Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use this solution for company security and to define access and connection between different devices.

This solution made our organization more secure and gave us better control.

The access list is the most valuable feature of this solution. 

This solution could be more granular and user-friendly.

I have been using this solution for 12 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical support for this solution is good. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We use this solution together with Palo Alto, depending on the use case. 

The initial setup is straightforward and the deployment only takes a few hours. Our deployment strategy was to keep it simple. A large deployment of this solution can require up to 10 resources. 

The solution does require maintenance and we use an external service provider for this maintenance. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

The feature I have found most valuable is the IPS advanced threat detection for removing ransomware and malware.

An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization.

I have been using this solution for two months.

The solution is stable.

The customer service/technical support is very good with this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took two weeks to deploy. Currently, 5000 employees use this solution in our company.

The solution was chosen because of its price compared to other similar solutions.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

We are a solution provider and Cisco NGFW is one of the products that we implement for our clients. My clients use it for internet access within the enterprise.

I like the firewall features, Snort, and the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). 

This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI). Cisco's FTD devices don't support the command-line interface and can only be configured using FMC.

We have been using this product for the past four years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue implementing it for clients in the future.

Cisco NGFW is a scalable firewall. My client has more than 100 users.

We have support from Cisco's TAC, the Technical Assistance Center, and they support this product well. We haven't had any issues with them.

Prior to the Next Generation firewall, my clients were using Cisco ASA for more than 10 years.

The initial setup is easy, with the installation and configuration taking about two hours.

I did the deployment myself.

This product requires licenses for advanced features including Snort, IPS, and malware detection.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It's primarily for managing our employees. So far, it has been working great. We don't have many problems.

It gives us all the features that we need.

We can shift traffic, block certain content, or redirect policies.

We would like to see MS Word BPM as a feature. 

We don't use the technical support too much. It is not good, especially for Latin America. Therefore, we employ people who have skills or certifications, using them for technical support.

We started with Cisco Firepower.

It was a bit complex to set up. However, after some practice, it was not too difficult.

It is a great solution for medium or big enterprises, not so much for small businesses, mainly due to the financial costs. Cisco Firepower is a great solution, but it is expensive compared to others that can provide similar benefits for much less.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Quality of the product
• Cost.

My confidence continues to build upon using Cisco firewalls. I prefer to use Cisco firewalls to any others. 

Antivirus features must be integrated for end user security. They must be increased in the next version along with audit and restriction for the incoming user. Security must be increased when a new user connects over the LAN and an alarm must be generated.

The security features are valuable because it is easy to use and it has an important role as a firewall.

It has improved our access control.

It would be useful to gather all security features in one box. For example, certain features like URL filtering and application control licenses need to be purchased separately and it depends on the hardware spec, as not all models are supporting these two features. This causes the user to be highly dependent on the pre-sales person.

We have been using the solution for six years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

We had a scalability issue, as each feature is based on license or hardware support.

I would rate the technical support at 8/10.

We did not use a previous solution.

The setup was straightforward with two layers of firewall.

It is too pricey if you want to activate more features in a box, which necessitates you to purchase a license.

We evaluated Palo Alto and CheckPoint.

Know what features are needed, and then purchase the necessary hardware and license.

The fact that it's a full inspection firewall.

In fact there is no relevant improvement, but this is the kind of device that every company must have.

• Recognition of appliances
• UTM features

I've used it for five years.

It was mainly issues regarding the management and VPN setup.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

8/10.

8/10.

We previously used IPtables, and switched because there was a lack of technical support, RMA, etc.

It was an easy initial set-up.

We did it in-house.

No other options were looked at.

• NAT
• IPSec
• ACL

It solved an IPSec issue we had with a customer. We have moved from Linux IPSec to Cisco.

• Routing
• It needs GRE supports
• Application visibility
• Context

I have used Cisco ASA products since 2010.

No, it's very easy to deploy.

With versions 8.4.4 and version 8.4.6, they had a lot of bugs. Also, after I moved to 8.4.5, route lookup changed to NAT divert and that kicked me.

No issues encountered.

No service.

No service.

Yes we previously used Linux and we moved because Cisco is great.

It was straightforward as Cisco Asia integrated it into OSPF, another router on the stack, and for NAT IPSec.

I implemented it by myself.

It's good.

No other options were evaluated.

It's a great product.