Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Its security features are the most valuable aspect. It has the ability to detect and prevent intrusions.

The product has helped organizations secure their infrastructure and data. Most organizations are happy to adopt the technology.

The equipment is too expensive compared with other firewall products.

I have used ASA for about three months. I just bought and configured it for a client.

Since I installed and configured it, the client has never called with complaints.

I have not had scalability issues at all. Maybe it is because I have not used it quite extensively.

I haven't had a chance to interact with the support team.

The previous product was limited in throughput and security.

The initial setup was quite complex.

As much as there is value for money, there is a need to make it affordable.

I tried Sophos.

It is a very good device to use for those who value their network security.

Provides advanced malware capabilities.

Simplified the complexity of our security architecture.

Integration of advanced malware services with the firewall through Firepower services.

We have been using this solution for six months.

There were no issues with deployment.

There were no issues with stability.

There were no issues with scalability.

I would give customer service a rating of 10/10.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We were looking to upgrade to a comprehensive firewall solution that integrated Next Generation Prevention System (NGIPS).

There were no issues with setup.

We implemented in-house.

We calculated for the entire year, but the ROI seemed very decent from the first six months.

Pricing: Negotiate

Licensing: Buy the advanced Malware Protection license subscription for one year. It is worth the investment.

We evaluated Juniper, Fortinet, and Huawei.

Cisco ASA's CLI is very effective and fast to configure the firewall and make changes, but monitoring logs and connections can be eye bothering by reading all the line outputs. ASDM, however, have improved the overall ASA configuration from an GUI standpoint. I really enjoy the log monitor where I can see live logs in a more user friendly interface. The down side of ASDM is that it is build with JAVA and that means a lot vulnerabilities and it does not always work with the latest JAVA version and/or patches.

The packet tracer function, which I use the most, have provided me a packet flow through the firewall and see which rule or policy can cause a drop. Also, I can see if my NAT statement is working properly. This has allowed me to quickly troubleshoot potential firewall related issues for my organization.

L7 firewall is a key for the ASA to be competitive in the current and future market place. By integrating with SourceFire, now call FirePower, on the ASA has helped it to get into the next-generation firewall segment.

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. 

I use it for VPNs, remote-access VPNs, environment issues, and failover issues. I also use the
content mode, NAT, and PAT in this firewall. We always use ASA for VPN sites and firewall sites. We use the edge for internet access for data center servers or company customers' internet access.

We always use ASA for integration another companies  and branches easily. 

The Inline Mode configuration works really well, and ASA works very impressively.

I think the ASA layer is thin. It's always Layer 3 or Layer 4 source controller and doesn't control the Layer 7 traffic at all. It's important, and you'll need an additional firewall. 

All next-generation firewalls don't have much control over Layer 7, but there's a little bit of control for inspection. ASA never controlled Layer 7, and it's a bad point.

 I don't like to use ASDM, a graphical interface, and other solutions for ASA. I wouldn't say I like this, and it's not good(ASDM).

I have over seven years of experience with Cisco ASA Firewall.

It's stable. ASA works very well, and it's impressive. I use only ASA and only the Inline Mode. 

It's a scalable, high availability solution. It's an active/standby model for VPN. But if you don't use VPN in these devices, it works as an active/active high availability model.

If you're a Cisco Administrator or Cisco certified, the initial setup isn't a problem. But if you don't know Cisco devices and how they work, it can get a little complicated.

I would advise new users to look at next-generation firewalls like FTD or other models from Cisco. It's better than Cisco ASA. Cisco ASA Firewall isn't a next-generation firewall.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ASA Firewall an eight.

We mostly use it for remote access. We also use this firewall between different segments of our enterprise network.

We have legacy models of this solution. We are using models 5510 and 5520.

We are mostly using it for remote access, so the remote access feature is the most valuable, but all other features are also needed and required. It is also a very straightforward and reliable solution.

We don't have any serious problems. The firewall models that we have are quite legacy, and they have slower performance. We are currently investigating the possibility of migrating to next-generation firewalls.

We have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for around one hour and a half years.

It is quite stable. We didn't have any issues or crashes, so we find it to be a solid solution.

We don't have Cisco support because these models are excellent.

It has moderate complexity. I didn't have any prior experience in configuring these firewalls. That's why I found its initial setup to be of moderate complexity, but now, I have got used to using and maintaining these devices.

We're using the smart license for this firewall. The models that we have require licensing for remote access.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. It is a very straightforward and reliable solution. I would definitely like to propose and offer this solution to other colleagues.

Cisco doesn't have any plans to develop this kind of solution more. Cisco ASA Firewall will not be developed in the future. The next-generation firewall is the next step in the development of the Cisco firewall. For this reason, we are investigating the possibility of migrating to another product.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of ten. We are very happy with this solution. It is very straightforward and reliable, but it is quite a legacy solution and lacks performance. 

It provides the firewall and security for our edge network.

We are using a really old ASA device that is at end-of-life, so we're replacing it.

The most valuable feature is the access control list (ACL). 

This is an older product and has reached end-of-life.

We have been using Cisco ASA for probably ten years.

This is a very stable product.

We're just a small company, so we have not had to scale it.

The technical support is definitely very good.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

Just one person is required for maintenance.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco ASA is that it is not very difficult to deploy and not very difficult to understand how to continue adding more rules to it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It is our firewall solution. We connect to other locations, as well as use programs in-house.

The most valuable feature is the security that it provides our company and users.

Furthermore, our company uses it for making rules for the bank to connect to our server in the DMZ, which is a security challenge.

It needs improvement as a "Next-Generation" firewall solution. In addition, it needs to be more user-friendly. 

There is no downtime, and it is working great. 

It is scalable. We have had no issues. 

The initial setup was complex. But, after that, to maintain and keep creating rules it was easy.

We evalutated Cisco ASA vs Fortinet FortiGate VM.