They really need support for deployment. I would rate this solution nine out of 10 because I think if you have the budget and you plan it properly I think you won't have the initial deployment problems I faced.
Senior Information Security Engineer at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
2019-07-09T05:26:00Z
Jul 9, 2019
I would just say that it's expensive. The product is fine on its own, it's high end. It's got a high brand name attached to it. I would recommend the product, however. The product works great. It does everything it's supposed to do. There's no issues with it, no real concerns. It's just expensive. I would rate it an eight out of 10 because it does everything it's designed to do, but it is not any better than other industry-leading solution, and it's far more expensive.
If people want to build a solid security solution for their company, I think this solution is the best but it would depend on the configuration of your company. For a good company to have a good solution for security, you can choose the Cisco firewall for that and be confident. I think I can give that product an eight out of ten. It comes down to the user interface. It needs to be easier so that more people can quickly develop the skills to manage the product. It would be better for us right now for more people to have certification or to just develop the skills to use the product. But if Cisco made it easier and took away the need for certification, it would be easier for us to use company-wide and have more people involved.
It's difficult to give specific advice on the solution because it always depends on the design solution and the strategy. So what I would recommend is to use different firewalls and to use Cisco ASAv as a border firewall. I would rate this solution as 7.5 out of 10. I wish the Cisco interface was not so granular. Check Point was easier to create specific rules than on ASAv, so that's why I say this. If you want to make things easier for an engineer, you always have to work on the interface. But the product, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with it.
Network Engineer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2019-06-30T10:29:00Z
Jun 30, 2019
I think I can rate this product as an eight out of ten. A strong eight. The newest version of software and solutions often have bugs and functional problems because they have not been rigorously tested in a production environment. It is not the modern, next-generation firewall, but it solidly serves simple purposes. For simple purposes, it's the best in my opinion. I am used to its CRI (Container Runtime Interface) and its environment, so for me, familiarity and stability are the most important advantages.
IT Infrastructure Manager at Beltone Securities Brokerage S.A.E.
Real User
2019-06-24T12:13:00Z
Jun 24, 2019
I rate this solution an eight out of ten and I would definitely recommend it to other users. If the developers would add a reporting dashboard, and perhaps lower the pricing, I will rate it higher. But overall I am really satisfied with Cisco ASAv.
Cloud Services Operation Engineer at Informatic Services Company (ISC)
Real User
2019-06-24T12:13:00Z
Jun 24, 2019
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at nine. Cisco ASAv is good in many advanced networking features. I'm working with Cisco. They have competition with many vendors.
I am really satisfied with the product and I rate this an 8.5 out of ten. The reason why I wouldn't rate it a ten, is because I find it a little more complicated to set up a firewall for publishing than when using Meraki. I therefore believe there is room for improvement.
Almost all IT staff have used, or can easily learn how to use, the Cisco ASA appliance because it’s been around for years and is so popular (with good reason). For us, we stuck with what we know. It was an easy sell to get it signed off by higher-ups as they’d also heard of the ASA device from their time in IT. This solution gets an eight out of ten because it is easy, has the features we need, keeps costs low, and provides granular control using appliances that are already familiar to the team.
Partner - Consulting & Advisory at Wipro Technologies
Real User
2018-12-11T08:31:00Z
Dec 11, 2018
When you are going to select a product, don't look at the cost, but at the functionality. Also, look at the stability. These days, the startups will show a new function or functionality, but when looking for a partner, make sure the company is sustainability for the new four years? Do they have the funding? We have a large ecosystem system: Symantec, McAfee, Splunk, Check Point firewalls, Cisco firewalls and IPS IDS from Cisco. They integrate and work well together. Cisco has been security leader for the last 20 years, so the products are quite stable working in sync. We are using every version of the product: On-premise, Azure, and AWS, which is a new offering.
Once you deploy a virtual database or virtual machine for any product, like Cisco. The first thing to do with your data is test it. So, you need to be prepared with the test that you want to test before you deploy the instances. Because after deploying instances, you wait and see what the data come back with, how to configure it, and review what doesn't work. Therefore, you need to do some background homework before starting, such as what type of data you need to put into it, how to test it, and will the system process it. We have used both the on-premise and AWS version. We started using AWS in the past six to seven months. Prior to that, we used the on-premise version. The AWS version is better as it is quick to spin up and configure. Also, with AWS, everything is preset, and it is more flexible. We have it integrated with many other products, like threat intelligence and analytics. For example, all our logs go into Splunk, then we receive our analytics from there. We also have Splunk on AWS. Thus, all the data stays on the cloud, so there is no latency, etc.
Cisco Secure Firewall stands as a robust and adaptable security solution, catering to organizations of all sizes. It's designed to shield networks from a diverse array of cyber threats, such as ransomware, malware, and phishing attacks. Beyond mere protection, it also offers secure access to corporate resources, beneficial for employees, partners, and customers alike. One of its key functions includes network segmentation, which serves to isolate critical assets and minimize the risk of...
They really need support for deployment. I would rate this solution nine out of 10 because I think if you have the budget and you plan it properly I think you won't have the initial deployment problems I faced.
I would just say that it's expensive. The product is fine on its own, it's high end. It's got a high brand name attached to it. I would recommend the product, however. The product works great. It does everything it's supposed to do. There's no issues with it, no real concerns. It's just expensive. I would rate it an eight out of 10 because it does everything it's designed to do, but it is not any better than other industry-leading solution, and it's far more expensive.
If people want to build a solid security solution for their company, I think this solution is the best but it would depend on the configuration of your company. For a good company to have a good solution for security, you can choose the Cisco firewall for that and be confident. I think I can give that product an eight out of ten. It comes down to the user interface. It needs to be easier so that more people can quickly develop the skills to manage the product. It would be better for us right now for more people to have certification or to just develop the skills to use the product. But if Cisco made it easier and took away the need for certification, it would be easier for us to use company-wide and have more people involved.
It's difficult to give specific advice on the solution because it always depends on the design solution and the strategy. So what I would recommend is to use different firewalls and to use Cisco ASAv as a border firewall. I would rate this solution as 7.5 out of 10. I wish the Cisco interface was not so granular. Check Point was easier to create specific rules than on ASAv, so that's why I say this. If you want to make things easier for an engineer, you always have to work on the interface. But the product, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with it.
I think I can rate this product as an eight out of ten. A strong eight. The newest version of software and solutions often have bugs and functional problems because they have not been rigorously tested in a production environment. It is not the modern, next-generation firewall, but it solidly serves simple purposes. For simple purposes, it's the best in my opinion. I am used to its CRI (Container Runtime Interface) and its environment, so for me, familiarity and stability are the most important advantages.
The functionality is fine. When they prove to me they cannot be hacked then I can give them a ten. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.
I rate this solution an eight out of ten and I would definitely recommend it to other users. If the developers would add a reporting dashboard, and perhaps lower the pricing, I will rate it higher. But overall I am really satisfied with Cisco ASAv.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at nine. Cisco ASAv is good in many advanced networking features. I'm working with Cisco. They have competition with many vendors.
I am really satisfied with the product and I rate this an 8.5 out of ten. The reason why I wouldn't rate it a ten, is because I find it a little more complicated to set up a firewall for publishing than when using Meraki. I therefore believe there is room for improvement.
I would rate it a nine out of ten.
Almost all IT staff have used, or can easily learn how to use, the Cisco ASA appliance because it’s been around for years and is so popular (with good reason). For us, we stuck with what we know. It was an easy sell to get it signed off by higher-ups as they’d also heard of the ASA device from their time in IT. This solution gets an eight out of ten because it is easy, has the features we need, keeps costs low, and provides granular control using appliances that are already familiar to the team.
When you are going to select a product, don't look at the cost, but at the functionality. Also, look at the stability. These days, the startups will show a new function or functionality, but when looking for a partner, make sure the company is sustainability for the new four years? Do they have the funding? We have a large ecosystem system: Symantec, McAfee, Splunk, Check Point firewalls, Cisco firewalls and IPS IDS from Cisco. They integrate and work well together. Cisco has been security leader for the last 20 years, so the products are quite stable working in sync. We are using every version of the product: On-premise, Azure, and AWS, which is a new offering.
Once you deploy a virtual database or virtual machine for any product, like Cisco. The first thing to do with your data is test it. So, you need to be prepared with the test that you want to test before you deploy the instances. Because after deploying instances, you wait and see what the data come back with, how to configure it, and review what doesn't work. Therefore, you need to do some background homework before starting, such as what type of data you need to put into it, how to test it, and will the system process it. We have used both the on-premise and AWS version. We started using AWS in the past six to seven months. Prior to that, we used the on-premise version. The AWS version is better as it is quick to spin up and configure. Also, with AWS, everything is preset, and it is more flexible. We have it integrated with many other products, like threat intelligence and analytics. For example, all our logs go into Splunk, then we receive our analytics from there. We also have Splunk on AWS. Thus, all the data stays on the cloud, so there is no latency, etc.