Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

I'm working as a Solution Architect for an energy provider in Austria. We have approximately 1,500 people working in Austria and also in some neighboring countries.

We are using Cisco Secure Firewall. We started with Cisco ASA long ago, and now, we have Cisco Firepower or Cisco Secure Firewall. We are using the product as a perimeter firewall and for remote access VPN and site-to-site VPN tunnels with other partner companies. So, the primary use case of Cisco Secure Firewall is to secure our perimeter, but it's also for the remote access VPN for employees in the home office or if they are outside the company.

The benefit of using Cisco Secure Firewall is that there is a lot of integration with other Cisco products like Cisco ISE or even with third-party systems. It's important to have these integrations with other systems. On one hand, you get more visibility, and on the other hand, you can also use the information that you have from the firewall in other systems, such as a SIEM or other similar things. You overall get better visibility and better security.

In terms of securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats. When it comes to detection, it's pretty good because you have the background of Cisco Talos. I can't say if it's the truth, but they probably are one of the top players in threat hunting, so it's pretty good at detecting known things that are outside.

The most valuable features of the product are the VPN and the NextGen firewall features such as application control, URL filtering, etc. These features are especially valuable because nowadays, it's not enough to just filter for source and destination IPs. You need more insights or visibility to see which applications are passing your perimeter, which applications you want to allow, and which ones you want to block. Without this visibility and these features, it's a little bit hard to secure your network.

There is room for improvement in the stability or software quality of the product. There were a few things in the past where we had a little bit of a problem with the product, so there is room for improvement. In the past, we had problems with new releases. 

Also, from the beginning, some functionalities or features have not worked properly. There are bugs. Every product has such problems, but sometimes, there are more problems than other products, so it's definitely something that can be improved, but Cisco seems to be working on it.

There is room for improvement in the stability of the product.

I know that there are several models for every type of scale that you need. For small branches up to the data center or even for the cloud, there are models, but so far, we only have one cluster. Among all these different types, we found the perfect matching size for our company.

The Cisco support with Cisco TAC is pretty good. With the TAC Connect Bot that you have with WebEx, you can easily open a case or escalate the case through the WebEx app. That's pretty cool. Also, the engineers that are working for Cisco TAC are really good. Among all the vendors that we have in place, it's the best support that we have experienced. I'd rate them a 10 out of 10 because compared to the other vendors that we have in place, it's definitely the best support.

Positive

We have a multi-vendor strategy for the firewall so that if there is some security issue in the software or something like that, you are not directly impacted, and there is another vendor in between. If I compare Cisco Secure Firewall with the other vendor that we have in place, the pro for Cisco Secure Firewall is that detection is better with the database of Talos. The con that comes to my mind is the deployment time when you deploy a change. With the other vendor, the change is more or less deployed immediately, whereas, with Cisco Secure Firewall, you have to wait for a few minutes until the change is deployed. This is one of the biggest cons on this side because if there's a misconfiguration, you are not able to correct the issue as fast as with the other vendor.

We migrated from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower, and it was straightforward because there were some migration tools to export the old ASA rule set and import it into Cisco Secure Firewall. With these tools and the documentation that you find on Cisco's site, it was pretty straightforward, and we had nearly no problems with the migration to Cisco Secure Firewall.

In terms of the deployment model, we have one high-availability cluster, and, of course, FMC to manage this cluster. These are physical clusters, and we have them on-prem in our data center.

For deployment, we worked with our partner who helped us a little bit with the migration. Our partner's engineer had good knowledge and supported us when we had questions. When we didn't know how to do something, they helped us with that.

The licensing models that are available for Cisco Secure Firewall are okay. You have nearly every option that you need. You can pick filtering, advanced malware protection, or all the available features. It's sufficient.

In terms of pricing, there are, for sure, some cheaper vendors, but overall, it's nearly the same. It has a fair price.

To those evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall, I'd advise thinking about what are your use cases and what's your goal to achieve with this product. It's also a good idea to talk to other customers or a partner and ask them what's their experience and what they think about it, and if it's suitable for this use case or not. And, of course, it's also a good idea to do a proof of concept or something like that.

At the moment, I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a six out of ten. The reason for that is that we are having some problems with the stability and functionality of the product, but there are also features, such as VPN, that are working from day one without a problem. So, there are good parts, and there are parts that are not working as well as we would like them to, but we and Cisco TAC will solve this in the future, and then the rating will go up.

We use WSA proxy and Cisco Firepowers with the FMC suite and Cisco Umbrella. We mainly use WSAP for on-premises data centers to get traffic outbound to the internet. Cisco Umbrella is for our endpoints, and Cisco firewalls are to protect our perimeter but also internal choke points to secure segments on our LAN.

Currently, we don't have any integrations between the three of them. They all run in isolation. 

Our external partner does the day-to-day management. We are not using it on a day-to-day basis. We position the products from within my team, but the detection mechanism is different per platform. We mainly trust the policy, and our security department is checking logs for anomalies in the patterns.

In terms of cost savings, we've been using this mechanism for years on end, so we haven't been able to see a real cost reduction between using our own personnel versus our external partner for management. It has been like that for 10 years or so.

In terms of time savings, it doesn't put too much burden on day-to-day activities to go over the details. The policies are rather straightforward, and anything not configured is not allowed. In that sense, it's easy.

Protecting our landscape in general and being able to see logging when things aren't going as set out in policies are valuable features. Our security department is keen on seeing the logging. 

If WSAP remains to be an active product, it might be an idea to integrate the configuration policy logic between Umbrella and WSAP. There should be one platform to manage both.

The integration between the on-prem proxy world and the cloud proxy would benefit us. One single policy setting would make sense.

That's great. Sometimes, you need to be clear on the severity levels, but once determined, we have a good experience with tech support.

Positive

That was long ago, but we had Blue Coat proxies before. We switched because of our strategy to go for Cisco as an ecosystem.

We chose Cisco products because we have a Cisco-first strategy. We typically check first with the Cisco product portfolio and then make up our minds. Historically speaking, it serves our interests best.

I am not involved firsthand in its deployment. We have an oversight role within our company, so we ask our external supplier to do the implementation, and when needed, to have it validated via Cisco, but I've no real hands-on experience.

I would expect that we have seen an ROI because our sourcing department would make sure we get the best price for the solution.

Licensing is quite difficult to get your head around. My biggest challenge is to understand the details, the inner relations. Luckily, to some extent, we have enterprise agreements, but licensing for me is a real black box.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

We have two devices in Active-Active mode, acting as a perimeter firewall. It is the main firewall that filters traffic in and out of our organization. This is where there are many rules and the mapping is done to the outside world. We use it as a next-generation firewall, for intrusion detection and prevention.

It's also linked also to Firepower, the software for network policies that acts as our network access control. 

I find it very useful when we're publishing some of our on-prem servers to the public. I am able to easily do the NATing so that they are published. It also comes in very handy for aspects of configuration. It has made things easy, especially for me, as at the time I first started to use it I was a novice.

I have also added new requirements that have come into our organization. For example, we integrated with a server that was sitting in an airport because we needed to display the flight schedule to our customers. We needed to create the access rules so that the server in our organization and the server in the other organization could communicate, almost like creating a VPN tunnel. That experience wasn't as painful as I thought it would be. It was quite dynamic. If we had not been able to do that, if the firewall didn't have that feature, linking the two would have been quite painful.

In addition, we have two devices configured in an Active-Active configuration. That way, it's able to load balance in case one firewall is overloaded. We've tested it where, if we turn off one, the other appliance is able to seamlessly pick up and handle the traffic. It depends on how you deploy the solution. Because we are responsible for very critical, national infrastructure, we had to ensure we have two appliances in high-availability mode.

I love the ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) which is the management suite. It's a GUI and you're able to see everything at a glance without using the command line. There are those who love the CLI, but with ASDM it is easier to see where everything is going and where the problems are.

The ASDM makes it very easy to navigate and manage the firewall. You can commit changes with it or apply them before you save them to be sure that you're doing the right thing. You can perform backups easily from it.

It also has a built-in Packet Tracer tool, ping, and traceroute, all in a graphical display. We are really able to troubleshoot very quickly when there are issues. With the Packet Tracer, you're able to define which packet you're tracing, from which interface to which other one, and you're able to see an animation that shows where the traffic is either blocked or allowed. 

In addition, it has a monitoring module, which also is a very good tool for troubleshooting. When you fill in the fields, you can see all the related items that you're looking for. In that sense, it gives you deep packet inspection. I am happy with what it gives me.

It also has a dashboard when you log in, and that gives you a snapshot of all the interfaces, whether they're up or down, at a glance. You don't need to spend a lot of time trying to figure out issues.

Our setup is quite interesting. We have a Sophos firewall that sits as a bridge behind the Cisco ASA. Once traffic gets in, it's taken to the Sophos and it does what it does before the traffic is allowed into the LAN, and it is a bridge out from the LAN to the Cisco firewall. The setup may not be ideal, but it was deployed to try to leverage and maximize what we already have. So far, so good; it has worked.

The Cisco doesn't come with SD-WAN capabilities which would allow me to load balance two or three ISPs. You can only configure a backup ISP, not necessarily an Active-Active, where it's able to load balance and shift traffic from one interface to the other.

When I joined the organization, we only had one ISP. We've recently added a second one for redundancy. The best scenario would be to load balance. We plan to create different traffic for different kinds of users. It's capable of doing that, but it would have been best if it could have done that by itself, in the way that Sophos or Cisco Meraki or even Fortigate can.

A feature that would allow me to load balance among multiple ISPs, especially since we have deployed it as a perimeter firewall, would be a great addition. While I'm able to configure it as a backup, the reality is that in a modern workplace, you can't rely on one service provider for the internet and your device should be able to give you optimal service by load balancing all the connections, all the IPSs you have, and giving you the best output.

I know Cisco has deployed other devices that are now capable of SD-WAN, but that would have been great on the 5516 as well. It has been an issue for us.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewalls since November 2019.

Cisco products are quite resilient. We've had problems due to power failures and our UPSs not being maintained and their batteries being drained. With the intermittent on and off, the Cisco ASAs, surprisingly, didn't have any issue at all. The devices really stood on their own. We didn't even have any issue in terms of losing configs. I'm pretty satisfied with that.

I've had experience with some of the new Cisco devices and they're quite sensitive to power fluctuations. The power supply units can really get messed up. But the ASA 5516 is pretty resilient. We've deployed in a cluster, but even heating up, over-clocking, or freezing, has not happened.

We also have the Sophos as a bridge, although it's only a single device, it is not in a cluster or in availability mode, but we've had issues with it freezing. We have had to reboot it.

It's easy to scale it up and extend it to other operations. When we merged with another company, we were able to extend its usage to serve the other company. It became the main firewall for them as well. It works and it's scalable.

It's the main perimeter firewall for all traffic. Our organization has around 1,000 users spread across the country. It's also our MPLS solution for the traffic for branch networks. It's able to handle at least 1,000 connections simultaneously, give or take.

Prior to my joining the organization, there was a ransomware attack that encrypted data. It necessitated management to invest in network security.

When I joined the project to upgrade the network security infrastructure in our organization, I found that there was a legacy ASA that had been decommissioned, and was being replaced by the 5516. Being a type-for-type, it was easy to pick up the configs and apply them to the new one.

When I joined this organization, the solution had just been deployed. I was tasked with administrating and managing it. Managing it has been quite a learning curve. Prior to that, I had not interacted with ASAs at all. It was a deep-dive for me. But it has been easy to understand and learn. It has a help feature, a floating window where you can type in whatever you're looking for and it takes you right there.

We had a subsidiary that reverted back to our organization. That occurred just after I started using the 5516 and I needed to configure the integration with the subsidiary. That was what I would consider to be experience in terms of deployment because we had to integrate with Meraki, which is what the subsidiary was using.

The process wasn't bad. It was relatively easy to integrate, deploy, and extend the configurations to the other side, add "new" VLANs, et cetera. It wasn't really difficult. The ASDM is a great feature. It was easy to navigate, manage, and deploy. As long as you take your backups, it's good.

It was quite a big project. We had multiple solutions, including Citrix ADC and ESA email security among others. The entire project from delivery of equipment to commissioning of the equipment took from July to November. That includes the physical setup and racking.

Two personnel are handling the day-to-day maintenance.

We have seen ROI with the Cisco ASA, especially because we've just come to the end of the three-year subscription. We are now renewing it. We've not had any major security incident that was a result of the firewall not being able to detect or prevent something. That's a good return on investment.

Our device, the 5516, has been declared end-of-life. The cost of upgrading is almost equivalent to deploying a new appliance. But having had it for three years, it has served its purpose.

As with any security solution, the return on investment must be looked at in terms of what could happen. If you have a disaster or a cyber attack, that is when you can really see the cost of not having this. 

Cost-wise, it's in the same range as its competitors. It's likely cheaper than Palo Alto. Cisco is affordable for a large organization of 500 to 1,000 users and above.

You need a Cisco sales partner or engineer to explain to you the licensing aspects. Out-of-the-box, Firepower is the module that you use to handle your network access policy for the end-user. It's a separate module that you need to include, it's not bundled. You need to ensure you have that subscription.

A Cisco presales agent is key for you to know what you need. Once they understand your use cases, they'll be able to advise you about all the licenses you need. You need guidance. I wouldn't call it straightforward.

With any Cisco product, you need a service level agreement and an active contract to maximize the support and the features. We have not had an active service contract. We just had the initial, post-implementation support.

As a result, we've wasted a bit of time in terms of figuring out how best to troubleshoot things here and there. It would be best to ensure you are running an active contract with SLAs, at least with a Cisco partner. 

Also, we were not able to use its remote VPN capabilities, Cisco AnyConnect, because of a licensing limitation.

I would encourage people to go for the newer version of Cisco ASA. 

When you are procuring that device, be sure to look at the use cases you want it for. Are you also going to use it to serve as your remote VPN and, in that case, do you need more than the out-of-the-box licenses it comes with? How many concurrent users will you need? That is a big consideration when you're purchasing the device. Get a higher version, something that is at least three years ahead of being declared end-of-life or end-of-support.

We use it to control the traffic between our inside and outside networks. 

We use the same firewall for the vendor by creating an IPv6 HyperSec VPN between the company and the vendor. 

It is a security solution. We needed to protect our traffic from the outside to inside. That is why we are using this firewall.

Cisco ASA is pretty good. We use it for Layer 3 and as our main firewall, protecting the entire organization. All our Internet traffic goes through it.

Their CLI is pretty good. 

In order to do an upgrade, we need to upload the software to the firewall, then upgrade the secondary and do a failover. Uploading this software into the firewall is old technology. For example, if you look at the Cisco Meraki firewall, you can schedule the software upgrade. Whereas, here we can't.

Recently, we have been having an issue with the ASA firewall. We haven't found the root cause yet and are still working on it. We failed over the firewall from active to passive and suddenly that resolved the issue. We are now working to find the root cause.

I have been using the Cisco ASA firewall for the last four years.

It is pretty stable. I haven't seen many issues during the past four years.

It has the scalability to replace the firewall with a higher model number.

The scalability meets our needs and future needs.

The technical support is really good. If we open up a case, they are pretty good. As soon as we open up a case, they assign a case manager. Also, they have an engineer on call. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

They had this firewall when I joined the company.

We also have Palo Alto that we use as a firewall for Layer 2.

I haven't really used the GUI features that much.

We have not integrated with any other Cisco solutions yet, but we have been thinking about integrating with Cisco Umbrella.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

I am using this solution for monitoring incoming and outgoing network traffic. This includes many types of traffic, such as VPN users.

I have found the most valuable feature to be the access control and IPsec VPN. There are a lot of people moving towards the next-generation versions of firewalls which have some advanced features such as this one. You can define rules based on the application instead of how they are traditionally are done. There are more general and traffic controls, and additional features for intrusion prevention for malware analysis.

When comparing the graphical interface of this solution to other vendors it is more difficult to configure. There is a higher learning curve for administrators in this solution.

A lot of vendors, such as Palo Alto, are going toward cloud-based systems and Cisco should follow.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

Since this is a hardware solution it does not scale as well as cloud versions. We have approximately 20,000 people using this solution in my organization.

The support of this solution is very good.

We have security specialists to manage the solution.

I have previously used FortiGate and Palo Alto solutions. When comparing them to this solution they have more standard features in their normal firewall this one does not.

My advice to those wanting to implement the solution is to look at their use case and see if it meets those requirements for what they are looking for. There are a lot of security features that people may not be aware of and do not use. Explore the solution and all its features which will help you understand the configurations.

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for protecting the environment, or the cloud environments for our customers.

All the specific features you find within the NextGen firewall are quite useful. The touch intel feature is specifically useful to us. We deliberately choose this kind of product due to its set of features. 

The implementation is pretty straightforward.

The security market is a fast-changing market. The solution needs to always check if the latest threats are covered under the solution. 

It would always be helpful if the pricing was improved upon a bit.

In a future release, it would be ideal if they could offer an open interface to other security products so that we could easily connect to our own open industry standard.

We've been using the solution for about five or more years at this point.

The solution is stable. It's very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze and doesn't seem to be plagued by bugs or glitches.

The solution can scale quite well. A company that needs to expand it can do so easily.

In our case, we have clients with anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 users.

We have our own in-house team that can assist our clients should they need technical support. They're quite knowledgeable and can handle any issues.

I also have experience with Fortinet and Check Point.

The implementation isn't complex. It's straightforward. However, it also depends on the specifications of the customer. Normally we check that out first and then we can make a judgment of how to best implement the solution.

Typically, the deployment takes about two days to complete.

In terms of maintenance, we have about five people, who are engineers, who can handle the job.

We deliver the solution to our customers.

You do need to pay for the software license. In general, it's a moderately expensive solution. It's not the cheapest on the market.

We're a partner. We aren't an end-user. We are a managed security provider, and therefore we use this solution for our customers.

We always provide the latest version of the solution to our clients.

Typically, we use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's quite good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight.

Our primary use cases for FTD are IPS, intrusion detection, and to get visibility into the network and the traffic that is going on in some sites. We always have them in-line, meaning that they're between two networking connections, and we analyze the traffic for the purposes of internal detection.

In production, from the FTD line, we mostly have 2110s and 2130s because we have a lot of small sites, and we are starting to put in some 4110s. We only have FirePOWER here, but we don't use them most of the time as next-gen firewalls but more as an IPS.

Everything is on-premises. We don't use public clouds for security reasons.

When you put FTD between your internet and network units, you can get valuable insights about your encrypted traffic on the web, DNS traffic, and the like. It gives us statistics up to Layer 7.

Although I can't go into the details, the way the solution has helped our organization is more on the root-cause side when there is an incident, because we get very detailed information.

FTD's ability to provide visibility into threats is very good, if the traffic is clear. Like most companies, we have the issue that there is more and more encrypted traffic. That's why we use Stealthwatch instead, because we can get more information about encrypted traffic. But FTD is pretty good. It gives us a lot of details.

We put them in in-line and in blocking mode and they have stopped some weird things automatically. They help save time every day. We have 150,000 people all over the world, and there are times when computers get infected. It helps save time because those infections don't propagate over the network.

The fact that we can centrally manage clients for our IPS, and that we can reuse what we type for one IPS or one firewall, makes it easy to expand that to multiple sites and multiple devices. Overall, it has been a great improvement.

The IPS, as well as the malware features, are the two things that we use the most and they're very valuable.

Cisco Talos is also very good. I had the chance to meet them at Cisco Live and during the Talos Threat Research Summit. I don't know if they are the leader in the threat intelligence field but they are very competent. They are also very good at explaining complicated things easily. We use all of their blacklist, threat intelligence, and malware stuff on our FTDs. We also use the website from Talos where you can get web reputation and IP reputation.

For the new line of FTDs, the performance could be improved. We sometimes have issues with the 41 series, depending on what we activate. If we activate too many intrusion policies, it affects the CPU. We have great hopes for the next version. We have integrated Snort 3.0, the new Snort, because it includes multi-threading. I hope we will get better performance with that.

The stability depends on the version. The latest versions are pretty good. Most of the time, we wait for one or two minor version updates before using the new major version because the major versions go through a lot of changes and are still a bit unstable. For example, if you take 6.3, it started to be pretty stable with 6.3.03 or 6.3.04.

Scalability depends on the site. At some sites we have ten people while at others we have a data center with a full 10 Gig for all the group. We have had one issue. When there are a lot of small packets — for example, when our IPS is in front of a log server or the SNMP servers — sometimes we have issues, but only when we get a peak of small packets.

We've got a little history with tech support. We have very good knowledge within our team about the product now. We have a lab here in Montreal where we test and assess all the new versions and the devices. Sometimes we try to bypass level-one tech support because they are not of help. Now, we've have someone dedicated to work with us on complex issues. We use them a lot for RMAs to return defective products.

In our company, we have used another firewall which we developed based on FreeBSD.

I, personally, used to work with Juniper, Check Point, and Fortinet. I used Fortinet a lot in the past. If you use the device only for pure firewall, up to Layer 4, not as an application or next-gen firewall, Fortinet is a good and cheaper option. But when it comes to a UTM or next-gen, Cisco is better, in my opinion. FortiGate can do everything, but I'm not sure they do any one thing well. At least with Cisco, when you use the IPS feature, it's very good.

Setting up an FTD is a bit more complex with the new FTD line. They integrated the FXOS, but the OS is still not fully integrated. If you want to be able to fully manage the device, you still need to use two IP addresses: One for FXOS and one for the software. It's complicating things for the 4110 to have to, on the one hand manage the chassis and the hardware on one, and on the other hand to manage the logical device and the software from another one.

But overall, if you take them separately, it's pretty easy to set up and to manage.

The time it takes to deploy one really depends. I had to deploy one in Singapore and access the console remotely. But most of the time, once I get my hands on it, it can be very quick because we have central management with FMC. Setting up the basic configuration is quick. After that, you have to push the configuration that you use for your group IPS and that's it. My experience is a bit different because I lose time trying to get my hands on it since I'm on the other side of the world. But when I get access to it, it's pretty easy to deploy. We have about 62 of them in production, so we have a standard for how we implement them and how we manage them.

We have Professional Services and consultants who work with us on projects, but not for the deployment. We have our own data centers and our own engineers who are trained to do it. We give them the instructions so we don't need Cisco help for deployment. We have help from Cisco only for complex projects. In our case, it requires two people for deployment, one who will do the configuration of the device, and one who is physically in the data center to set up the cables into the device. But that type of setup is particular to our situation because we have data centers all around the world.

For maintenance, we have a team of a dozen people, which is based in India. They work in shifts, but they don't only work on the FTDs. They work on all the security devices. FTD is only a part of their responsibilities. Potentially we can be protecting 140,000 people, meaning all the employees who work on the internal network. But mostly, we work for international internal people, which would be roughly 12,000 people. But there are only three people on my team who are operators.

ROI is a difficult question. We have never done the calculations, but I would say we see ROI because of some security concerns we stopped.

Cisco changed its price model with the new FTD line, where the appliances are a bit cheaper but the licensing is a bit more expensive. But that's not only Cisco, a lot of suppliers are doing that. I don't remember a lot of the licensing for Fortinet and Check Point, but Cisco's pricing is high, at times, for what they provide.

FTD is pretty good. You can stop new threats very quickly because you can get the threat intelligence deployed to all your IPSs in less than two hours. Cisco works closely with Talos and anything that Talos finds is provided in the threat intelligence of the FTDs if you have the license. It's pretty good to have the Cisco and Talos teams working closely. I know Palo Alto has an similar arrangement, but not a lot of suppliers get that chance.

Our organization's security implementation is pretty mature because we try to avoid the false positives and we try to do remediation. We try to put threat intelligence over a link to our IPS next-gen firewalls.

Overall, we have too many tools for security in our organization — around a dozen. It's very complicated to integrate all of them. What we have done is to try to use the Elastic Assist Pack over all of them, as a main point of centralization of log information. The number of tools also affects training of teams. There are issues because one tool can't communicate with the another one. It can be very hard, in terms of technical issues and training time, to have everybody using all these processes.

We also use Cisco Stealthwatch, although not directly with the FTD, but we hope to make them work together. There is not enough integration between the two products.

Overall, FTD is one part of our security strategy. I wouldn't rely only on it because we've got more and more issues coming from the endpoints. It lets you decipher everything but sometimes it is very complicated. We try to use a mix and not rely only on the FTDs. But for sure it's great when you've got a large network, to give you some visibility into your traffic.

I rate it at eight out of ten because it's pretty good technology and pretty good at stopping threats, but it still needs some improvement in the management of the new FTD line and in performance.

For companies prioritizing security, the optimal choice is one that offers a range of feeds to cater to diverse needs. This is particularly crucial for organizations implementing DDoS mitigation. The preferred solutions typically align with the top server vendors, with Cisco, Forti, and Barracuda consistently ranking among the top three vendors we collaborate with.

It's not unexpected, but it's a common scenario where customers request dual layers of security. For instance, when dealing with regulatory compliance, especially in financial sectors regulated by entities like the Central Bank, having two distinct units is often mandated. If a client predominantly uses a solution like Palo Alto, they may need to incorporate another vendor such as Cisco or Forti. Importantly, there's a significant disparity in interfaces and management platforms between these vendors, necessitating careful consideration when integrating them into the overall security architecture.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for the past ten years. 

The solution is extremely scalable and based on my experience, I would rate it 7 out of 10.

Cisco is a well-established company, and it offers accessible support, both locally and through online resources. The abundance of information makes it easy to find the necessary details and assistance.

Positive

The implementation timeline for our firewall is contingent on the readiness of the policy. If the policy is prepared, the deployment can occur within a day. However, if the policy is not finalized, a brief meeting is convened to gather the necessary data for rule establishment. Once the information is ready, the implementation on VMware proceeds. Notably, there is a requisite waiting period, such as fine-tuning for optimal rule configuration, as each customer has unique requirements. It's crucial to tailor the rules to fit the specific needs of each customer, as there is no one-size-fits-all best practice in this context.

It is extremely expensive compared to its competitors and I would rate it 2 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution and rate it 8 out of 10.