In the security portfolio from Cisco, the issue is marketing. Cisco is still seen primarily as an enterprise network player rather than being acknowledged as a security vendor. 

Cisco offers a vast array of potent security products, yet the global market hasn't fully accepted Cisco as a top security provider.  Palo Alto, for instance. They have made their mark in the global market, leading in firewalls and building robust security portfolios.

View full review »

The pricing of the solution can be improved. It's not cheap. It's quite expensive.

The company needs to make its solution more affordable to make it more accessible to larger markets. Otherwise, it's seen as an enterprise-level solution that small or medium-sized organizations can't afford and therefore they won't even look at it.

View full review »

We faced significant challenges related to licensing issues, particularly when licenses expire. When licenses are not renewed, it becomes necessary to upgrade both hardware and software, which can be extremely costly. It can also cause difficulties for users due to delays in policy creation and publishing.

View full review »

It takes too much time to deploy a policy to FMC. It takes around eight minutes. You can't afford any downtime when you're changing policies. 

The update process could also be smoother. They could improve the FirePOWER integration to reduce the time needed to update to the newer version. Sometimes, in the middle of the update, the process starts, but it doesn't find the new installation, so we have to force it to run that particular part. 

View full review »

The updates take time and cost.

View full review »

We’ve implemented the Cisco firewall along with additional security licenses. These licenses have been configured and the system is adequately protected. The entire process takes some time, but the most time-consuming part is creating the region and applying the necessary security policies to it.

View full review »

The weakness of Cisco's products is that it has higher prices for even its lowest configurations. Cisco has to come a little forward with its products. Cisco very slowly introduces and implements the products, unlike other brands.

View full review »

Cisco IOS Security's monitoring is rather rudimentary and could be improved.

View full review »

I would like upgrading iOS to be a bit easier. If you want the old version to continue running, that should be a bit easier. People have made many apps to do that online, but if Cisco could have that at the click of a button to quickly download or upload it, after which everything starts to work, that would be good. Sometimes, setting up your TFTB is difficult even though there are tools now. There should be something that would make it much easier where I just have to download, upload it into the iOS, and start it up.

View full review »

The configuration and reporting interfaces need a lot of improvement. It needs to be more accessible forsolide without a strong technical background. If you had a simplified dashboard, the lower-level techs could manage the solution and provide services. Cisco IOS Security requires someone who is highly trained to operate it. 

There is central management, but reporting could be more centralized too. You can have a lab module. However, we need to see some es, and that will help you deploy without breaking the live system. There's no way for me to have a live system to test my new configuration. If it breaks, I have to deploy it and reverse it to the previous configuration. 

It would be nice if I could create an online lab on the fly to test for 10 minutes to an hour without messing anything up. That would be great, especially for things that we do on our live network appliance.

View full review »

Some GUI modules have extended prices compared to other vendors, which isn't ideal.

Cisco is a scalable product, but it is expensive compared to other vendors. Huawei, Netgear, and FortiGate all offer scalable solutions at a lower cost. There is room for improvement in licensing. 

View full review »

The solution’s setup process could be better. It is complex regarding troubleshooting, and only highly skilled engineers can resolve it.

View full review »

We cannot directly upgrade the system. The tool's deployment is also very difficult in legacy environments. The tool needs to have bigger ports as well. 

View full review »

Cisco IOS Security should improve its functionalities.

View full review »

The product's technical support services need improvement.

View full review »

The solution is not user friendly and it is hard to manage the GUI interface. This is an ongoing CISCO problem. 

The solution needs Active/Active firewalls to have good load balance with high availability. The firewalls should work simultaneously, not just as failovers. 

View full review »

The security of the solution has room for improvement.

The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly.

The stability and scalability can be improved.

View full review »

How to improve the solution depends on the usage. 

Sometimes I find it difficult to manage. Some configurations are difficult for new engineers, for example. 

It could be more flexible. 

View full review »

I think the user interface for IOS Security needs to be improved.  

I think the signature updates and all the other critical definitions need to be updated more frequently.  

View full review »

A few things have room for improvement in your opinion. That would start with cost. Cisco products are more expensive than the competition, but the additional cost usually gets absorbed by the name recognition. Most people have Cisco or have familiarity with it, so they go with it. If they want the top quality product, they immediately feel comfortable with the Cisco name brand. That is where we come in as consultants. We bend over backward to make product comparisons and framing for solving the needs posed by an organization. I see something is a better fit for them that they could use. It would reduce their CapEx, their expenses, and it would fit them better all at the same time. The client may still want Cisco despite the recommendation that we make. But usually, that is what it is. Cisco fits, and if they want to spend the money, we make sure that it is within their budget. They feel more comfortable with Cisco, and they have had Cisco in the past, so we go with Cisco then.  

Cisco is great. A lot of the tech companies are doing really well. But Cisco is still in the forefront. They are on top of this category of products. I can not think of anything else they could do because they cover pretty much everything that you would need a firewall for. Then you get Cisco's support behind the products.  

I would think it would be a lot better for us and we could make more money if we try to recommend that clients put drop-in boxes at every location. But we do not choose to do that unless there is a purpose for it. In most cases, we would prefer clients to go the OpEx route. It takes a lot to offset the cost of Cisco so if they are going to do a cloud solution, their costs are metered per month by whatever solution they have. That is a lot better for projecting costs, and then there is the benefit of everything being upgraded in the cloud for them. They do not have to worry about anything. It just works.  

View full review »

We don't love everything about the product. For now, it's what we're using. It's okay. It is difficult to set up. The training is okay. The pricing is standard.

It will be great if they can make it more easy to use the features. The interface is not user-friendly, but a normal IT technician can handle it.

Most of the features only work with Cisco equipment. It's about connectivity. Most of their features are meant for Cisco. You cannot integrate them with any other vendor.

Cisco needs to be more flexible with the integration of other solutions.

View full review »

Cisco IOS Security could improve by having more compatibility with other Cisco solutions.

View full review »

External threats are changing every day, so there are new features coming in. We're more into the command line interface rather.

View full review »

While Cisco IOS Security is stable and scalable, I would like to see it improved to be even better.

View full review »

An area for improvement in Cisco IOS Security is the performance because it's not as stable sometimes. There's also some latency in the solution, which could be improved. Cisco IOS Security integrates with other solutions, but you'll encounter many errors after integration, so this is another area for improvement.

I'd like to see enhanced performance and a simplified setup in the next version of Cisco IOS Security.

View full review »

The graphical user interface or the GUI could be better. Beginners can use some devices with the GUI, but some security devices are configured using CLI. It would also be better if it had its own Intrusion Protection Service and Intrusion Detection Service on the server.

View full review »

In the next release of this solution, we would like to see support for the 100BT and 7000 models.

We have experienced bugs in the solution.

View full review »

I would like to see much more embedded security that works and that isn't a bolt-on.

View full review »

I think setup could be one area for improvement.

I would also like to see them add integration with cloud solutions like Umbrella, as well as some monitoring improvements. This would let us connect a new platform and cloud solution for a site.

View full review »

• Tailored monitoring/notifications and some sort of added intelligence moved now to the edge of the network. (Actually, it could be done at any point of network: core, distribution, or access.)

View full review »

I would love it if it has a link-by-link feature, integration with Unified Threat Management (UTM), and load balancers.

They haven't got any link-by-link feature right now, which can be a very attractive option. This link-by-link feature can also be made available for Cisco's UTM firewalls. The link-by-link feature is available in some of the other firewalls. 

Currently, integration with UTM is missing. Cisco IOS Security also doesn't have the load balancers and a few things that need to be done to get a good UTM firewall. Normally, other firewalls have UTM. As a next-generation firewall, it's good, but as a UTM, it has to do some work.

View full review »

With respect to user-friendliness, it is a command-line interface and those with such experience will get along just fine, whereas others may struggle. My expectation is that it will remain a primarily command-line-based technology.

The biggest annoyance is probably the quality control of the code. They have to make sure that they are better at vetting bugs and software issues before they release code to the general public.

View full review »

It would be ideal if the solution had more capacity. Right now, we are almost hitting the maximum capacity of the product. If they could provide more capacity for the same product, that would be great.

View full review »

Cisco IOS Security could improve its security features. There are competitors that have some additional security features, such as Fortinet FortiGate. Additionally, there should be better synchronization with Cisco IOS Security and other vendors, and improved AI features would be beneficial.

View full review »

I think they should bring back remote VPN for users. However, I understand the attempt is to have these functions inside the firewalls and not the routers or the IOS devices.

View full review »

I wish it would be more like the next generation firewall technology. There should be more selection between the application and filtering.

I would appreciate updates to reporting, in terms of data entry.

View full review »

There are the usual bugs that are inherent to some software upgrades. Sometimes this provides some unexpected issues, however, it happens with all brands all the time.

Some additional features could be improved. For example, the licensing for DNA environments could be better. In some countries, the end-user does not want to go to orchestration/automation environments. They just want to have a small network for their small budget and they never will go to these environments. They consider it unfair that they have to pay for a license/subscription that will never be used.

View full review »

I think it's a complicated product. It is very complicated, especially in the design. If in some way you mess up the logic and design, you can really mess up and you will hate your life. The dashboard is actually very complicated. There's a lot of options. They don't need to do this. They need to make it more simple. Going to the direct point, showing what to do, where to configure, how to make the policy. They need to simplify the dashboard management more. Also, they need to improve the dashboard statistics. We need to see the statistics in a more organized way and clear. Reporting features, I think are also missing. It should be there.

Maybe they need to add in posturing. Cisco is able to check if a device is updated or not. Taking action to isolate it outside the network, and then requesting automatically for the updates to that system would be helpful. It's something in automation they can improve.

View full review »

With Cisco IOS, especially the routers, don't have like long-term tendency features, or high availability features available for the IOS. Also, it could use a better user interface.

View full review »

The configuration should be easier in the solution.

View full review »

Cisco is an expensive firewall, so the pricing can be improved. 

View full review »

There's a technology called SD-WAN that we would like to see. We are unable to handle multiple connections or to automatically load balance. I would like to have a feature that enables us to automatically prepare for load balancing.

View full review »

It's a good device yet it's not a market leader. There are better options for customers to choose from.

There could be a bit more functions on offer that could make it easier to use.

View full review »

1. IOS security related IPS facility is not as strong as Cisco ASA and the signature file of IPS does not update automatically like Cisco ASA. 2. When I converted the Cisco router into a zone-based firewall, CPU utilization shot up and slowed down network performance. View full review »

If they could increase the performance a little better because the device sometimes gets slow. If they could increase the performance it would be great.

View full review »

It is very hard to find any limitations of this OS Still when you use this as Zone based firewall you can see its limitations. You need to restrict traffic with ACL, which is fine but you need to create too many ACLs. Hence management of ACLs is a tedious task. Works better with TACACS+ which is Cisco proprietary. WAN connectivity is difficult on a router which is running IOS Security. View full review »