Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

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. 

We have around 250 users and security is extremely important for us. 

The features I found most valuable in this solution are the overall security features. 

The overall application security features can be improved. 
It could also use a reporting dashboard. 

I found that Cisco ASAv is a really stable solution. 

I haven't tested scalability yet, but I believe it is a very scalable solution. We currently have 250 employees working on it without any issues.

The few times I've had to call in technical support, the service was excellent. I've had no issues.

Our company has used various other solutions in the past. We've decided to also install Cisco ASAv to add extra features to our system.

The initial setup was straightforward and it took me about two days to do the installation. The fine tuning took about a week. I am the IT Infrastructure Manager of our company, but I don't believe that individuals without IT knowledge would struggle to do the installation themselves.

We didn't use any consultant for the deployment - we installed and implemented Cisco ASAv ourselves and we didn't experience any problems.

We pay an annual fee.

We have used many other solutions in the past and we constantly look out for other options. So we didn't switch to Cisco ASAv, we simply started using it together with another solution. We now use two products in the same time.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten and I would definitely recommend it to other users. If the developers would add a reporting dashboard, and perhaps lower the pricing, I will rate it higher. But overall I am really satisfied with Cisco ASAv.

Some branches are joint through Cisco ASA 5500-X VPNs. Executives or employees are connected via AnyConnect.

It joins all branches and permits employees to work outside their offices, but everything is based on high securities standards (PCI compliance).

• Reliability
• Robustness
• Security features
• High encryption, hashing, and integrity support
• Support
• High performance

Multiple WAN connections: Even though you can implement more than one interface to outside connections, it is lacking on load balances, etc.

The AnyConnect remote access VPN gives us an easy way to deploy remote working for our users.

It all depends on the deployment scenario, as I have used ASA for specific purposes. In general, the stateful firewall feature, site to site VPN, and AnyConnect remote access VPN are always useful.

It's not perfect, and does have room for improvement with certain features.

The SSL VPN is, and always has been, painful to configure and the Java plugin does not guarantee a uniform deployment.

Certain documentation on the newer models of ASA (specifically, ASA 5500-X with FirePower services) is a little out of date and in some cases incorrect, although this may have been corrected since my last deployment.

I've never seen a firewall that didn't need an RMA at some point! And that is true of the ASA, however, the failure rate (in my experience) has always been very low with ASA's (and Cisco equipment in general).

Nope.

With Cisco TAC, you can always get an answer to technical issues, and with the thriving Cisco support forum, you can always get answers to questions even if you don't have TAC.

Not in my current organization.

I would say it's only complex if you're not familiar with either the CLI or ASDM.

So for me, it was easy, for those without Cisco CLI (or ASDM) experience, deployment can be a little daunting.

That being said, there are plenty of configuration documents available on the Cisco website that will "hold your hand" through any deployment.

Hardware and licensing can be expensive, and licensing can be a complicated affair. I would strongly recommend you speak with your distributor to ensure you choose the right license for your needs, and read the hardware comparison guide to make sure you spec the correct hardware for your specific needs.

It's great buying the latest and greatest equipment, but no so great if your engineers don't know how to operate it!

From experience, hardware purchasing is normally dependent on the technical expertise of engineers, so if all your engineers are Cisco trained, it makes no sense to buy another vendor firewall.

Spec the right hardware model and choose the right license for your needs.

Cisco next-generation firewalls are mainly used either for data center protection - north-south traffic - or internet traffic.

The application and user-visibility and control, along with very powerful IPS and malware protection, enables our clients to secure their data centers and internet perimeter in a much better way. It provides them with traffic visibility and reporting as well.

The main advantage is when you put it between users and servers internally or between different VLANs in the network. You have full visibility over the traffic, over all the internal applications. Usually, there's a lot of traffic that is not very clear and no one knows what is on their network. So, once deploy it internally, you have full visibility over the internal traffic, who's accessing what, which protocol. It can directly detect all kinds of malicious traffic, traffic that abuses bandwidth. 

It makes different kinds of internal behavior that is useful to a network admin. And for security of course: Any kind of file infection, any kind of internal scanning, internal attacks; it gives you full visibility.

Finally, you have communication of VLANs, internally, in the network, of course. So you have a granular access control based on user and application, instead of IP and port as you would have with a traditional firewall.

During the first phase of use, it was an extra module on standard Cisco ASA firewalls. It then became a standalone solution known as FTD, Firepower Threat Defense.

The Firepower IPS, based on Snort technology, has an amazing detection engine and historical analysis capability of files that eases threat investigations a lot.

I value the integration with other products (Cisco ISE, Cisco Endpoint AMP) which increases the protection intelligence within the enterprise by sharing security info between different products, which function on different layers. It furnishes fully connected security.

It also provides detection of the client operating system, which gives very good reporting and correlation with the signatures. It can relay the signature IP to the client operating system, to give a better correlation decision.

Some ASA known features are still missing, but are being added bit by bit in each new version release, such as:

• Remote Access VPN (the last release only supported the 2100 series): The next firewall model version is expected to support Remote Access VPN in the next software release in July 2017.
• Virtualization of the appliance (multiple contexts) is still missing.
• You always need an external management system, the onboard one is not very good. You have to use FMC, FirePOWER Management Center, as external software. There's always an add-on, whereas all the competition has an onboard management interface.

I would like to see more integration with third-party devices in general. There is great integration with Cisco devices, but there's not much integration with third-party devices.

We did not encounter any issues with stability. Cisco Firepower FW is very stable in all of the deployments we have made.

The scalability is very good. They have a clustering mechanism, so you can start with an appliance and then cluster, adding more bandwidth and nodes into your cluster. If you don't have a big budget you can start with a medium appliance and then cluster appliances. Or if you want to buy it all in one shot, there is a big range.

Although it allows scaling by adding multiple firewalls together (clustering), we have never used that, as all new hardware supports high-performance throughput and connections at a reasonable price.

Technical support is perfect. Cisco is always known for its good technical support. We have never had any issues with them.

As a Cisco Gold Partner, we always proposed Cisco firewalls for our clients.

The setup was straightforward. A new Cisco FTD can be set up and running in a couple of hours. If you're used to firewalls you can quickly get along with it. There is nothing complicated.

The time deploy is short. But the time to tune and create the policies involves a learning phase. Traffic changes over time, so the tuning for firewall rules has to be as granular as possible takes a bit of time. But to deploy you can go live is fast.

The strategy is to start with high-level security policies and then monitor the traffic and the applications affected. Then on the detection logs, create more granular rules.

It has a great performance-to-price value, compared to competitive solutions. Subscriptions are annual. The licensing fee and standard support are the only costs we pay for.

We did not evaluate any alternative solutions.

Make sure you tune your rules very well, as some clients just leave the firewall as it is and don't maintain the access rules or tighten them to be more granular and efficient.

In terms of maintenance, you need one person for security analysis and one to create rules and for daily support.

We use ASA firewalls to limit traffic between the networks.

We use an on-premises deployment model.

I like that it is easy to change the settings.

Cisco ASDM is a problem because it is old.

I've been working with it for a year, but my company has been using Cisco firewalls for 15 years.

We use Cisco Secure Firewall ASA 5506 and 5508.

Cisco Secure Firewall ASA's stability is good.

I recently had a case with technical support that took a couple of weeks to resolve. We use Cisco Smart Licensing and are not connected to the net. It was a big problem to get it to work. Cisco's technical support did not know how it worked, and I had to tell them how it worked. We haven't had interactions with technical support where there were more positive outcomes.

On a scale from one to ten with ten being the best, I would rate technical support at two.

Negative

The initial deployment is easy for this solution.

Overall, I would rate this solution at seven out of ten because Cisco ASDM needs to be updated.

We use this solution to provide firewall solutions for clients. We have been transitioning from ASA to FTD, since FTD has come out with new versions or upgrades.

This solution is very flexible and offers different functionality including firewalls and VPN connectivity. It checks a lot of boxes. It is an easy solution to learn how to use and the positive impact on our organization was apparent as soon as we implemented it. 

The CLI is the most valuable feature. We are moving towards FTD, which is more GUI based. The value of this solution lies in the fact that it is a standard platform that's been around for years and is always improving. This is important to us due to the necessity of ensuring cyber security. 

We are replacing ASA with FTD which offers many new features. 

We have been using this solution since 2009. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a very scalable solution as long as you get the right hardware. 

Over the last two years, getting a response from the support engineers has been challenging. This could be due to the impact of COVID. 

We sell a lot of different firewall varieties including SonicWall, Cisco ASA, and FTD. 

When setting up the solution for our clients, we ensure they have the bandwidth they need and consider what their throughput needs are. The solution does require maintenance in terms of patching. This requires approximately six team members depending on how many moving parts there are for clients. 

We have seen a return on investment using this solution based on the fact that we are spending less money overall. 

The pricing for this solution is pretty fair. 

If it is possible, I would advise others to try out a demo with Cisco to test their firewalls. The biggest lesson I learned from using this solution is that there are many ways to achieve the same outcome. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.