We are using both Cisco ASAv and FTD (Firepower Threat Defense). FTD has a better interface, but we have both of them running.
We are using Cisco ASAv for the FirePower service. We use a custom interface for our firewall.
We are using both Cisco ASAv and FTD (Firepower Threat Defense). FTD has a better interface, but we have both of them running.
We are using Cisco ASAv for the FirePower service. We use a custom interface for our firewall.
Cisco ASAv is part of our central solution. You can use the ASA family or go on the portal for normal ASAv. We use FirePower at the edge of the network.
If you are working with cloud services, it's better to use the ASAv family or other Cisco solutions.
We are using the Cisco AnyConnect for our end-user VPN with the ASA.
If a user wants to connect to our network, they access it via the Cisco intranet and connect to the firewall at the edge.
I don't have any experience with the price, but ASA is a comprehensive solution.
In the next update of the Cisco ASAv, I would like to see them release a patch for ASAv, i.e. to put the FirePower solution into the cross-platform integration.
Normally, in ASA, we have good stability.
The scalability of ASAv we can easily manage. We can have good scalability in different times but we don't have HA in ASAv. Some features are removed in ASAv.
If it's a normal ASA, i.e. a physical device, you have many more ways to scalability.
For technical support, I have little experience with Cisco, unless they patch some issues. I raised a ticket and got the response immediately. They are very supportive.
For me, ASA is easy. The deployment of ASAv is done in 20 minutes.
We used both an integrator and reseller for the deployment. For the initialization, it was me for our company. If we have an issue, we can raise a ticket or call for a Cisco patch.
For the Cisco ASAv installation, I did it myself.
The pricing for Cisco ASAv depends on your license. With AnyConnect, it depends on your license. It depends on the number of concurrent users you want to connect.
Our license is for one year only, renewable at variable pricing.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at nine. Cisco ASAv is good in many advanced networking features.
I'm working with Cisco. They have competition with many vendors.
Our primary use case of Cisco ASA Firewall is to protect our environment. We are customers of Cisco and I'm a network engineer.
The solution is simple to deploy and stable.
Technical support could be improved, they take a long time to respond.
I've been using this solution for 10 years.
This is a stable solution.
Initial setup was relatively simple, it took around six months and I deployed myself.
I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.
The first time I deployed Cisco ASA was for one of our clients. This client had a Palo Alto firewall and he wanted to migrate. He bought an ASA 2505, and he wanted us to come in and deploy it and, after that, to put in high-availability. We deployed it and the high-availability means that in case one fails, there is a second one to take over.
I have deployed Cisco ISE and, in the same environment, we had a Cisco FTD. In that environment, we were using the ASA for VPN, and we were using the FTD like an edge device. The ASA was deployed as VPN facilitator and for the wireless part too, so that the wireless network was under the ASA firewall.
If we look at the Cisco ASA without Firepower, then one of the most valuable features is the URL filtering.
Also, it's easy to integrate ASA with other Cisco security products. When you understand the technology, it's not a big deal. It's very simple.
When it comes to threat visibility, the ASA is good. The ASA denies threats by using common ACLs. It can detect some DoS attacks and we can monitor suspicious ICMP packets using the ASA. It helps you know when an attack is detected.
Cisco Talos is good. It provides threat intelligence. It updates all the devices to be aware of the new threats and the new attacks out there, so that is a good thing. It's like having God update all the devices. For example, even if you have FTD in your company, malware can be very difficult to detect. There is a new type of malware called polymorphic malware. When it replicates, it changes its signature which makes it very difficult for a firewall to detect. So if your company encounters one type of malware, once, it is automatically updated in your environment. And when it is updated, Talos then updates every firewall in the world, so even if those other firewalls have not yet encountered those particular types of malware, because Talos automatically updates everything, they're able to block those types of malware as well. Talos is very beneficial.
When it comes to managing, with FMD (Firepower Management Device) you can only manage one device, but when you work with FMC (Firepower Management Center) you can manage a lot of sensors, meaning FTDs. You can have a lot of FTDs but you only have one management center and it can manage all those sensors in your company. It is very good.
One area where the ASA could be improved is that it doesn't have AMP. When you get an ASA with the Firepower model, ASA with FTD, then you have advanced malware protection. Right now, threats and attacks are becoming more and more intense, and I don't think that the ASA is enough. I think this is why they created FTD.
Also, Cisco is not so easy to configure.
I have been using and deploying Cisco ASA for two to three years.
Cisco ASA is stable.
It's scalable. You can integrate AD, you can integrate Cisco NAC. You can integrate quite a lot of things so that makes it scalable.
When you configure the ASA, there is already a basic setup there. Based on your environment, you need to customize it. If you understand security and firewalls very well, you can create your own setup.
For me, the initial setup is easy, but is it good? Because from a security perspective, you always need to customize the initial setup and come up with the setup that fits with your environment. So it's always easy to do the initial setup, but the initial setup is for kids in IT.
The time it takes to set up the ASA depends on your environment. For a smaller deployment, you just have the one interface to configure and to put some policies in place and that's all. If you are deploying the ASA for something like a bank, there are a lot of policies and there is a lot of testing to do, so that can take you all night. So the setup time really depends on your environment and on the size of the company as well.
When it comes to Cisco, the price of everything is higher.
Cisco firewalls are expensive, but we get support from Cisco, and that support is very active. When I hit an issue when I was configuring an FTD, as soon as I raised a ticket the guy called me and supported me. Cisco is very proactive.
I had the same kind of issue when I was configuring a FortiGate, but those guys took two or three days to call me. I fixed the issue before they even called me.
I have used firewalls from Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. To configure an ASA for VPN, there are a lot of steps. When it comes to the FortiGate, it's just a few clicks. FortiGate also has built-in templates for configuring VPN. When you want to create a VPN between FortiGate and FortiGate, the template is already there. All you need to do is enter an IP address. When you want to configure a VPN with a third-party using the FortiGate, and say the third-party is Cisco, there is a VPN template for Cisco built into the FortiGate. So FortiGate is very easy to configure, compared to Cisco. But the Cisco firewall is powerful.
Check Point is something like Cisco but if I have to choose between Cisco and Check Point firewalls, I will choose Cisco because of all the features that Cisco has. With Cisco you can do a lot of things, when it comes to advanced malware protection and IPS. Check Point is very complicated to manage. They have recently come out with Infinity where there is a central point of management.
Palo Alto has a lot of functionality but I haven't worked on the newer models.
Cisco firewalls are not for kids. They are for people who understand security. Now I know why people with Cisco training are very good, because they train you to be competent. They train you to have ability. And when you have ability, their firewall becomes very easy to configure.
When Cisco is teaching you, Cisco teaches you the concept. Cisco gives you a concept. They don't focus on how to configure the device. With Fortinet, for instance, Fortinet teaches you how to configure their device, without giving you the concepts. Cisco gives you the concepts about how the technology is working. And then they tell you how you are going to configure things on their box. When you are an engineer and you understand the technology from Cisco, it means that you can drive everything, because if you understand Cisco very well, you can work with FortiGate. If you understand security from Cisco, it means that you can configure everything, you can configure every firewall. This is why I like Cisco.
When it comes to other vendors, it's easy to understand and it's easy to configure, but you can configure without understanding. And when you configure without understanding, you can't troubleshoot. To troubleshoot, you need understanding.
I'm a security analyst, so I deal with everything about firewalls. I'm talking about ASA firewalls, and I'm talking about ASA with Firepower, FTD, and Cisco Meraki MX. When it comes to security tools I am comfortable with Cisco and everything Cisco.
One of our clients was using Cisco ASA. They got attacked, but I don't think that this attack came from outside their company. They were managing their firewall and configuring everything well, but they were still getting attacks. One of their employees had been compromised and his laptop was infected. This laptop infected everything in the organization. So the weakest link can be your employees.
Some are being used as edge firewalls and others are for our server-farm/data center. So some are being used as transparent firewalls and others are used as a break between the LAN and WAN.
In addition to the firewalls, we have Mimecast for email security as we're using Office 365. We're also using IBM's QRadar for SIEM. For antivirus we're just using Microsoft Windows Defender. We also have an internet proxy for content and for that we're using NetScaler.
Automated policies definitely save us time. I would estimate on the order of two hours per day.
On the network side, where you create your rules for allowing traffic — what can come inside and what can go out — that works perfectly, if you know what you want to achieve. It protects you. Once you get all your rules in place, done correctly, you have some sort of security in terms of who can have access to your network and who has access to what, even internally. You're secure and your authorization is in place for who can access what. If someone who is trying to penetrate your network from the outside, you know what you've blocked and what you've allowed.
It's not so difficult to pull out reports for what we need.
It comes with IPS, the Intrusion Prevention System, and we're also using that.
I've been using Cisco ASA NGFW for five years.
The stability is quite good. We haven't had issues. I've used them for five years now and I haven't seen any hardware failures or software issues. They've been running well. I would recommend them for their reliability.
You can extend your network. They are cool. They are good for scalability.
We have a Cisco partner we're working with. But if they're struggling to assist us then they can log a ticket for us. Our partner is always a 10 out of 10.
Given that we have been upgrading with Cisco firewalls, I would say that our company has seen a return on investment with Cisco. We would have changed to a different product if we were not happy.
The response time from the tech and the support we get from our partner is quite good. We have never struggled with anything along those lines, even hardware RMAs. Cisco is always there to support its customers.
The pricing is quite fair for what you get. If you're comparing with other products, Cisco is expensive, but you do get benefits for the price.
The firewall that I was exposed to before was Check Point.
It's very good to get partner support if you're not very familiar with how Cisco works. Cisco Certified Partner support is a priority.
For application visibility and control we're using a WAN optimizer called Silver Peak.
To replace the firewalls within our data center we're planning to put in FMCs and FTDs. With the new FMCs what I like is that you don't need to log in to the firewalls directly. Whatever changes you do are done on your FMCs. That is a much needed improvement over the old ASAs. You can log in to the management center to make any configuration changes.
There are two of us managing the ASAs in our company, myself and a colleague, and we are both network specialists. We plan to increase usage. We're a company of 650 employees and we also have consultants who are coming from outside to gain access to certain services on our network. We need to make provisions on the firewall for them.
We are a reseller and system integrator, and this is one of the solutions that we provide for our end users. We have experience with many firewall products from different vendors.
The specific use case depends on the customer and their environment. They design the firewalls, and we supply the appropriate equipment.
The majority of deployments are on private networks.
The most valuable feature of the Firepower solution is FireSIGHT, which can be easily managed and is user-friendly.
The performance and the level of throughput need to be improved. This would make things easier for us.
I would like to see the inclusion of more advanced antivirus features in the next release of this solution.
Adding internet accounting features would also be a good improvement.
This solution is completely stable, and we have not had any issues.
Scalability of this solution is ok. They have the IPS (Intrusion Prevention System), online updates, and signature updates.
One customer might have, for example, two hundred and fifty users, whereas another might have one hundred users. There are different models for different numbers of end-users.
Technical support is ok, and we have had no problem with them.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.
The price of this solution is not good or bad. It is ok.
This is a solution that I recommend.
The biggest lesson that I have learned from working with this solution is to always update the firewall. If you do not have the latest updates then it will not function well, so always keep it up to date.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Our primary use case is to protect our network from external threats. We need to keep our portal safe.
We use the public cloud model of this solution.
The most valuable feature is that it has the ability to divide the network into three parts; internal, external, and DMZ.
I would like for the user interface to be easier for the admin and network admin. I would also like to be able to access everything from the GUI interface. The way it is now, it needs somebody experience in iOS to be able to operate it. I would like to have a GUI interface.
It should have integrated licenses with our other products. There should be a license bundle, like for firewalls and iOS. It would be better if it was a bundled license.
It's very stable.
The scalability is good. We have around 1,500 users. The users are regular end-users, network admins, technicians, etc.
We require three admins for this solution. We require five staff members for the deployment and maintenance.
It is used weekly. We do plan to increase the users.
Their technical support is good. We have a maintenance contract with them for two years and we plan to renew the contract.
The initial setup was straightforward. It took around two to three days to implement.
We used a Cisco partner for the implementation. They were knowledgable and did a good job.
There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.
We don't evaluate different solutions because our infrastructure is Cisco-based. We wanted it to be homogeneous with our infrastructure.
I would advise someone considering this solution to have a technical support or maintenance contract with the vendor or a third-party to help maintain the product. Without help with maintenance, there is no value to the product.
You should have a good technician and admin support for all this product in order to maximize the value and benefits.
I would rate it an eight out of ten.
Our primary use for the solution is as a firewall. We implemented it as an IT tech solution for our accesses through Sourcefire. It provides security.
The main product in our company is dependent on Cisco as a security solution. Cisco has a great reputation in the market. We are using Cisco as our main firewall in the company because it provides the best security.
The most valuable feature is for IT security management. It is extremely valuable to protection so that is the most valuable feature.
I'm not really sure that much has to be improved. Compared to other firewall solutions probably the thing that could be improved is the interface — the GUI. Other than that I don't think there is anything else that could be better. I think it is a great product.
I believe that Cisco is one of the most stable firewall solutions. Compared to other solutions, Cisco has a better stability record than others. That's why we like it a lot.
I don't know that we have plans to scale the business on this site. But Cisco products are expandable. If we want to expand the functionality with new feature sets we can add modules. So in that way, it is a flexible and scalable solution.
We currently have 200 to 500 users who are using this solution at any time.
We have used technical support quite a bit and always contact them if we have an issue. They will always respond as soon as possible. So I think the support is great. We don't have any issue with them being unresponsive or providing bad solutions. I like to check with them on solutions sometimes and they respond as soon as possible. It saves time and helps me to be sure I am doing the right thing before I go in the wrong direction.
I don't know the exact product they were using before but I think it was just proxy. When I came to the company, the Cisco solution had already been installed, so I don't know the exact product from before.
I think the main reason why they would have switched is the stability and possibilities are better than just proxy. Cisco is very different and more powerful than the other simple products. It's very stable.
I wasn't part of the company at the time of the initial setup, and I am just performing additional tasks. We have a staff of a maximum of three or four persons so once the deployment is live it doesn't need much effort.
I'm not sure if the company has plans to increase usage and grow our responsibilities. It's not not for me to decide. I think the company is growing and traffic is increasing. But my superior is the person responsible for determining when it is time to scale.
We used a consultant for the implementation. They actually continue to help a lot when we need them for something.
I don't know if the company evaluated other solutions before choosing Cisco. When I came to the company, it was already there. Cisco is a very popular enterprise solution so they may have just chosen it without other evaluations.
On a scale of one to ten with one being worst and ten being best, I would rate Cisco SourceFire Firewall as a nine. It could easily be a ten if it had a better GUI interface.
As far as making recommendations to other people about the product, I recommend they buy it if they need an enterprise solution. Also, I would recommend other Cisco solutions like Cisco AMP (Advanced Malware Protection).
I think most large companies that require strong security should always use Cisco because it's stable, scalable, and has many features. Enterprise organizations will benefit from Cisco because their business requirement will be more complicated and require a better solution and more flexibility. I think all the companies should use Cisco because it's number one the market and has the best security, better stability, and better scalability.
The feature I find most valuable is the Cisco VPN Interconnection.
The file features are useful as well. They're good at packet tracing. They are very straightforward. I would say that the Cisco ASA ASDM makes it very easy to manage the firewall.
I would say the pricing could be improved. It's quite expensive, especially for the economy.
I'd like to see them more integration so that I don't need other parties for protecting my network. If I could just have ASA firewalls for perimeter protection and LAN protection, then I'm good. I don't need so many devices.
I would like to see improvements for client protection.
My impression is it's a stable solution. I could sound biased, but if you have a device working for four years and it's still working and people are using it, then it's stable.
Scalability depends on which device you have.
It's quite scalable if you have either the ASA, even if you had the new ASA firewall services, even if you had the one with the capacity of about 500 MDP. It isn't scalable for three hundred people connecting to it. I would say it is good for medium branch offices.
I'm not sure if we have plans to extend the service.
Technical support is good. The only thing is that Cisco cannot support you unless you have a contract with them. You have to go through the reseller in Africa. I don't see why Cisco cannot communicate directly with the customer, especially when I can prove that I have the device. They should allow customers to talk to them directly instead of having to go through the reseller.
I previously used SonicWall. I'm not the one who decided to switch, I just know that previously we used SonicWall.
The initial setup was straightforward. Within in an hour you're done, including with your basic training. For implementation, you need one to two people. You should have one senior network administrator. Two people can maintain it if they have the skill.
I did the implementation by myself. If you decide to do it by yourself, you need basic knowledge. If you don't have that you would need a contractor.
This solution might be expensive, but it is economical in the long run.
The functionality is fine.
When they prove to me they cannot be hacked then I can give them a ten.
I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.