Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

I typically deploy firewalls to set up VPNs for remote users, and, in general, for security. I have a number of use cases.

With theUI basedpandemic, the customer really didn't have a VPN solution for their remote users, so we had to go in and deploy a high-availability cluster with Firepower. And I set up single sign-on with SAML authentication and multi-factor authentication.

We deploy for other organizations. I don't work on our own corporate firewalls, but I do believe we have some. But it definitely improved things. It enabled my clients to have remote users, thousands of them, and they're able to connect seamlessly. They don't have to come into the office. They can go home, connect to the VPN, log on, and do what they need to do.

I like that you can get really granular, as far as your access lists and access control go. 

You can also put everything into a nice, neat, little package, as far as configuration goes. I was formerly a command-line guy with the ASA, and I was a little nervous about dealing with a GUI interface versus a command line, but after I did my first deployment, I got a lot more comfortable with doing it GUI-based.

I'm not a big fan of the FDM (Firepower Device Manager) that comes with Firepower. I found out that you need to use the Firepower Management Center, the FMC, to manage the firewalls a lot better. You can get a lot more granular with the configuration in the FMC, versus the FDM that comes out-of-the-box with it.

FDM is like Firepower for dummies. I found myself to be limited in what I can do configuration-wise, versus what I can do in the FMC. FMC is more when you have 100 firewalls to manage. They need to come out with something better to manage the firewall, versus the FDM that comes out-of-the-box with it, because that set me back about two weeks fooling around with it.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for two or three years now.

It's good. It's stable. I haven't heard anything [from my customer]. No news is good news.

It scales because you can deploy a cluster. You could have up to 16 Firepowers in a cluster, from the class I [was learning] in yesterday. I only had two in that particular cluster. It scales up to 16. If you have a multi-tenant situation, or if you're offering SaaS, or cloud-based firewall services, it's great that it can scale up to 16.

They're always great to me. They're responsive, they're very knowledgeable. They offer suggestions, tell you what you need to do going forward, [and give you] a lot of helpful hints. It was good because I had to work with them a lot on this past deployment. 

Now I can probably do it by myself, without TAC's help.

Positive

The deployment was complex because that was my first time doing a Firepower. I did ASAs prior, no problem. I had to get used to the GUI and the different order of deploying things. I had to reset it to factory defaults several times because I messed something up. And then I had to get with Cisco TAC, for them to help me, and they said, "Okay, you need to default it and start over again".

But now, going forward, I know I need to deploy the FMC first, and then you deploy the Firepowers, and tell them where the FMC is, and then they connect, and then you can go in and configure it. I had it backward and it was a big thing. I had to keep resetting it. It was a good learning experience, though, and thankfully, I had a patient customer.

[In terms of maintenance] I've not heard anything back from my customer, so I'm assuming once it's in, it's in. It's not going to break. It's an HA pair. My customer doesn't really know too much about it. I don't know that they would know if one of them went down, because it fails over to the other one. I demonstrated to them, "Look, this is how it fails over. If I turn one off, it fails over." VPN doesn't disconnect, everything's good. Users don't know that the firewall failed over unless they're actually sitting there looking at AnyConnect. I don't think they know. So, I'll wait for them to call me and see if they know if something's broken or not.

As far as return on investment [goes], I would imagine there is some. For the users, as far as saving on commuting costs, they don't have to come into the office. They can stay home and work, and connect to the enterprise from anywhere in the world, essentially.

I've done a Palo Alto before, and a Juniper once, but mostly ASAs and Firepowers.

Naturally, I prefer Cisco stuff. [For the Palo Alto deployment] they just said, "Oh, you know, firewalls", and that's why the customer wanted Palos, so that's what I had to do. I had to figure it out. I learned something new, but my preference is Cisco firewalls.

I just like the granularity of the configuration [with Cisco]. I've never had any customers complain after I put it in, "Hey, we got hacked," or "There are some holes in the firewall," or any type of security vulnerabilities, malware, ransomware, or anything like that. You can tighten up the enterprise really well, security-wise.

Everything is GUI-based now, so to me, that's not really a difference. The Palos and the Junipers, I don't know what improvements they have made because [I worked on] those over five or six years ago. I can't even really speak to that.

Because I don't like the management tool that comes out-of-the-box with it, the FDM, I'll give the Firepower an eight out of 10. That was a real pain dealing with, until they said, "Okay, let's get him an FMC." That was TAC's suggestion, actually. They said, "You really need FMC. The FDM is really trash."

My company uses Cisco Secure Firewall for its protection and security features.

I won't be able to speak about the strong points of the product. I will need the input from my team to be able to speak about the advantages of the product. The solution's dashboard is fine, and in terms of support, Cisco is better than other OEMs in the market.

The solution's price can be lowered because, currently, it is pricier than the tool its competitors offer in the market. If the product's prices are lowered, it may help Cisco to expand its market base.

If Cisco reduces the price of its product, then it can gain more advantage and become much more competitive in a market where there are solution providers like Fortinet FortiGate.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for five years.

I don't remember the version of the solution since there is a support team in my company to manage it. My company has a partnership with Cisco.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Around 2,500 people use the solution in my company.

Most of the time, the solution's technical support is helpful and responsive. There have been a few cases where a few black spots have been noticed, which I think is because Cisco opted for localization of support because, during holidays, nighttime, or weekends, it becomes difficult for users to reach the support team, though the rest of the time the support is good.

If you have already scheduled a call with the support team of Cisco, then it is good. If you need to reschedule a call with the support team when you face a new issue with the product, then it may get a bit of a problem to get a hold of someone from the support team of Cisco. Earlier, there were no problems with Cisco's support team. Recently, there have been a few issues cropping up related to the technical team of Cisco. Technically speaking, the support team is good, but the availability offered by the technical team has deteriorated.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I work with Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Check Point for different parts of our IT environment.

The product's initial setup phase was taken care of by another team in my company before I joined my current company.

On our company's core payroll, we have a very small support team, but we do have a support team in my company for the product. The support team in my company consists of around 20 to 25 engineers who work around the clock.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap. If we compare Cisco with other OEMs available in the market, Cisco needs to work on price improvement. Nowadays, there is a lot of competition in the market with newer solutions, like Fortinet, gaining popularity, amongst a few other names like Cyberoam, a product from a local Indian vendor. Palo Alto has also gained a lot of market share in recent years.

From a security perspective, generally, there are only three solutions that our company looks at, which include Check Point in the last four or five years, among other options like Palo Alto and Cisco.

I recommend the solution for SMB businesses.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

I'm in network security, so I care more about security than the network architecture. I mostly just pull all the data out and throw it into Splunk. I use threat intelligence and some of the integrations like Talos. My company uses the product for east-west traffic, data center, and Edge.

The product is easy to manage and simple. It works with the rest of our Cisco products. You can drop in new ones if you need more performance. The training and documentation provided are good.

There's a little bit of a disconnect between Firepower’s management and the rest of the products, like DNA and Prime. The solution should have fewer admin portals for network, security, and firewalls.

I have been using the solution for a year and a half. My company has been using it for at least five years.

I haven’t had a product die. The products failover really fast, and we can cluster them. The product is definitely many nines of reliability.

I have contacted support in my previous jobs for things beyond firewalls, like servers, switches, and call centers. It's always been pretty good. They know their stuff. Sometimes we have to have a few calls to get really deep down into the issue. Eventually, we’ll get an engineer who's a senior and knows how to fix it. They do a pretty good job finding a resource that can be helpful.

In my previous jobs, I used Palo Alto and Fortinet. My current organization chose Cisco Secure Firewall because we use Cisco for the rest of our network, and it just made sense.

We have definitely seen a return on investment. It works pretty well. It is important to have everything work together. Our time is probably more valuable than our money. We're not going to go out and grab ten other network engineers to set up another complicated platform when we can just save the hassle.

The solution has improved our organization. I think my company was using Check Point back in the day. My company has 12 Cisco products. We used Palo Alto in my old organization. It’s what I'm most familiar with.

The application visibility and control with Secure Firewall are not bad. The product’s alerting is pretty good. There were a couple of things that surprised me about the solution. It works really well because we use it with Secure Client and Secure Endpoint. Sometimes the solutions can cross-enrich each other, which we wouldn’t get with a dedicated, standalone firewall.

The solution has helped free up our IT staff for other projects. We don't even have a dedicated firewall person. I sometimes do some stuff. Mostly the dedicated network admins run it, and they have time to do the rest of their job. Our whole network infrastructure team's only five to six people, and they can manage multiple sites across all different firewalls. It's not unreasonable to demand at all.

The product has helped us consolidate tools and applications. If we were using another solution, we would have had their firewall, management plane, and other appliances to back that up. Having a product in the Cisco universe definitely does help. It's all right there when we're using Secure Client and Umbrella. I want more of what Cisco Identity Services Engine and DNA do. I don't like switching tabs in my browser.

We use a relatively basic subset of Cisco Talos for general threat intel. It's definitely helpful. It's mostly about just getting the Talos definitions into the firewall so it can do all the heavy lifting so we don't have to. Now that Cisco has the XDR product, it will probably make it even more useful because then we can combine the network side, the security operations, and the threat intelligence into one thing to work harder for us.

Cisco Secure Firewall has definitely helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience. I like the IDS a lot. The definitions work really well. Making custom ones is pretty trivial. We don't have to do complicated packet captures or anything of that kind.

My advice would be to lean really hard on your sales engineer to explain the stack to you. There's definitely a learning curve to it. Cisco does things in a very particular way that's maybe a little bit different than other firewall vendors. Generally, it's pretty helpful talking to post-sales about what you need because you're probably not going to be able to figure it out. It's definitely a pretty top-shelf tool. If an organization already uses Cisco, they probably want to invest in the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Secure Firewall for traditional firewall use cases, like VPN, segmenting of traffic, and creating PPSs.

We need reliable communication to do what we do, and that's very important. The solution does what we need to do and when we need to do it. It has a great reputation for the support that we need because if things don't work within the Department of Defense, people don't survive. Communication and keeping the adversary out are key components of our work. So we need a robust, reliable, and secure product, and that's what Cisco provides us.

Cisco Secure Firewall is robust and reliable.

The process of procuring modern-day technology within the DOD needs to improve.

I've spent quite a few years with Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a very stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a very scalable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall's technical support is great, reliable, and responsive.

Positive

We have seen a return on investment from using Cisco Secure Firewall. From the DOD's perspective, we need a reliable and robust solution that has to be reliable in real-time. Cisco Secure Firewall is a reliable solution that works when needed.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a great scalable, secure, and robust product.

There is a dedicated team designed to handle firewalls.

I have a good impression of Cisco Talos and its effects on our security operations. They have a great reputation for doing a lot of great things.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall nine out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution for VLAN implementations and also for remote VPN capability - basically it's used for connecting to remote offices securely.

After implementing tools, including Cisco ASA, unauthorized access comes down a lot. We are not facing asset issues as of now. We are not facing an issue related to malicious traffic or any bad activity in our network.

The solution can allow and block traffic over the VLANs.Some of the unauthorized actions and malicious traffic can also be blocked effectively, as we are following PCI DSS compliance. We are a card industry. We are using cards as a payment method, and therefore we need to follow the compliance over the PCI DSS. That's why we chose one of the best products. ASA Firewall is very secure.

It's always easy to integrate Cisco with the same company products. If you are using other CIsco products, there's always easy integration.

Cisco is one of the most popular brands, and therefore the documentation is easily available over the internet.

They are best-in-class.

The remote VPN feature is one of the best features we've found. 

We like that there is two-factor authentication on offer.  We can integrate a Google authenticator with Cisco ASA so that whenever a person is logging on to any network device, they need to enter the password as well as the security code that is integrated by Google. It's a nice added security feature.

Cisco ASA provides us with very good application visibility and control. The Cisco CLI command line is one of the easiest we found on the market due to the fact that the GUI and the user interface are very familiar. If you're a beginner, you can easily access it. There's no complicated UI.

When compared to other products available, the cost is pretty similar. There's no big gap when you compare Cisco pricing to other products. 

There are multiple features in a single appliance, which is quite beneficial to us.

Support that is on offer 24/7. Whenever we face some technical issue, we can reach out to them easily.

We have not had any security breaches. 

They provide a helpful feature that allows us to configure email. 

We are getting a lot from the appliance in real-time.

There's an upgraded version of the 5500 that has come to the market. It offers the latest encryption that they have. If they want to add better features to the current Cisco ASA, they can start by increasing the encryption. That is the only thing they need to improve. The rest is good.

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

The stability and availability are very good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's a reliable solution. 

We have it in our infrastructure for around 15 plus users, including Fortinet sites.

We have found that whenever the traffic spikes at peak times, the product automatically scales up to the requirement. We have also implemented the single sign-on it, and therefore, it automatically scales up. We haven't felt any limitations. Currently, we are using it for 1500 plus users. At any given time, there are around 700 plus users available in the office. It's a 24/7 infrastructure. We have tested it for up to 750 plus users, and it's perfectly fine.

Technical support is excellent. they are always available, no matter the time of day, or day of the week. We are quite satisfied with their level of support. They are quite helpful and very responsive. I'd rate them at a ten out of ten. They deserve perfect marks.

We did not previously use a different solution. When the office was launched we implemented Cisco as a fresh product.

We are using a Cisco ASA Firewall, as well as Sophos at the remote sites. We are using another product is for log collecting. There are three solutions that basically cover us for security purposes. Those, at least, are the physical devices we are using as of now. The rest are cloud solutions such as Nexus. 

That said, I personally, have used Sophos XG as a firewall in the past. Sophos is good in terms of traffic blocking and identifying interruptions to the traffic. The features are better on Cisco's side. For example, there is two-factor authentication and a remote VPN. The only benefit I found in Sophos was the way it dealt with the traffic. 

The initial setup was not overly complex or difficult. It was quite straightforward and very easy to implement. 

Deployment takes about 20 to 25 minutes. 

In terms of the implementation strategy, at first, we put up the appliances in the data center. After that, we connected it with the console. After connecting the console, we had an in-house engineer that assisted. Cisco provided us onboarding help and they configured our device for us. We have just provided them the IP address and which port we wanted up. Our initial configuration has been done by them.

While most of the setup was handled in-house, we did have Cisco help us with the initial configurations.

The ROI we are getting from Cisco ASA is higher availability, which we are getting all the time. On top of that, it's good at blocking traffic and protecting us from cyber-crime issues.

The pricing is pretty reasonable. it's standard and comparable to other solutions. The maximum difference between products might be $20 to $40. It's not much of a difference. 

We did not evaluate other solutions. We trust Cisco. It's a very good product and well known in the market.

We are a customer and an end-user.

We are using physical Cisco appliances.

We use a lot of Cisco products, Cisco router (the 3900-series routers), and Cisco switches.

In the next quarter, we will implement SD-WAN. Once the SD-WAN is implemented, then we will go with an automated policy and DNS kinds of tools. We are in the process of upgrading to Cisco ASA Firepower in the next quarter. We have not integrated Cisco ASA with Cisco's SecureX solution.

I'd recommend the solution, especially for medium-sized or larger companies and those who are looking for long-term solutions (for example those with a user base of around 2,000 plus users in and around 20 plus applications). It's reliable and offers users a lot of features. This helps companies avoid having to rely on other third-party solutions.

If you are new to Cisco, you should take advantage of the education they have on offer. Cisco provides access to training and it's worth taking advantage of this.

Overall, I'd are the solution at a nine 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.

We use it for our university department firewall. It replaced our 12-year-old Cisco ASA 5520, which used to protect web servers, mail servers, SVN repositories, office computers, research computers, and computer labs. It was used for blocking the internet for exams. It was not used for IPS, so we did not buy the new threat protection or malware license. We connected it to a Layer 3 switch for faster Inter-VLAN routing.

It works better through specs than our old ASA 5520. It seems to perform the same functionality unless you buy the additional threat protection licenses, so this is a disappointment. I found a bug where the ASDM could not be used with Windows 2016, but it did work with Windows 10.  

• Most of same old ASA 5520 config could be used for the new 5516-X model. The ASDM interface is improved and can also be configured to the Firepower settings. 
• I am used to the ASA syntax, therefore it is quite easy to make up new rules. I have found that DNS doctoring rules are useful, and I am not sure how other firewalls handle the issue of internal versus external DNS, so this was a reason to keep the same type of firewall.
• Customizing logging event of syslog to feed into Splunk is very useful for management and monitoring just for the importance events instead of a huge stream of thousands of unneeded events.
• I found it quite easy to block computers from the internet, e.g, in a computer lab with students doing an exam using software for the course when needed.
• I use access to a list to block IPs which have attacked our web servers on the outside interface, since I do not have IPS.
• I found that setting up rules for HTTPS and SSH access to the management interface are straightforward, including setting the cypher type.
• It is very useful to use the command line interface for modifying or adding to the config because sometimes the ASDM interface is hard to find when the setting is more complicated.
• The text config file is great to have, to know what is in the config, instead of having to check every setting in the GUI.
• While the CLI is used the most, sometimes the ASDM is faster and easier to use to set some settings.
  

• It is confusing to have two management interfaces, e.g., ASDM and Firepower Management Center. It would be nice to have a Windows program instead of a virtual appliance for the Firepower Management Center.  The ASA and Firepower module seem redundant, not sure which one to set the rules in, but maybe that was for backward compatibility. I am not sure that is very useful.
• It is surprising that you need to have a virtual appliance for the Firepower Management Center. It is not good if you have to setup a VMware server just for it.
  
• 10Gb interfaces should be available on more models. 
  

ASA pricing seems high compared to other firewalls, such as the Sophos XG models. 

The licensing features are getting more complicated. These should be simplified. 

I'm a design consultant. We primarily use the product to secure various client networks, major infrastructure, highways, and urban surveillance.

The solution is pretty easy to deploy. It is pretty ubiquitous too, so it is easy to get. It pretty much does the job we need it to do.

I would like to see an IE version of the solution where it is ruggedized. Most of what we do is infrastructure based on highways. Now that the product has a hardened switch, the only thing left in our hubs that isn't hardened is probably the firewall. It would be nice to pull the air conditioners out of the hubs.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

I've never had a stability problem with firewalls.

The solution seems to be very scalable. I probably don't have much experience with scalability because, by the nature of how our networks work, we don't scale them; we just add another one.

Support is very good. I've never had a problem with any form of support.

Positive

I used only a couple of other products over the years due to client preference. In general, Cisco Secure Firewall is easier to deploy mostly because of the depth of personnel trained in it. Every other product seems to be a niche thing that two people know, but Cisco once again seems ubiquitous throughout the industry. Our customers choose Cisco for various reasons, from cost to a preference for Cisco. It meets the task that they need to meet. It's really the spectrum.

The deployment is pretty straightforward. It's the same as deploying any other Cisco equipment. If you know what you're doing, it's not a huge deal.

I believe our clients have seen an ROI. Their networks are more secure. Various agencies have tested a few of them to prove it, and they've proven okay. Since they weren't attacked, they have received an ROI.

The licensing is not so bad. The solution’s pricing could be lower. It's not horrible, though.

The application visibility and control are pretty good. It seems to do everything we've ever needed it to do. I've never asked the product to do something that it couldn't do. The solution has been pretty successful at securing our infrastructure from end to end. Most of our client’s staff have reported that the product is not as maintenance intensive as they would like. They never had to deal with maintenance before, but now they do. We deploy new systems for our clients.

I haven't had much experience with Cisco Talos directly. I know it's there, but I haven't really been involved. I haven't experienced it, which I believe is a good thing. It's doing its job if I don't have to get involved with it. The product has definitely helped improve our organization’s cybersecurity resilience. We weren't secure at all before, and we are a known target since we’re based in infrastructure. The solution has been very helpful in providing security.

It is a good product. I would definitely look into it. There is great value in going to a partner to a reseller to deploy the product. They understand the equipment and have expertise. Normally, they're local, so local knowledge is always useful. They have done deployments before, so sometimes they know tips or tricks that aren't in the manuals.

People evaluating the solution should give it a look. Definitely, it is worth taking a look at it.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.