Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our primary use case includes basic firewalls, VPNs, NAT, and our connections to customers.

It's used in our data centers to protect the network and customer circuits.

Cisco ASA Firewall has improved our organization by allowing connectivity to the outside world and into different places.

Cybersecurity resilience is very important to our organization. There are always threats from the outside, and the firewall is the first line of defense in protecting the network.

Cisco ASA Firewall is a well-known product. They're always updating it, and you know what they're doing and that it works.

It would be good if Cisco made sure that the solution supports all routing protocols. Sometimes it doesn't.

I've been using it for probably 10 to 15 years.

For the most part, it's stable.

It's a very scalable solution.

The technical support is very good, and I would give them a nine out of ten.

The pricing and licensing are getting more complicated, and I'd like that to be simpler.

We evaluated some Palo Alto and Juniper solutions, but Cisco ASA Firewall is better in terms of ease of use. You could get certified in it.

To leaders who want to build more resilience within their organization, I would say that the ASA, along with its features, is a good product to have as one of the lines of defense.

The solution does require maintenance. We have four network engineers who
are responsible for upgrading code and firewall rules, and for new implementations.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine. Also, it's a very good product, and it compares well to others.

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.

We use them for VPNs and as firewalls, of course. We wanted to protect the network and have secure communication with our peers.

They secure the network and ensure our network is always available.

They are easy to maintain.

I would like to see them add more next-generation features so that you don't need a lot of appliances to do just one task. It should be a single solution.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewalls for nine years.

In terms of stability, it is a really good product and platform. Overall, it's great.

It's not really cost-effective when it comes to scalability. It is a really expensive product if you go to the modular firewalls. You need to get new appliances to get new features.

Tech support is good but it could be improved on some points.

Neutral

I have used Fortinet, Check Point, and Palo Alto firewalls. Most of those solutions have everything integrated into them so you don't need multiple appliances. You get a single solution for your network. It would be better to have a centralized firewall, from Cisco, that can do everything.

The initial deployment was straightforward. The last implementation of an ASA took us about one to two weeks.

Our implementation strategy was to have good architecture and to have all the requirements for the project beforehand. Everything went really smoothly because of that.

We needed four or five people for deployment, including field techs and network engineers.

For clean and easy protection of an enterprise, it is a really good product. It can be also deployed as a virtualized solution in data centers.

We use it for VPN access for our two-factor authentication. We were looking to get access through AnyConnect, to gain access to devices behind boundaries and firewalls.

It has improved things greatly by giving us easier and better access, easier configuration, and allowing users to gain the access they need. We have also had less downtime using these firewalls.

AnyConnect has been very helpful, along with the ability to use LDAP for authentication. It's very robust and we are able to do many different things that we were looking to do.

The ASAs are being replaced with the new Firepowers and they have a different type of structure in the configuration to be able to migrate from one to the other.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewalls for 20 years.

The stability is very good. It has been a very stable environment. Since the new AnyConnect came out, it's been very easy to use and very much self-sufficient.

You can vary scalability from very few users to thousands of users.

Technical support has been very helpful at times, helping us to know what bugs and what things are getting fixed in the next releases.

Positive

As an architecture team, we had a pretty good idea of what we wanted to do and how we wanted to do it, so it was pretty straightforward and easy. We have each one across many different avenues and many different boundaries, so each one took about a day to deploy.

We needed two to three people to deploy them and another one to go over some things to make sure everything was good to go.

There is routine maintenance, keeping it up to date and making sure the licensing versions are all good to go. We have a four-man team for maintenance and they work a regular shift of eight hours.

We used a reseller, FedData. Our experience with them was good.

It took us about six months to see benefits from our ASA Firewalls. We've seen return on our investment in terms of the timeframe of downtime, and the ability to get users connected faster and more easily has been a big benefit.

The pricing of the products isn't terrible. They're not too expensive. They're a little more expensive than other products, but you are getting the name, the company, and the support.

It's also nice that you can buy different avenues of licensing, depending on how you want to go about using them.

We buy a support license to get support if we have any issues or problems or need help on how we want to implement things.

We evaluated other options, but that was a long time ago. We went with Cisco because it is so robust as well as because they have been able to integrate their solutions into many different architectures. That makes their products easier to use.

Each use case is different and things depend upon your cost analysis and how much you need. We have these firewalls in different avenues over about 30 different sites.

The biggest lesson from using the solution is being agile which has included learning to understand how to use the ASDM and figuring out how to configure everything—the little nuances—and what can and can't be done on the CLI.

These firewalls, along with the upcoming Firepower that they're being replaced by, are going to be very good assets for two-factor authentication and VPN access.

We use it as a next-generation firewall for the perimeter. I generally use it on-premises.

It helps protect my servers from hackers.

The most valuable feature is the Intrusion Prevention System.

Most of the features don't work well, and some features are missing as well. The completeness of the solution is most important for me. It should be complete, but some parts are missing. Cisco should improve it.

Every part of the features should be developed. That includes the next-generation firewall parts, such as application recognition.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls for about five years. I am an integrator and reseller of multiple vendors' products.

The stability is getting better day by day, but I would expect a more stable solution, to be honest. It is stable now, but we have solutions that are more stable.

Technical support is nice, but most of the limitations or problems are caused by the product itself. There's nothing that a technical engineer can do about them.

The licensing package is good, but the licensing fee should be decreased.

I have used CheckPoint, Palo Alto, Juniper, and FortiGate. The Palo Alto solution is complete. 

If I choose Cisco Firepower it is mostly because of its integration with other solutions. When the customer has several Cisco solutions, I put Cisco Firepower on top of them. But if the customer has a complex environment, I generally prefer other solutions.

For specific needs, like VPN, you can use Cisco Firepower. But our expectation is for a next-generation Firewall or UTM solution that includes all the features. I cannot recommend Firepower to others, at the moment, as a unified threat management solution.

Generally, if the customer's number of users is greater than 100, that's when the Cisco solution is more likely to be effective.

Maintenance of the solution requires one or two people.

We use it for our data center. We have clusters of the solution to protect the equipment in our data center. We also use it for site-to-site VPN hubs.

Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall made our firewall response much faster when trying to respond to any services or networks that stand out. It makes us very responsive when any of the visualized logs are blocked in real-time.

The most valuable feature would be ASDM. The ability to go in, visualize and see the world base in a clear and consistent manner is very powerful.

The ability to better integrate with other tools would be an improvement.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It is highly stable.

It is highly scalable. It has some limitations, but for medium to large-sized deployments, it is excellent.

Technical support is outstanding. You can get same-day support.

We previously used Juniper SRX. We switched because we have a contract with Cisco. This was the cheaper option and was faster.

We have very much seen an ROI in terms of the saving on man time and the costs of standing up new equipment. Compared to what we had before, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is faster.

I would rate this solution a nine on a scale from one to ten.

In the new design, I put Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall as a LAN segment and as the data center firewall. In the old design, I just used FortiGate Firewall for configurations, and we are going to replace it. The complete solution will be replaced with a two-tiered data center.

I like that Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is reliable. Support is also good. 

We only have an issue with time sync with Cisco ASA and NTP. If the time is out of sync, it will be a disaster for the failover.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for about 11 years. 

Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a stable solution. 

Scalability is good, but just like the issue with Palo Alto and Fortigate, there is also an issue with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall. I can configure it easily because of my Cisco background, but others in my team aren't comfortable with it.

Technical support is good. They were both fast and reliable and quick in making decisions. We faced specific issues, and tech support was efficient and provided an immediate solution. Other firewall vendors are slow to respond, and I'm not satisfied. It's also easy to Google and find solutions to our problems. We can't do that for other firewalls.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a five.

Positive

We used FortiGate Firewall, but we are replacing it with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall because we had issues with HP solutions. We also switched because I am Cisco certified, and my background and expertise are in Cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We have seen a return on our investment. 

I will tell potential users that the data center firewall is a good solution. But most of the companies are using other firewalls like Palo Alto and FortiGate. Most of the design architects prefer the parameters of the firewalls like we prefer the data center firewall.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a ten.

We primarily use the solution for configuring the firewall.

It's an almost perfect solution.

The configuration is very easy.

The management aspect of the product is very straightforward.

The solution offers very good protection. 

The user interface itself is very nice and quite intuitive.

It would be ideal if the solution offered more integration capabilities with other vendors. For example, if you had a web security appliance, it would be great to be able to integrate everything in order to better report security events.

While I can't think of specific features I'd like improved, overall, they could do more to continue to refine the solution.

It would be nice if you didn't have to configure using a command-line interface. It's a bit technical that way.

We first started using the solution in 2015. It's been five years at this point.

The solution is very stable. We've found it to be extremely reliable. There are not bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale well. that's not a problem at all. If a company needs to expand it to fit their needs, they can do so.

We've been in contact with technical support on multiple occasions and each time we've had a good experience. We're satisfied with their level of support. They are fairly good.

I have nothing bad to say about the deployment. It went pretty well, and we can configure everything as we need to.

I don't really handle the billing, so I'm unsure of the pricing. I work more on the technical side. 

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

It's a very good solution. I'd recommend it to other users.

Overall, I'd rate it seven out of ten.

Although I can't speak to the pricing, I've found the solution works quite well for us. I'd rate it higher if it could integrate a bit better with other solutions.

It is hard to control the bandwidth of end-users with a Cisco Firewall. That is the main issue I've faced. I used Mikrotik for many years for this very reason. Mikrotik has the option to set a bandwidth restriction for a single IP or complete segments. Cisco should add this option to their firewall.

We have been using Cisco for about five years. All our products, switches, routers, and firewalls are Cisco devices.

Cisco Firewall's scalability is fine. 

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall eight out of 10. Cisco offers a great educational series to train users on their devices.

We are a payment switch and we deal with cardholder data and information. Our primary goal is to ensure the security of customers' payment data, that they are protected.

Our security maturity is now at a good level compared to the past. To be accepted to drive Visa and Mastercard, you have to pass security assessment audits and we have managed to pass all of them now, for some years.

Apart from our firewall, we have three security tools. We have a NAC, we have a SIEM, and our syslogs.

It's easy now because we have many Cisco devices in a central point. We don't need to log in to each device and apply rules to them. We can do it from the management control and apply them to the specific firewalls that we want to apply them to.

In addition, compared to our previous firewall solution, the security is much better. Through our monitoring, we now see all the information that we require on security, in terms of PCI. We can see exactly what is happening in our environment. We know what is going, what is going in and out. If an incident happens, it provides a notification so that we can do an analysis.

Web filtering is a big improvement for us. The previous version we used, the AC520, did not have that feature included. It was not very easy for us, especially because the environment had to be isolated and we needed to get updates from outside, such as Windows patches. That feature has really helped us when we are going outside to pull those patches.

Another important feature for us is user access. Now, we can base access on rules and specify that this or that user has privilege on the NG firewall. That was not available before. 

The IDS also makes it easy to detect abnormal traffic. When it sees such traffic in the environment, it sends a notification.

We have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for about two months.

The solution is stable. It's not hanging. With the firewalls from Cisco we are not facing a situation where devices are hanging because of too much traffic.

The scalability is fine.

We're getting support but there's a big delay until we get a response from their technical team. They're in the USA and we're in Africa, so that's the difficulty. When they're in the office, they respond.

We migrated from Cisco AC520 to the Cisco NGFW. We have also used HPE and IBM switches, as well as FortiGate firewalls. We are now completely Cisco.

Previously, we were also using AlienVault and it was easy to integrate with Cisco devices.

The initial setup is 50/50, between straightforward and complex. Migrating from Cisco to another Cisco product is okay, but migrating to Cisco from other network devices, like an IBM switch, is a bit tricky. You can't test the configuration to see if it's the same as what you're going to. But we managed with support from Cisco.

It took a month to complete the deployment.

Our implementation strategy was based on not upgrading everything at the same time. It was phased. We deployed a specific device and then we monitored everything to make sure everything looked okay, and then we moved on to the next one.

It requires a minimum of two people for deployment and maintenance, from our network and security teams.

We used internal resources with support from Cisco.

We have gotten exactly what we're looking for, based on the company's requirements.

The pricing is high.

Cisco NGFW's ability to provide visibility into threats is good compared to other solutions. The visibility is quite impressive and gives us what we're looking for, based on our security requirements.

The scalability, the performance of the devices, the features, and the support, when looking at them combined, make the product a nine out 10.

We're planning the deployment of Cisco ISE soon, to be like our NAC.