Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

The features that we use are:

• The stateful firewall
• VPN with AnyConnect
• Site-to-site IPSEC solutions
• High availability

The ASA gives us a secure appliance at the perimeter and allows us to provide VPN connectivity to our users. We have the ability to control our VPN users as well as use two-factor authentication if needed (using an outside Radius source).

The ASA has room for improvement in the areas of layers four through seven. I would love to see application specific control, e.g.Facebook, Gmail, etc.

I have used this solution for five years.

No issues with the deployment of the ASA as long as you are using it for what it is intended for.

No issues encountered.

As long as you buy the correct model for your company, in regards to throughput, licenses etc., you will be fine.

8/10.

8/10.

I believe it is straightforward, but again it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

The multi-context mode.

Being able to use the multi-context on the firewall to keep costs down.

No improvement needed.

I've used it for four years.

Yes but I was able to get the support that was needed to resolve any issues.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10.

8/10.

Yes and we switched because we needed a fully redundant solution.

If you have no experience with the device it may be complex but being trained on the device helps drastically.

We used a mix of both - vendor help and in-house.

We also evaluated Juniper firewalls.

Excellent product and excellent customer support.

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. 

Our primary use case for this solution is to protect the Internet Edge, and our VPN (Virtual Private Network).

We moved from a Legacy firewall to the ASA with Firepower, increasing our internet Edge defense dramatically.

The most valuable features for us are Firepower and the VPN concentration. These are easy to use and have good insights.

The product would be improved if the GUI could be brought into the 21st Century.

Its security is the most valuable feature. 

The phishing emails could be improved. 

It is stable. 

The scalability is good. I'm happy with the service. We are around twenty users. Some are in finance, some are in a mid-user roles, and some are in other official roles.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Implementation took two days. We needed two people for the deployment. 

Pricing is high, but it is corporate's decision.

We didn't look at any other solutions. All of our campuses use Cisco products. This is why we chose this solution. 

This solution has good security and it's a good product. You can trust Cisco, and there's support as well, which is really good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

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.

It's a great solution that amalgamates a firewall and VPN into one device. It also has a well organized GUI- ASDM.

• Easy to setup VPNs
• Firewall ACL
• Easy to modify
• Easy to perform maintenance

The ADSM is incompatible with different versions of Java.

I've used it for six years.

I have issues with some versions of Java and ASDM.

It's high.

It's high.

I used a Cisco 881 router as a firewall and VPN solution. ASA allows conformity and various amounts of functionality in work.

It can be complex, since a lot of CLI commands are different with respect to the CLI of IOS routers.

We implemented ASA without vendor support. For first time implementation, it is good to have someone with ASA experience involved.

Prices could be a little bit lower to make the product more accessible.

VPN - Both site to site (IPsec) and remote access (IPsec and SSL).

Through the use of VPNs, we were able to connect our branches together through the internet without the any additional cost.

• Throughput
• Price

Since 2008, so seven years, and I have been a heavy/daily user, and all of my jobs were related to network security.

No issues encountered.

Sometimes, due to software bugs, but in the long run the ASA is a very stable product when compared to other vendors firewall solutions.

One of the major disadvantages with the ASAs is the throughput, while the network evolves, the ASA was usually causing the bottle neck.

It's very good when compared to other vendors.

It's very good when compared to other vendors.

Mainly switching from the old Cisco PIX to a new Cisco ASA. The reason for switching is to get a higher throughput, and due to the fact the that the Cisco PIX went EoL.

It requires training, but after that it is straight forward.

I work for a vendor, and we implement the solution for multiple customers.

Yes, and we chose Cisco ASA mainly due to the fact that they have a very good, reliable and very responsive technical customer support.

I have worked on the best firewalls in the market, and Cisco ASA is one of the best.

The below screenshots are taken from a demo of ASDM.