Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We primarily use the solution to operate that LAN environment over the internet and use the public and private networks separately. It's a very good firewall in terms of security, in terms of certain scenarios, and also from an ethical hacking point of view. Both are available in our environment. Both are doing great.

Cisco, obviously, gives you a great amount of reliability which comes in handy. The brand is recognized as being strong. 

Even in very big environments, Cisco comes in handy with configuration and offers reliability when it comes to managing multiple items on one platform. You are able to integrate Firepower and all AMP. With so many items to configure, I haven't yet done them all, however, I hope to.

It's great for securing the network. You learn a lot.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability of the solution is very good.

Most of the firewalls almost 90%, 95% of the firewalls will move to GUI. This is the area which needs to be improved. The graphical interface and the monitoring level of the firewall need to be worked on. 

Most of us are using the monitoring software where we get the alarm, then details of the servers, et cetera. This aspect needs to be much updated. 

From just the security point of view, in the security, it needs to be updated every day and every week. It is getting better day by day, however, from a monitoring point of view is not the same view as we have on the different monitoring servers or monitoring software, such as PRTG and Solarwinds. It needs to be changed and improved.

Cisco has launched its multiple products separately. Where there's a new version of the hardware, there is Firepower in it. However, there must be a solution for an integrated version that includes everything in your network and your firewall as well so that you can manage and integrate from the same web portal without going to every device and just configuring it and just doing everything separately. 

It would be ideal if a solution can be configured separately and then managed centrally on one end.

We have more than one Cisco firewall and it is difficult for me to integrate both on the single UI. If I have three firewalls and one is a normal firewall, I need to configure everything separately. I can't have it on the same port or integrated on the same single IP or bind it something like it.

We've mostly used Cisco solutions for two or three years at this point. Our old Cisco devices were due to be changed, and we moved over to ASA.

The firewall is stable, however, every two, three, or four years, you have to change the hardware and therefore get an updated version of the firewall.

This is something which companies have been doing for the sake of a new product and launching a new device. Yet, the stability needs to be considered where you have to upgrade for every two, three, four years and change the product and go for the new updated version. What I mean is that there is stability, however, obviously, it's not long-term.

The firewall is very scalable. Most contact versions are available depending upon the organization you have. It works for very large organizations. They are scalable for many scenarios. The scalability obviously is there for sure.

Cisco technical support is one of the best around. They have the most advanced and most experienced level of tech support I've been in contact with. Whether it is a hardware or software issue, the tech team can support you and help. They are very helpful and knowledgeable. We are quite satisfied with the level of support on offer. 

We also have experience using FortiGate.

The Cisco firewall is straightforward. It isn't a complex implementation. Obviously, you have to bind your IP on the port and then you must go on to configure for security and something like that. It's easy for me to configure a firewall at such a level.

If you pay for the hardware, you get the Firepower and if you don't, then you get the Cisco Firewall. 

We are just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Obviously, you need to have one tech person on your online when you are configuring it, or just implementing when you are integrating with your live environment and organization. My advice is that the configuration is easy when a network engineer like myself handles it. A trained person is more than capable of the task. Other than configuring, a less technical person can manage the solution.  

In general, we support more public fiscal entities. Most of them are quite sizeable at 5,000-6,000 employees. We use it mostly for remote access.

The clusters in data centers are great.

We enjoy the use of the remote access VPN. We have a mechanical firewall with IPS and we have no more than these. In general, ASA is for remote access and the mechanical firewall right now is more used for data centers. 

We work to combine customers and we have a lot of customers that use networking from Cisco. They buy Cisco firewalls due to the fact that all of their networks are working with Cisco features.

It would be ideal if the solution offered a web application firewall.

We've had some issues with stability.

The solution has some scalability limitations.

The firewall itself has become a bit dated.

The pricing on the solution is a bit high.

Some individuals find the setup and configuration challenging.

I've been using the solution for ten years or more. It's been at least a decade at this point.

Normally, we don't have any problems with stability. That said, when we have problems, it may be difficult to resolve quickly. The tech from Cisco is really good. However, we have some problems that take more time. Issues haven't come up very often. We've only had two or three problems over ten years that took a while to resolve. Largely, it's quite stable. 

We typically work with large public organizations. Our customers are quite big. Some are even up to 8,000 employees.

My view is that the ASA is for data centers. When you need more performance or something like that, this may be a problem. This is due to the fact that we don't have the ability to add more performance - more CPU or more equipment - in our cluster when we deploy the solution in a perimeter. It's complicated to expand the performance with ASA on the perimeter.

We have a good relationship with technical support. They're very helpful. Sometimes we get a solution and sometimes we don't, however, they are always available to help us deal with issues.

I have been working with this equipment for years, so for me, the initial setup is pretty easy. For customers who use the Cisco solutions for the first time, maybe it's complicated. They probably feel it would be easier to configure if there was a simpler graphical view or something like that. Often a complaint is that it's difficult to configure. However, I don't have that issue.

To deploy one solution, how long it takes depends on the customer or the size of the enterprise. For a large enterprise or large public entity, we need more time or more resources to deploy the solution. That said, it's not too difficult for us as we work a lot of time with ASA. We can go fairly quickly.

We support ASA 5508, 5585, and 5525 - all the versions of the firewall. Again, we built a HTAB machine too.

We've worked with Cisco for many years and I love working with them.

Right now, ASA is getting older. A better recommendation may be to use Firepower, a Next-Generation Firewall, no ASA. In cases for some remote VPN access, we recommend ASA, however, for all of the deployments, the recommendation now is to use a Next-Generation Firewall from Cisco Firepower. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. That said, for remote access alone, I'd rate the product at a nine.

Our primary use case is as a data center firewall for internet firewalls and also as a VPN concentrator. I'm the chief technology officer and we are partners of Cisco. 

In terms of features there hasn't been much improvement but it's a very stable solution and a very good firewall with almost all of the features required for next generation firewall purposes. Almost all the firewalls on the market have the same features available, but if you take into account the integrations and reporting of Cisco, it's a little better than the others. In particular, the briefing reporting is better. With Fortinet we would probably have to use FortiAnalyzer as a separate reporting module for Fortinet, but here the reporting is good.

There needs to be an improvement in the time it takes to deploy the configurations. It normally takes two to four minutes and they need to reduce this. The deployment for any configuration should be minimal. It's possibly improved on the very latest version. 

An additional feature I would like to have in Firepower would be for them to give us the data from the firewall - Cisco is probably working on that. 

I've been using this solution for close to five years. 

The scalability is very good. 

We generally provide support but if we're not able to resolve an issue, we escalate it to Cisco and they're great. They are one of the best support services I've used and it's one of the reasons Cisco is doing so well in the market. 

I also work with Fortinet and Palo Alto. Fortinet is also a really good product but Cisco is a leader in next generation firewalls and now that they are catching up to Fortinet, they have provided a lot of features and flexibility. I personally see Cisco as being good for large enterprise companies and Fortinet is better for families as well as small and medium size businesses. When it comes to Palo Alto, the high price point is one thing that is an issue, some companies are unable to afford it. Palo Alto is good but Cisco is catching up to them and I believe in a year or two, Cisco will probably match Palo Alto as well and be much better. 

The initial setup is not too complex, but as with Fortinet, they have some detailed steps required which adds to the flexibility also. With flexibility comes a bit of complexity, but it's not too bad. Deployment time takes a few minutes. I am responsible for implementation and maintenance for our clients. We were previously deploying only for medium or large enterprise companies but Cisco has come up with the 1000 and 1100 series firewalls for smaller companies which is pretty good. They're a cost-effective solution and competitive in the market. 

Cisco falls somewhere in the middle in terms of pricing, it's not very expensive and it's not very cheap. There is an additional accessory fee associated with Cisco but normally they have a separate subscription cost for different types of security to protect the firewall. There are separate bundles available inside the pricing and that's probably true for all of the firewalls. 

Cisco is a large, good and reliable firewall. They are working on advanced features and catching up with the leaders in the market. I believe that's a score for them. A yearly subscription is cheaper than Palo Alto and Fortinet offer. They provide good support and once it's loaded, it doesn't give a lot of problems, that's very important.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The primary use of Cisco ASA (Adaptive Security Appliances) for us it to protect from external threats to our network as a firewall and VPN solution.

Cisco ASA serves a purpose more than it improves us. It is good at what it does. We are using other vendors and splitting the traffic to different devices based on what they do best. Even though we use other products the trend at our company is that we will increase the traffic through Cisco ASA.

It's difficult to say what features are most valuable because ASA is not a cutting-edge device. It's rather more stable and proven than modern. It's difficult to suggest adding features because with new features we are adding something new, and that means it could be less stable and. New features are not the reason we use the solution — it is almost the opposite. The most valuable part of the solution is dependability.

It's already a mature and stable product. I prefer to not to use the newest software — even if Cisco suggests using the newest — because this is a critical security device.

My opinion is that the new direction Cisco is taking to improve its product is not correct. They want to make the old ASA firewall into a next-generation firewall. FirePower is a next-generation firewall and they want to combine the two solutions into one device. I think that this combination — and I know that even my colleagues who work with ASA and have more experience than me agree — everybody says that it's not a good combination. 

They shouldn't try to upgrade the older ASA solution from the older type Layer 4 firewall. It was not designed to be a next-generation firewall. As it is, it is good for simple purposes and it has a place in the market. If Cisco wants to offer a more sophisticated Layer 7 next-generation firewall, they should build it from scratch and not try to extend the capabilities of ASA.

Several versions ago they added support for BGP (Border Gateway Protocol). Many engineers' thought that their networks needed to have BGP on ASA. It was a very good move from Cisco to add support for that option because it was desired on the market. Right now, I don't think there are other features needed and desired for ASA.

I would prefer that they do not add new features but just continue to make stable software for this equipment. For me, and for this solution, it's enough. 

It is a stable solution. It is predictable when using different protocol and mechanics.

We've used several models of the product, from the smallest to the biggest. I think that this family of the ASAs is scalable enough for everything up to an enterprise environment. I think the family of products is able to handle small and large company needs.

Cisco is a well-known vendor and its support is good. In my previous company, we sometimes used a vendor rather than direct Cisco support, but sometimes we used Cisco. For ASA in my current company, we have additional support from the local vendor. If we have a problem we can also initiate a ticket directly on the Cisco support site.

About one-and-a-half years ago we implemented a different solution to handle certain situations like BGP. But when we upgraded our Cisco devices just few months ago, we could have BGP on ASA. Now our devices from Cisco have enhanced capability, not just something new and maybe less dependable. Implementing BGP on ASA was a late addition. It had been tested, the bugs were worked out and engineers wanted the solution. The stability of ASA as an older solution is what is important.

I think it is not the simplest solution to set up because it is sophisticated equipment. For engineers to work with vendors and incorporate totally different solutions, it could be difficult. It is also different from the other Cisco devices like Cisco Router IOS. It differs in a strange way, I would say, because the syntax or CRI differs. If you are used to other OSs, it is not easy to switch to ASA because you have to learn the syntax differences. 

It's common for there to be differences in syntax between vendors. But, I would say that this is more complex. The learning curve for start-up and configuration of ASA is at mid-level when it comes to the difficulty of implementation.

I did the implementation myself. ASA is not the newest solution for Cisco or the newest equipment. You can use the vendor and ask for help if you need it during the installation and for support. Because it was an older solution, it was already somewhat familiar to me.

My current company has been using ASA for quite a long time, so I was not involved in the choices.

I have been participating in choosing a new vendor and new equipment for some specific purposes as we go forward. For a next-generation firewall, Cisco's product — a combination of ASA and Firepower — is not the best solution. We are choosing a different vendor and going with Palo Alto for next-generation solutions because we feel it is better.

I think I can rate this product as an eight out of ten. A strong eight. The newest version of software and solutions often have bugs and functional problems because they have not been rigorously tested in a production environment. It is not the modern, next-generation firewall, but it solidly serves simple purposes. For simple purposes, it's the best in my opinion. I am used to its CRI (Container Runtime Interface) and its environment, so for me, familiarity and stability are the most important advantages.

Primarily, we are just using it as a firewall, mostly to protect our internal SQL network (our primary network). At the moment, we are not using Cisco Firepower for our services. We just use it as a firewall.

We have multiple secure internal networks linked with our plants. We are from a oil company, so we have multiple plant areas which need to have restricted network access. Therefore, we are using it for restricting access to the plant area, where they cannot directly connect onto the Internet.

It does not have a web access interface. We have to use Cisco ASDM and dial up network for console access, mostly. This needs a bit of improvement.

Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems.

It should have multiple features available in single product, e.g., URL filtering and a replication firewall.

It is very stable. We have routers entirely from Cisco, which are still working after ten years of deployment. I would rate the stability as a nine out of ten.

We have two people maintaining it. It does not require intensive work. We have an expert in switching technology, and another person who is knowledgeable in routing and network security.

The scalability is good.

The technical support of Cisco is very good. Nowadays, you can get anything over the Internet. They provide help over the Internet. There is a very full forum, which is manually supported.

The initial setup was completely straightforward. 

However, we have to rely on Cisco ASDM to access the firewall interface. This needs improvement. Because we have a web-based interface, and it is a lot more user-friendly.

Deployment takes two or three days. We are continuously deploying the solution to our plants over time.

We do the deployment in-house.

ROI is part of the infrastructure costs. The product has saved us a lot of time, and once we deployed the solution, it worked.

The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.

I would rate the cost as a six or seven out of ten.

Nine or ten years ago, there were few options at the time.

Currently, we are using Barracuda for our more general Internet access. We use Cisco for our more protected environment.

I would recommend the product, but cost is a big factor. Some companies cannot afford expensive products, like Cisco and Palo Alto.

It helps the firewall in our network and the VPN (Virtual Private Network). It creates a secure tunnel for our network.

The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature. This enables visibility to our networks and to outside attacks. It is a solution to maintain the visibility.

At times the product is sluggish and slow.  Sometimes when deploying a new configuration or role, it is painstakingly slow. It should be a little faster than it is. 

It is a very stable solution. 

It is a scalable product. We have a lot of demand.  But, it supports any additional network that we add. It expands easily. 

Normally the Cisco tech support team are good. But, we have had some problems with tech support with this product. Some of the tech support team are really not familiar with how the IPS works. And, there is some disconnect between the tech support. Maybe they're not trained well. They're helpful, but not knowledgeable.

We mainly use it in the data center. We are obliged to use a firewall. It's a necessity.

It has helped in securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats. There is another office in my company that does threat detection, but it has been helpful.

It hasn't freed up any time. We still have to manage the firewall. It's something we have to do.

All the features except IPS are valuable. IPS is not a part of my job.

It's already pretty good. In terms of functionality, there isn't much to improve. There could be more bandwidth and better interface speed.

I've been using Cisco firewalls for 20 years.

Its stability is very good.

It's better to have a higher speed. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of scalability.

We have multiple locations and multiple departments. We are a big company, and we have a lot of remote sites. We have about 6,000 of them.

They are very good. From time to time, Cisco employees come to us and provide information about the latest features and new products. I'd rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have other firewalls, and it hasn't helped to consolidate other solutions. We have to use the Cisco firewall and other vendors because of internal law. We have to use two firewalls, one from vendor A and the other one from vendor B.

We went for Cisco because it's affordable. It's something you can trust. It's something you know. It's a valued product. 

I've been involved in configuring it and assessing and ensuring that the configuration is up to date and there are no bugs, etc.

Its initial setup is not at all complex. I've been working with Cisco firewalls for 20 years, so I know them very well. It's not complicated for me.

We have all deployment models. We have on-premises and cloud deployments. We have everything. I belong to a big organization.

We had a consultant for integrating the product. Our experience with the consultant was good.

The number of people required for deployment varies, but one person can deploy the solution. It's quite easy to implement. It doesn't require a lot of staff.

It requires normal maintenance.

It's affordable.

Try it. You will be happy. 

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

Our primary use case for this solution is to use it as a firewall. This product secures the internet from internal and public users.

Cisco Secure Firewall helped add to my organization's value. It is a selling product for us here. They have great support and documentation, which makes the solution easy to sell to customers. The Cisco name has a lot of value and high brand awareness.

We are selected partners now but are looking to grow to become a primary partner for Egypt. 

Cisco Secure Firewall definitely saved us time. However, security is never 100% with any product, even Cisco. So, you will have to spend some time securing your IT regardless of which solution you use.

I would say that it helped my company cut time by 50%.

The solution cautions us against threats via email notifications and internally in the web interface of the product itself on the dashboard.

What I found the most valuable about Cisco Secure Firewall is that if a client is educated about the solution, it can help him or her avoid many problems and mistakes. 

I think Cisco would benefit from comparing its solutions to other products. There is a lot to learn from solutions like Palo Alto or FortiGate. These are top security products. For example, Palo Alto has better inspection visibility than Cisco. When we ask customers about Palo Alto, they say "I like Palo Alto. It helps me see problems on time. I can audit everything through it." Cisco could improve in this regard. Cisco's inspection visibility could be better. 

I have been using this solution for a long time; since the PIX version in 2003. This adds up to almost 20 years now. I have had a plethora of experiences with this solution as both just an employee using it and also as the owner of a company. We also have a range of customers using the solution. 

We did not use any other solutions. Our strategy from the beginning has been to grow with Cisco. However, our customers have the final say in which solutions they choose and sometimes that's not Cisco. That has much to do with their previous beliefs and brand loyalty and trust. The customer's opinion matters and if the customer is loyal to Palo Alto, we are going to have a hard time getting them to make the switch. 

I am not involved in the deployment of the product. I have a sub that deploys Cisco Secure Firewall. I'm involved in guiding the deployment on the management side and making sure it's done in line with the customer's wishes. 

I did evaluate other options but ultimately went with Cisco because of the support they offer. You can reach their tech support engineers at any time. That's important. Their documentation is great as well. Their site is wonderful. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Cisco Secure Firewall should be consolidated with routers, switches, or VOIP.