Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Reviews

The primary use case of the solution is a VPN.

The most valuable features are the Virtual Private Network and the Electronic Control Lists. We are using the ECL on our desktops.

There is a performance issue with the STDs. There are full limitations on the site where we installed IPS and IDS, which is a prevention system. This is affecting the mentioned performance, which is not up to the standard required for the books. Furthermore, if we have to failover, we will have to do an RMA, and then rebuild it, since there is no solution. If the file is RMA, it will not be in the cluster. This means we have to build a new cluster, which will result in downtime.

The performance of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center could be improved. It is very slow and difficult to manage the group. Previously, it was based on the CLI, but the group performance did not meet the market standards. When comparing Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center with Palo Alto, the SMPS of Palo Alto is much better.

I have been using the solution for over six years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is helpful and responsive.

Positive

We are also using Palo Alto Networks.

The initial setup is straightforward. The transcriptions with the AFS are easier to install and manage. The deployment time depends on the environment and the number of configurations, but a basic installation is between two and three hours.

The implementation was completed in-house.

Technical support is an additional annual cost and is not included with the license.

I give the solution a six out of ten.

We have over 1,000 people using the solution in our organization.

The maintenance can be done by one person.

Depending on an organization's requirements, I recommend the solution.

I had a challenging time trying to size the firewall on the cloud. Maybe the information is there, but I couldn't find it easily. Usually, it depends on the cloud provider itself, whether you use AWS or Azure. These guys give you the information, so this part is not as detailed.

I have used Cisco products for more than 10 years, but I've used Secure Firewall Management Center for two years.

My clients have never contacted me with any issues, so I believe the solution is stable.

I rate Secure Firewall Management Center eight out of 10 for scalability. My client's organization has more than 5,000 users. 

My company provided local support to our client, and we don't usually go to the vendor. I rate Cisco support eight out of 10. 

The deployment took three or four weeks. The implementation team deployed it. I was only the architect. 

I rate Secure Firewall Management Center eight out of 10 for pricing. 

My customer needed multi-tier firewalls, so they purchased Cisco and another product, and they knew what they want. 

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall Management eight out of 10. Cisco firewalls aren't fully mature like other competitors in terms of controls. For example, it isn't good if you want to block some specific functions of an application or use it on the SD-WAN feature. You can only allow or block the whole application. For other firewalls, you can select specific features for the SD-WAN.

You have to go with the FTD license. They still have the ASA model, which is only Layer 4 firewall. If you're going to use Cisco, you should go with FirePOWER. There are two interfaces using different technologies, and they don't work together.  The other firewalls let you manage the whole thing from one interface. There are still some concerns with Cisco, but they recently released the 3000-Series, which is really promising.

I use Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center in my company to compare it with other firewall products. In our company, my supervisor wants me to check and compare three firewall products and figure out which product works the best, making it one of the projects in my organization for which I need to make a report.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's GUI is very user-friendly, and it allows me to use Cisco Adaptive Security Device Manager (ASDM). I really like Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center, including its areas like policy-making and rules that can be defined very easily. Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center provides a very good interface.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's dashboard needs to be modified.

Due to the lack of enough tutorials available online, I face problems with Cisco. There needs to be enough sources provided by Cisco from where users can learn more about Cisco products. It would be great if Cisco could provide users with tutorials that help with dashboards and CLM since Cisco does not provide much information in the aforementioned areas.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for two months. I use the solution's latest version, along with Cisco ASAv and Cisco Modeling Labs.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The firewall is good.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I currently use firewall products from Palo Alto and FortGate, along with Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center, to make a comparison report between all three products.

The product installation was easy since I had received proper documentation from Cisco to help me. The documentation did not have many tutorials like the ones available for Palo Alto or Fortinet on YouTube and the internet. Even on the Fortinet website, there are free tutorials available for users, which are very helpful when it comes to the area of management, such as how to use the dashboards and how to make rules. Cisco ASA ASDM is very easy to install.

Compared to the other products that I deal with, I feel that Cisco products are easy to install.

The solution can be deployed in two to three hours.

I use the free version of the product.

As I work in the cybersecurity department of my company, I had to compare Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center with the firewall products offered by other vendors in the market, like the ones from Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I prefer Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center since many of the organizations in the market prefer to use it because it is a great tool.

My supervisor told me to do some simple configurations with the product and take screenshots to present it in a project format.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center generally works well, but when it comes to the free version of the product, I can't do many things with it. In Palo Alto's free version, users can use and do everything in the product, but in Cisco's free version, there are a lot of things I can't do. I think the free version of Cisco should provide all the features so that new users can learn them and know how to use them.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

We use the product as a primary firewall for remote VPN.

One of the most valuable features of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is its integration with intrusion prevention and security intelligence.

Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability.

We've been using the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for five years.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten. They are making certain improvements in the feature.

We have 1500 Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center users in our organization. It is highly scalable, and I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

While there have been instances of good support and services, there have also been times when they fell short of expectations.

Positive

We encountered some difficulties during the setup process, particularly with Wi-Fi configuration. While it wasn't overly challenging, it needed to be more straightforward. Assistance from Cisco support was available, but it required some effort, including using command-line scripts in addition to the graphical interface. The deployment timeline varied depending on the specific setup and office locations, but typically, it could take a couple of days if managed in-house. 

I rate the process a five out of ten.

Our in-house team handled the deployment without the involvement of third-party integrators or consultants.

The platform is costly.

The platform has significantly enhanced our organization's operations by providing secure communication channels between different office locations. It includes establishing secure tunnels for office-to-office communication and enabling remote users to access internal resources securely.

It offers good value for the investment. While it provides powerful features and support, there might be occasional challenges with internal support.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

It acts as a security center that deals with anti-malware, antivirus, and protection against network attacks.

It acts as a safeguard against external threats such as viruses, malware, and offers URL scanning. Cisco Secure Firewall's strength lies in its regular updates and automated blocking of threats, reducing the need for manual intervention.

The most valuable aspects are the antivirus and URL filtering.

Cisco Firepower has been effective in solving various problems, but it could be improved by making it simpler and more user-friendly like Fortinet. Additionally, making it available for offline practice through an emulator would be beneficial.

I've been working in my organization for the past six months, and during this time, we deployed it in our office. Previously, we were using a basic Cisco ASA firewall, and we managed it using the ASDM. Now, we've upgraded to a more advanced firewall and manage it through the MMC.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Scalability needs to be improved and I would rate it a six out of ten. 

They don't offer sufficient materials on their website, unlike Cisco. Moreover, the FMC (Firepower Management Center) is expensive, and there is a lack of helpful materials available online. The existing documentation can be quite extensive and challenging to comprehend.

Positive

They opted for the Cisco Firepower Management Center due to new, more complex threats that the basic ASA couldn't effectively handle. They did evaluate other options like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Juniper, but their management recommended Cisco, leading them to choose it.

I rate it on a scale of one to ten, with one being highly difficult and ten being very easy. In terms of technical analysis, I would rate it a three. It's also rather difficult to deploy.

It took about one or two hours consistently because it's quite heavy to deploy.Initially, I need to set up a virtual machine, which is the first step. After that, I deploy it as a virtual machine, and then I go through the process of configuring the license features and adding the devices. This is a somewhat lengthy task.

It is rather expensive.

I will advise them to explore simpler solutions like Palo Alto Networks or Fortinet UCC, which offer more straightforward options. I would rate it six out of ten. 

We use the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center to manage our firewall devices. Every configuration is applied to the management center, and any policy will be pushed and deployed to the firewall. We use the solution for management, reporting, and logging analysis.

The solution has a great UI and a policy deployment mechanism, and all the configuration is easily manageable for the firewalls.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's logging functionality could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for four years.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is a stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is a highly scalable solution.

The solution's technical support team is very supportive.

Around 20 people are required to deploy and maintain the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center.

The solution has great functionality and a user-friendly interface. It also has great functionality for reconstruction. It's also automated and can be integrated with other devices, services, or interfaces.

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

I like its system management and filtering options as a layer seven firewall. You can also use a multi-mode environment, which means you can use multi-ISP. You can utilize that particular standard, and that is helpful. 

Moreover, there is an SDM in Cisco, though we are using Cisco FMC. FMC manages multiple FDT devices, and an entire organization can be managed over Cisco.

Some duplicated values and security standards are not working in some high-application protocols with Cisco's next-generation firewalls.

I have worked with Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center for five years.

Sometimes we face issues because VDP updates are happening frequently from Cisco. At that time, I have sometimes seen it rebooting FDT devices. It stabilizes once the solution updates the new policies. It is stabilizing now, whereas earlier, there were some bugs.

The solution is very easy to scale. Three people in my organization are working on it.

The core customer support is good, but they don't help us immediately. For example, if it is a P1 issue, they do not contact me immediately because it takes time to contact us. It will take time to resolve the issue if it's an emergency.

The installation is not that easy and not that tough also. When you learn Cisco, you can do the initial setup step by step. Some specific knowledge of rules is required to set up the solution. The deployment process takes more than a week, and five engineers are required to deploy it. Only two engineers are enough to maintain the product.

The solution is expensive. We have a multi-license, and we pay extra for support.

It is better to go with Palo Alto right now. Palo Alto is better from a price point-of-view, and some applications are better with Palo Alto than Cisco. However, Cisco is easy to learn compared to other solutions, and many people are learning to use Cisco. There are many documents for Cisco on the Internet. I rate Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center a nine out of ten.

We use the product to manage our infrastructure.

The product's user interface is very easy to use and convenient.

The product's setup could be easier.

I have been using the product for one and a half years.

My company has 15-20 users for the product.

The product's setup was moderate which was not too easy or hard. We had encountered some hiccups but we managed through it.

I would rate the product a ten out of ten.