all of the maintenance for us.

They have a lot of different models but most of them are really expensive. This is the main thing because, for us, the price is important.

Overall, I am pretty satisfied with this product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are an IT integrator. We include parts of the infrastructure as part of our services, which includes firewalls, routers, switches, and even some end-user devices. We are deploying Cisco, Palo Alto, and Aruba. We are a very big company, and we have probably about 300,000 employees all over the world.

We use this solution for security and for enabling site-to-site VPN. We have on-premises and cloud deployments, and we are using the latest version of this solution. It is 5500 or something like that. 

The configuration capabilities and the integration with other tools are the most valuable features. 

I really like this product. Cisco is one of my favorite brands, and I always think Cisco solutions are very reliable, easy to configure, and very secure.

It can probably provide a holistic view of different appliances because many customers do not have only one brand, besides the traditional SNMP protocols, to cover all their devices. There are some specific requirements in terms of configurations or actions that sometimes have to be done in a very manual way because of the different versions or brands in a customer's infrastructure.

It could also have some additional analytics capabilities. It has some very interesting ways to monitor the traffic and identify false positives from the architecture and the environment. It would be good if there is a way to patch with some other industry-specific solutions and synchronize some of the information, such as what other customers experience in their operations and probably share some additional information that could be leveraged or shared among the industry. Such information would be something interesting to see. It could have AI capabilities related to how the appliances could benefit from learning the current environment and different exposures.

I have been using this solution since the beginning of this company, which would be more than 20 years.

It is stable and reliable.

There is no real limit to the way they can scale. It is very easy to integrate additional firewalls or even nodes on appliances. Whenever needed, they are stackable. They are very flexible in that sense. Our clients are large businesses.

The service that we have received from Cisco has been reliable, fast, and efficient. They are very good. As long as you have a contract, you can rely on them. You should also have a technical team certified or at least trained on the infrastructure to provide in-depth first-level help. 

I have also used other solutions like Palo Alto. The capabilities are pretty much the same. It is just a matter of how they integrate with the overall landscape of the customers. Palo Alto seems to be the top end firewall these days, but the customers might have purchased Cisco in the past or have a DNA subscription using which they could probably take advantage of the security landscape that Cisco offers. It is more about what is the overall benefit rather than just the appliance.

They seem to be at the top end in terms of pricing, but they are worth the price. They are probably a little bit lower than Palo Alto. If the customers are relying on Cisco products and they are thinking more in terms of scaling to another layer in a year, it is pretty much in a good price range.

I would suggest to be sure that it smoothly integrates with the infrastructure that you have. Try to take advantage of the DNA subscription and the new monitoring features that it has. Be informed about what's new with this product.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of ten.