Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

I have been using the Cisco ASA NGFW for about four months. Everything works fine right now. We have only been using this device for a very short period of time. 

• We have about 500 registered users and about 400-600 static users. 
• For 400 to 600 users with wireless devices, we use Cisco ASA NGFW to control device traffic. We're using the new web filters. 
• We use Cisco ASA NGFW as the bit application.

Thus far, we are using it as a web filter to filter the data against incoming traffic. We are an educational organization, so there is no gambling allowed. We don't want to allow students access to gambling sites or adult sites, etc. We use lots of web filters. That's the primary reason I installed the Cisco firewall. 

We are also happy with the Cisco ASA NGFW router firewall. It protects your small server infrastructure, but it's not complete. We purchased the Cisco ASA NGFW for the web filter. That's why we moved to the firewall.

Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization. 

We have an opportunity to grow now. The Cisco ASA NGFW firewall can be upgraded to another version, so it's better for us long term. It is much better because we can control the traffic that students are accessing and downloading. There are still a lot of improvements that can be done. 

For organization security, Cisco ASA NGFW has robust cyber-security features. We are planning to increase the number of firewalls installed, especially for wireless connections.

We installed a Cisco path a month ago. There was a new update for the Cisco firewall and there were security issues.

We like Cisco filtering as a firewall, but in the current market, Cisco's passive firewall is not unique. We don't have any warranty problems with Cisco. 

I asked our carrier several times to provide the exact gap code for me, but there is no Cisco dealer in our region. There is also no software accessibility with Cisco ASA NGFW. You can't always access the product that way. I also tried pfSense.

There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products. 

Cisco products are more supported by lots of companies who are producing technical services for cloud platforms. The certification is very easy in Georgia now. There are lots of people using Cisco in Georgia because their accessibility is better than the other products on the market. I also talked to several guys about the Barracuda firewall.

The Barracuda firewall is very expensive. You need to pay three or four thousand dollars every three months, so it's very expensive for us. We are not a big company.

For our users, there are rules for the students and staff have another RF for authorization. There are small file servers also within the domain controller. 

There is no special restriction for the students. They can print. They can visit outside websites online, but there is no gambling allowed at other sites.The students can access whatever they want over email or HTTP. Only the gambling and the betting sites, they cannot install the software. There are restrictions. 

The students can use their own mobile phones or wireless devices, whatever they want. They are using the shared public key authorization. Our institution doesn't have any restrictions about accessing legal data. Except in Georgia, we have a very big problem with gambling websites. There are a lot of gambling websites, so we are trying to restrict all of the gambling sites at our company. We have a contract for the next year. 

We are growing. In the next two years, we will have an additional 600 users, so we will double the capacity. We will see even more in the next three years. 

It will be like very tough. In about five-year cycles, you need to update the firewall and add other new Cisco devices for the next generation of innovation.

In five years, we will be ready for a complete upgrade cycle for everything. The stability and scalability of the Cisco ASA NGFW are good for when we need to grow. 

For the next five years, everything is fine. After that, we will see because there will be a lot of changes.

Technical support with Cisco is very good. We feel the company is very reliable and very competent. I have very good feelings about the future for project operations.

We had the old version of the Kerio firewall, but because in our country, there is no official dealer for Kerio, we moved to the Cisco ASA NGFW. This is the main reason why we moved to the Cisco firewall.

We announced the tender and bought this product with the installation plus setup included in the price. I was not involved in the installation or in the setup. 

The company just asked a consultant to do it. The whole process, after we announced the tender, took about one to two weeks. The consultant company installed the software. They also helped us to optimize other parts of the network such as the routers and switches.

The setup of the Cisco ASA NGFW was complex, not only for us as a firewall. We have now submitted another tender for a device router with two-node switchless support. We updated almost everything on the Cisco ASA NGFW with the core and distribution level software upgrades.

We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.

The Cisco license was not yearly. It was a yearly license for the firewall. For the router and switch, it was a lifetime license.

The other option we considered was Kerio. I tried to contact their office in Russia, but it is in the UK. I wanted to communicate with them because we cannot buy things without a warranty.

We considered buying Kerio products with the warranty, but they said we needed to send the device to them to repair it. This meant it would take too much time to replace it. In Georgia, we need a local distributor, i.e. a local representative here who we can work with, so that's the problem.

In Georgia, there is no problem using the Cisco firewall, because it's accessible. You cannot use other products, because they are not accessible. That's the whole problem.

I would rate Cisco ASA NGFW an 8 out of 10.

We use them in our data centers and on the client side. We have a small installation of Firepower in our main data center, and we are also using Cisco ASA firewalls. So, we have the old ASA platform and new Firepowers. 

It saves time because it's easy to operate and it's easy to add new zones or firewall rules. It's also easy to troubleshoot. It's a neat platform.

When I was managing these firewalls, I found them easy to understand, easy to deploy, and easy to maintain as compared to some of the other firewalls I have been involved with earlier. The opinion of my coworkers is that it's easy and quick to establish new zones, expand, and maintain.

I'm not very familiar with the largest Firepower models, but competitors like Palo Alto seem to have a more capable engine to do, for instance, TLS/SSL decryption. As I understand, Firepower doesn't let you export the decrypted traffic so that, for instance, the security department can look at the traffic or inspect traffic. It's all in the box. I've heard rumors that this is something Cisco is working on, but it isn't yet available.

We have been using Cisco firewalls for about 10 years. 

Its stability is good. We have a failover standby solution that works fairly well. It can have some improvements, but we are happy with it.

We had an issue where we had to install another cluster for the firewall because we went out of the capabilities on one of them. You need to analyze in advance how much your usage will grow in the future and you have to decide based on that. It's about adding more firewalls. We can scale in this way, and it's good.

Whenever I've used their tech support, they have been successful. They quickly pinpointed the problem and provided swift remediation for all the problems. My experience has been good. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We decided to go for Firepower because we needed to expand, and we have a large installation of Cisco devices in our environment. It's 70% Cisco. We have one location where they are using Extreme equipment, but in that location also, we have Cisco firewalls. Having one vendor leads to ease of management. It's also easy in terms of competence. We have good knowledge of Cisco, so it's easy to maintain and operate a Cisco platform.

For network security, we have a central hub for all the external traffic. That is a huge load of traffic. On those applications, we are using Palo Alto. We have a mixed combination of Cisco and Palo Alto in our central locations.

Using Cisco firewalls has helped to eliminate or consolidate some of the tools and applications. We have some installations of AlgoSec to see what's going on or how the performance is, but we have, more or less, decided that we don't need them now because there is so much information that we can pull from CSM or FMC.

It's easy to deploy and maintain.

We have a partner for Cisco products. We have a contract with a new partner now for the SDA fabric on ACI.

I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine out of ten. 

The Cisco Secure Firewall is placed between the separate VLANs. It's a common and effective method of protecting VLANs against internal risks such as Checkpoints and external parameters.

It certainly saves time. You can detect anything if you have nothing. This is why, in the end, it saves time.

Collaboration with other Cisco products such as ISE and others is the most valuable feature.

it is difficult to say what it needs in terms of what needs to be improved. I don't work with it on a daily basis.

I haven't heard anything negative about it.

While this applies to all vendors, pricing can be always lower. In my opinion, Cisco is the most expensive. 

The pricing can be reduced.

Our organization has been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for three to five years.

There are no complaints about performance or stability.

There are no issues with the scalability. It works fine.

It is simple to upgrade.

We only need one person to maintain the product.

My colleague has experience with technical support. I'm not sure if it was with Cisco's technical support directly or through Conscia in between.

This was the first solution we were using.

We are primarily Cisco housed, and I believe that practically everything is Cisco. 

It might be part of the contract for a small fee. I don't think there's any particular reason.

I am familiar with CheckPoint, as well as Microsoft ISA.

We have an implementation partner.

It's a hands-on job with a colleague of mine.

I don't know if it is particularly easy or not.

There was also some learning involved, such as knowing the traffic. This took some time. It took six months to deploy.

With the implementation partner, everything was written out. It was the best-case scenario for us.

We did not use the Cisco Firewall Migration tool.

Conscia assisted us with implementation.

They are one of the best in the Netherlands.

I am not aware of the pricing. 

It's an all-in-one contract.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten.

Our use cases include inbound access, outbound access, as well as VPN solutions, both site-to-site and for an incoming client. We wanted something that would do all those things at one time, as opposed to having separate boxes.

Our deployment is on-premises. We're looking at going into cloud-based with some of it. Meraki is the cloud-based version of the ASAs.

If we have a power failure at one building, traffic can be routed to our other building. We also have backup data stores. I live in the Northeast, so in the event of ice storms that cause power outages, it really enables us to keep functioning as a company rather than going dark for the amount of time it takes to get the power back.

The GUI makes configuring it much simpler than the command line.

They should work on making it a little more intuitive for users and not quite as complex. Still, it's a good product.

I've been using Cisco ASA Firewalls for 15 years.

It's very stable. We've had no hardware issues at all and only very infrequent software configuration issues.

It's very scalable. You can go to different models of the ASAs and they scale up to as big as you want to go.

The technical support is very good. Whenever we call up Cisco, we get a rapid response. They help us in troubleshooting issues we have and we implement the solutions and go on.

Positive

For me, there wasn't a previous solution here. I inherited the solution when I came in.

From a security standpoint, the return on investment is hard to quantify. You've stopped something that was going to cost you money, but how do you quantify that? How many times did it stop something from coming in that would have cost you a bunch of money? You don't know.

We've compared it to other solutions, like WatchGuard and other types of firewalls in that same realm. Cisco ASAs are fairly priced and very competitive with them.

Some of the solutions we looked at had different GUI interfaces that might be a little bit easier to get around in, but they might not have had as many features. Cisco had the feature edge.

Look at the features and consider what your migration path may be. Some other vendors offer firewalls with great bells and whistles, but when you look beneath the surface, they don't do exactly what they say. Do your due diligence and make sure you see everything.

In terms of resilience, in general, if we have any box failure, being able to fail over to another box or to fail over to another site helps measurably. Cyber security resilience is important for all organizations. The number of attacks going on just increases every day. There's a cost-benefit to building cyber security resilience. You have to get past that and build as much resiliency as you can. If you worry more about cost than you do about your product or your productivity, something else is going to fail.

Maintenance of the ASA is just the security updates that we watch for and updating the client software.

We primarily use the solution for the various firewalls.

Cisco is powerful when it comes to detecting intrusions. It's better than, for example, Fortinet.

Cisco has multiple products - not just firewalls. The integration between other items provides a powerful end-to-end solution. It's nice and easy. There is one management system and visibility into all of the features. Using the same product is more powerful than using multiple systems. Cisco is known by most customers due to the fact that at least they have switches. However, when clients say "we need an end-to-end option" Cisco is there.

The stability is very good.

Technical support services are excellent.

Before an ASA, it was a live log. It was easy and comfortable to work with. After the next-generation firewall, Firepower, the live log became really slow. I cannot reach the information easily or quickly. This has only been the case since we migrated to next-generation firewalls.

There is some delay between the log itself. It's not really real-time. Let's say there's a delay of more than 20 seconds. If they had a monitoring system, something to minimize this delay, it would be good.

It would be ideal if I could give more bandwidth to certain sites, such as Youtube.

I work with Fortinet also, and I find that Fortinet is easier now. Before it was Cisco that was easier. Now Fortinet is simpler to work with.

On firewall features, Fortinet is better. Cisco needs to become more competitive and add more features or meet Fortinet's offering.

I've been using the solution since about 2003, when I originally implemented it.

The solution is extremely stable. We don't have any issues whatsoever. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It works well. Occasionally, it may need patches, however, there's very little downtime.

The scalability of the solution is very good. We have no trouble expanding the solution.

They have multiple products that fit in multiple areas. They also have virtual firewalls, which are working well in virtualization systems. They have the data center firewalls feature for data centers. It's scalable enough to cover most of the use cases that might arise.

Cisco offers excellent technical support.  They're useful and very responsive - depending on the situation itself. Sometimes we require the support of agents and we've found Cisco to have one of the best support systems in the market.

I also work with Fortinet, and it's my sense that, while Fortinet is getting easier to use, Cisco is getting harder to deal with.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's pretty straightforward.

A full deployment takes between two and three days. It's pretty quick to set up.

The pricing is neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle. If you compare it to Fortinet or Palo Alto, Fortinet is low and Palo Alto is very high. Cisco falls in the middle between the two.

As far as deployment options go, they often have more wiggle-room with discounts, especially for larger deployments. Therefore, in general, it ranges closer to Fortinet's pricing.

We're partners with Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

I work with on-premises deployments and virtual firewalls, however, I don't use the cloud.

The solution works well for medium-sized enterprises.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd recommend users to layer in solutions. At the perimeter, if they have two tiers, I'd recommend Palo Alto as the first and then Cisco ASA as the second. Cisco can work on the data center or Fortinet. In the case of Fortinet, they have the best backline throughput from all of the other products.

Our use for Cisco Secure is for the firewall. 

Network segmentation is the most valuable feature.

The dashboard can be improved. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for seven years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. A thousand-plus users are using the solution in my company. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Pricing is high.

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

I use the solution mostly to separate internal networks.

Being able to create and apply new policies to the firewall has been helpful. It is an object-oriented way of doing things that helps a lot because we can build and apply new policies. We can also test it and revert to the old one if it doesn't work.

The monitoring dashboard is valuable to us for troubleshooting. It lets us see if the packets get from the source to the destination correctly.

With the new FTD, there is a little bit of a learning curve. The learning curve could probably be simplified a little bit. I've come around that learning curve, and I'm able to get around it.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

Cisco is known for its general stability.

The solution’s scalability is excellent. I don't know if the scalability has a downside or even a limit.

The support is really good. I have a good team that supports us, and I'm able to always reach out to them. It's nice to have somebody on the cell phone and just be able to reach out to them.

Positive

Years ago, I used different firewalls like Juniper, but mostly, it's been fixed to ASA and FTD. We switched to Cisco because our customers were using Cisco.

The initial setup had a little bit of a learning curve, especially because I came from ASA. I needed some help from Cisco. However, I knew what I was doing once it was set up, especially with FMC and Firepower.

We used Cisco’s support to deploy the product.

In general, we have seen an ROI on the product. Using it, applying policies, setting it up, and leaving it alone is helpful. It helps save resources.

I don't use the product for application visibility and control. I tend to worry more about blocking or allowing certain things versus looking deep into the servers and applications and how they work.

The product is great for securing our infrastructure from end to end. I'd like to be able to test out some of the other products, like dashboards and IPS/IDS, that work with it. For the most part, I set up a firewall, and I set up the rules. If things don't work, I monitor it through the monitoring dashboard and try to figure it out.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped free up a lot of time for our IT staff. Apart from monitoring, unless somebody needs a firewall rule change or anything like that, there's no need to mess with it. Once we set it up, it just runs.

The solution has helped our organization to improve its cybersecurity resilience. Being a firewall, by definition of the term, the product has improved our organization’s security.

People should always evaluate other products. If you’re looking for a solid firewall, Cisco makes the choice so much simpler, especially now with FMC. We are able to apply policies easily and control different firewalls at the same time.

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

We use Cisco IronPort, Firepower, Secure Firewall, Email, and Secure Connect.

As with most products, integration could be better where needed. Sometimes, for example, the Cisco Secure Firewall and IronPort are in a class of their own. When it comes to management and logging, there's room for improvement.

Most of the products aren't configured on their own, but they are related together. There should be some sort of management. We would need a supervisor to manage it before using all of the solutions together.

They address services that belong together. For example, the Secure Client provides remote access. Authentication and multiple-factor authentication are two different products that belong together. There should be a link between both products and between both management interfaces to see, for example, troubleshooting or reporting so that you have both sources together.

It would be great to have all the data correlated to have an overview and one point of administration. 

The grouping of the solutions helps save time. If you have a problem and you have a high-level overview of the system, you can easily dig deeper into the problem. For example, I can check to see why ASA isn't working but the reason for the outage is actually because of Duo. I can spend a lot of time working in the wrong direction because I didn't have an overview.

IronPort stuff looks at first a little bit outdated. It's not a fancy-colored view, but it does its job and is extremely helpful. Debugging on this platform is very easy. 

Firepower's implementation and reliability need room for improvement. 

We address our problems with the relevant people. Some of the quality of their support has dropped. If your problem gets escalated, there are many skilled people who are absolute pleasures to work with. They are brilliant at what they do. 

If you talk to someone who solves the problem within five minutes you can't do any better. But on the other hand, the other end of the range needs improvement.

You can have a case that lasts 15 months in which you have to talk to 20 people to resolve. 

Neutral

The complexity of the installation depends. It's not so easy to install. Each topic needs one management interface. So you end up with 20 to 40 different management platforms. All of them use a tremendous amount of resources. If you're willing to install it, you need a huge pile of hardware. It is not clear what everything does. Some consolidation there would be helpful. Other vendors face the same problem.

We have seen ROI from using Cisco.

I chose Cisco because I've been working with them for 23 years. I choose it for its stability and because they have the right range of products. Most of our IT staff is happy with it.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.