Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use it for data center security for both the north-south and east-west.

With Firepower, you get the next-generation functionality and the next-generation firewall features. Traditionally, when you have a layer three access list, it's really tricky to get the flexibility you need to allow staff to do what they need to do with their apps without being too prescriptive with security. When Firepower comes in, you get much more flexibility and deeper security. They were mutually exclusive previously but are not so much anymore.

We have, probably, 20,000 to 25,000 end users going through the firewalls. Physical locations-wise, there are four data centers in Northern Europe, and the other locations are in the public cloud, that is, Azure and AWS.

It has improved the organization because we now have more flexibility with deployment, and we can deploy solutions quickly and more securely. As a result, we're improving the time to implement change.

The deep packet inspection is useful, but the most useful feature is application awareness. You can filter on the app rather than on a static TCP port.

Licensing is complex, and I'd like it to be simplified. This is an area for improvement.

If we could create a Firepower solution that became like an SD-WAN or a SASE solution in a box, then perhaps we could exploit that on remote sites. We've already kind of got that with Meraki, but if we could pull out some of the features from ASA Firepower and make those available in SD-WAN in SASE, then it would be pretty cool.

I've been using this solution for probably six years as Firepower and for about 10 to 15 years before Firepower came in.

It's very stable. We've seen very few issues that aren't human-related. If I were to rate the stability, it would have to be 10 out of 10 because we haven't seen any failures.

It's tough to scale because it's a firewall appliance, but in terms of the ability to deploy it virtually, it's inherently scalable. That is, as far as a firewall can scale, it's very scalable.

I'd give technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used Check Point previously, and the reason we switched to Firepower was that it would be a common vendor and a commonly supported solution by our team. The consistency with Cisco is why we went with Firepower.

Our deployment model is both public cloud and private cloud. The physical devices are on-premises at a data center or virtual in an on-premises data center, and the network virtual appliances are in distributed public cloud platforms including AWS, Azure, Google, and private cloud.

We have between 20 and 50 people who are responsible for the maintenance of the solution through a various mix of ticketing systems and troubleshooting. Their responsibilities are operating the platform, that is, making sure that the connectivity works, analyzing the security, the posture that those firewalls are protecting, and implementing change.

There was no specific investment to make because there was a requirement to implement data center security. That's certainly been fulfilled, and the benefits now versus those previously are time to deliver change and having a more secure, rounded posture. Both of these are being realized.

The pricing was fairly reasonable. It was competitive and was slightly more than Check Point was. However, when we looked at the usability and the features that we would get out of Firepower, it was certainly reasonable.

Licensing is complex, and I'd like it to be simplified.

We evaluated Check Point. One of the pros was that we're a Cisco house, so having Cisco Firepower is useful.

Also, the architectural differences between Check Point and Firepower lend themselves to Firepower. The Check Point architecture is a bit more complicated.

It's a bit more complex to deploy and a bit more difficult to troubleshoot. I think troubleshooting with Firepower is much more intuitive, so it's easy for the operations guys to manage, and it's easy for people to consume.

My advice would be to compare equitable vendors and see where Cisco is strong and where they're not as strong. However, take into account your wider environment. If you've got a Cisco house and the solution has the same look and feel, those who are managing the service will say that it's Cisco and that they know it. That carries a huge weight, so pay careful attention to the rest of your environment.

Overall, I'd give this product a nine out of ten.

A lot of them are used for campuses. Basically, it is HA pairs so it is just used to firewall off different networks from the internal network, i.e., security. 

We also use them for DMZs, where there are untrusted networks coming into trusted networks, managing traffic between the two zones.

Currently, we have almost 100 firewalls spread out all across our county. Our ASAs could be anywhere in any building, wherever there is a purpose. So, if we need to firewall off a network that we don't want touching our internal network, where we want it controlled, then it would be there. All our campuses have some form of that.

It is easier to protect our internal network and identify unknown networks. We can put descriptions on what they are, thus we are able to see different traffic coming from different networks. So, there is better visibility.

The user interface is very easy to manage and find rules. You can do object searches, which are very easy. Also, the logging is very simple to use. So, it is a lot easier to troubleshoot and find items inside the firewall.

The one thing that the ASAs don't have is a central management point. We have a lot of our environments on FTD right now. So, we are using a Firewall Management Center (FMC) to manage all those. The ASAs don't really have that, but they are easy to use if you physically go into them and manage them. 

I would like ASAs to be easier to centrally manage. Currently, in our central management, we have almost 100 firewalls in our environment, and it is almost impossible to manage them all. ASAs are now about 20% of them. We have been slowly migrating them out, but we still have some. Normally, what we would do with ASAs is physically go into those devices and do what we need from there, whether it is find rules, troubleshoot, or upgrade.

We have had ASAs in our environment for 10 years.

The ASAs are solid. They have been around a long time, so there is a lot of documentation out there. They are easy to manage and make it easy to look at logs.

They have been in the environment for 10 years. They are still running and doing their job. 

The only time that we really touch them is if we need to do a rule or code upgrade. We check vulnerabilities a lot to make sure that nothing major has come out. If something has, then we go ahead and patch the firewalls. This is done by network groups, e.g., network engineers or analysts. We usually look at security. We are alerted to any new security advisories that come out from Cisco. For anything that is critical or high, we definitely will address it if we need to. Sometimes, we go three months or months without an upgrade. Other times, we could upgrade in a month. It just depends on what comes out.

We use them for smaller campuses. Though, if we need to upgrade a model, then we go ahead and do that. For example, with our bigger campuses, we need to have a bigger model. They have specs out there that you can kind of line up with what you need.

Cisco tech support is spotty. Sometimes, we get good support. Other times, it is not so good. It is very up and down.

It seems like they have been short staffed recently. We have been waiting a long time for some of our tickets now, though they aren't critical tickets. However, that is one of the big issues which Cisco has going on right now - their staff shortage. We can open a ticket and keep following up, following up, and following up, but it might take weeks to resolve an issue. These aren't critical issues. For critical issues, we escalate and they are able to help us right away.

They handle it appropriately. Though, it depends on the time and on what they need. Sometimes, in one session, issues are resolved. Other times, you need to do multiple sessions for them to resolve it. However, for anything critical, those are resolved pretty fast.

I would rate the technical support as seven out of 10.

Neutral

Before I started, they also had Juniper SRXs. The big issue with them was the logging. It wasn't as good. We switched to ASAs for better stability, better management, and easier logging.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It was very simple to deploy and replace. We did a lot of replacing, which was just copying the rules over from the old one, then deploying it in kind of the same manner.

The pricing was pretty comparable to other solutions when we purchased it.

We looked at what we had and saw that Cisco was much better.

I would rate them as nine out of 10.

We use the Firepower as a perimeter firewall to protect from the outside network.

We are using Firepower to protect a number of services.

We are using it in a dynamic environment. This is important for our company's policies. The dynamic policy capabilities enable tight integration with Secure Workload at the application workload level.

The most valuable feature is the IPS. We also like the AnyConnect feature.

We monitor daily the final inspection activities and intelligence on Firepower. We also send logs from Firepower to our monitoring server, which is a nice feature.

The reporting and other features are nice, but there is an issue with applying the configuration. That part needs some improvement.

Services from the outside, like financial services that are critical, should be protected by the NGFW. There are cyber attacks on these services. Therefore, adding this NGFW in front of those services will reduce our costs for cyber crime.

We started using this next-generation firewall two years ago.

It is stable, but there are issues with the hybrid when you do the activation.

It is scalable. All our users utilize this firewall. We have more than 30,000 users who are end users, admins, and developers.

Cisco technical support team is perfect in their specific area, but they could improve their support for Cisco integration issues between products. I would rate them as eight out of 10.

Positive

We were previously using Cisco ASA for eight years. Now, we are using Firepower NGFW. We hope to continue using this product in the future, as long as there are no discouraging issues.

We are also using Check Point in conjunction with Cisco. We use Checkpoint for our internal networks and Secure Firewall for our outside network.

Installation wasn't that difficult, but there were some challenges on the integration. Sometimes, we face issues from the integration between another Cisco product's API and Firepower NGFW. We just integrated with our existing networks.

The firewall takes no more than two weeks to install. The integration with the API takes about six months.

We implemented ourselves. 

Two technical guys deployed it and now maintain it.

If we didn't use this NGFW, our company might have been charged by a number of attackers. Therefore, the firewall reduces our costs and operational expenses by around 40%.

Since the product is stable, we do not have to spend additional money to buy other firewalls. Once deployed, we can use the product for a long time. Thus, it is cost effective.

Pricing for Cisco is expensive. There are additional costs for the licensing part, support, and even the hardware part. The device cost is very high. I would be very happy with an improvement on the price.

From the user perspective, the reporting and other features are easy to use and user-friendly, but the Control feature of Firepower needs improvement, especially when comparing Firepower to Check Point NGFW.

For digital banking, this solution's firewalls have greatly improved our economy. Most enterprises in our country are using Cisco products because Cisco has worldwide support and cable devices.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10.

We primarily use it as a corporate, perimeter firewall for traffic to the internet and back, for surfing. We also have some site-to-site connections with customers.

So far, there hasn't been any breach, so we are very happy.

It has also helped to reduce the operational costs of our firewall. There is a report that is automatically generated. You don't have to search for and prepare everything by yourself. You don't need staff to prepare the information because it is automated. We only go through this report once a week and if there are some special events, we can take care of them.

The next-generation features, like IPS, among others, are the most valuable. IPS is mandatory in modern networks for protection against malicious attacks and network anomalies.

Also, it gives you great visibility when doing deep packet inspection, but you have to do HTTP inspection. If you don't do HTTP inspection, the visibility is not complete. That is the case for every firewall vendor.

The ease of use, when it comes to managing Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls, is getting better because the UI is improving. It was a bit cumbersome in previous versions. Checkpoint, for example, has one of the most intuitive user interfaces, and now Cisco is really improving.

The only drawback of the user interface is when it comes to policies. When you open it and click on the policies, you have to move manually left and right if you want to see the whole field within the cell. Checkpoint has a very detailed user interface. Cisco is getting better and becoming more and more user-friendly.

Cisco needs a more intuitive user interface. When you know what to do, it's easy. Otherwise, you need training. You can install it and do the initial configuration, but if you don't have the proper training it's also possible to configure it the wrong way. If that happens, some things might pass through that you don't know about.

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about five years, from the beginning of the Cisco Firepower 2100 Series.

We were on version 6.2.2 but now we're up to version 7.7.0, and it has really improved. It was not hard to implement but there were many bugs in the earlier version and some were serious, but now it's stable. There are no more bugs. It's really getting better. I would recommend Firepower to every customer now because it's stable. It's a really nice firewall.

The model we have is okay for our environment, so it's scalable. We haven't seen any problems in that regard. There are 50 or 60 devices behind it and about 500 clients. It is used in a very specific environment for a large Slovenian system.

The device has achieved its purpose. We won't implement any other features.

Cisco support is the best, especially if you compare it to other vendors. Cisco may be a bit expensive compared to other vendors, but the support is really good. When you open a case they're really responsive and they resolve every case. This is my personal experience, not only when it comes to Firepower but for the whole Cisco portfolio, which I have been working with since 2005.

Positive

The initial configuration was done within a few hours, but getting all the policies in place took about a month. That was not related to the firewall, it was related to all the requirements from management and from other people as well. But the configuration to get it set up initially was straightforward, nothing special.

My colleagues and I did the deployment. We are an internal team. We are integrators, so we were able to do it by ourselves.

When it comes to XDR, the cost-effectiveness of this firewall depends on the use case because you don't always need XDR functionality. SecureX is included free of charge, so from that point of view, maybe Cisco is not that expensive compared to other vendors.  Other vendors' XDR products are not free of charge. 

But if you just look at just the firewall functionality, Checkpoint is expensive but Cisco is not the cheapest. Fortinet is cheaper.

Where we have seen ROI is due to the support, time savings, ease of management, and the reporting.

Aside from the user interface, which is getting better, Cisco is at the top for functionality and in all other respects. We work with Fortinet, Checkpoint, and we used to work with Juniper, in addition to Cisco.

With Cisco, there are a lot of features such as the network map. Cisco builds the whole network map of the machines you have behind your firewall and gives you insight into the vulnerabilities and attributes that the host has. Checkpoint and Fortinet don't have that functionality directly on the firewall. They don't give you that direct visibility into the host, such as which operating the host has.

We don't work with Juniper anymore because its user interface is really not okay. You only have the CLI or you have to use Security Director for management, which is very complex and not user-friendly. That is why we abandoned Juniper as a product.

I would rate Cisco at eight out of 10 overall, and Check Point would be a seven. Check Point fields a great solution in this space, but they have very bad support, and support is one of the most important things. Having great blogs doesn't help if support doesn't come through when you need it.

We are using it for firewall and intrusion prevention.

I have deployed it into different environments: retail, commercial, law, real estate, and the public sector. Retail is the biggest environment that I have deployed this firewall into, with 43 different sensors and a range up to 10 GbE throughput.

I am using up to version 7.0 across the board as well as multiple models: 1000 Series or 2100 Series.

The integration of network and workload micro-segmentation help us provide unified segmentation policies across east-west and north-south traffic. It is important to have that visibility. If you can't detect it, then you can't protect it. That is the bottom line.

The solution has enabled us to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments. These are important because they give us flexibility and more granular control of access.

• Ease of operability
• Security protection

It is usually a central gateway into an organization. Trying to keep it as secure as possible and have easy to use operability is always good. That way, you can manage the device.

The solution has very good visibility when doing deep packet inspection. It's great because I can get packet captures out of the device. Because if an intrusion fires, I can see the packet that it fired in. So, I can dive into it and look at what is going on, what fired it, or what caused it.

Cisco Secure Firewall is fine and works when it comes to integration of network and workload micro-segmentation. 

The integration of network and workload micro-segmentation is very good when it comes to visibility in our environment. It is about how you set it up and the options that you set it up for, e.g., you can be as detailed as you like or not at all, which is good.

Its Snort 3 IPS has better flexibility as far as being able to write rules. This gives me better granularity.

It needs better patching and testing as well as less bugs. That would be nice.

I would like it to have faster deployment times. A typical deployment could take two to three minutes. Sometimes, it depends on the situation. It is better than it was in the past, but it could always use improvement.

I have been using it for seven years.

Stability has been good so far. It has been much better than in the past. In the past, there were times where there were known issues or bugs.

Scalability has been fine. I haven't had an issue with it. I just haven't had a need to deal with scalability yet.

I would rate Cisco's support for this solution as nine out of 10 for this solution. The support has been very good. We got the job done. Sometimes, why it wasn't perfect, the challenge was getting a hold of someone.

I have used this solution to replace different vendors, usually Cisco ASA that is reaching end of life.

The initial setup is straightforward for me at this point. That is just because of the experience that I have in dealing with it. for a new person, it would be a little bit more complex. They have gotten better with some of the wizards. However, if you are not familiar with it, then that makes it a little more challenging.

Depending on the situation, we will go through the typical setups. We know what we want to configure and sort of follow a template.

We have seen ROI with a better, more secure environment. 

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped us to reduce our firewall operational costs. This is based on the fact that the newer models, where we have been replacing older models, have better throughput, capacity, and performance overall.

Pricing is the same as other competitors. It is comparable. The licensing has gotten better. It has been easier with Smart Licensing.

There are additional costs, but that depends on the feature sets that you get. However, that is the same with any firewall vendor at this point.

I have also worked with Check Point and Palo Alto. The support is much better with Cisco than Check Point. Check Point had a little bit better of a central management station. Whereas, Cisco with the FMC is a little different as far as there are still some features that are being added to the FMC, which is good. As far as Palo Alto goes, they are quite comparable as far as their functionality and feature sets. Cisco wins for me because it has Snort, which is a known standard for IPS, which is good. Also, Cisco has the Talos group, which is the largest group out there for security hunting.

Check Point was the easiest as far as user-friendliness and its GUI. After that, Cisco and Palo Alto would be kind of tied for ease of use.

Definitely do your research, e.g., how you want to set it up and how deep you want to go in with it. This will actually help you more. When we say Cisco Secure Firewall, is it Next-Generation, running ASA, or running Firepower? Or, does Meraki actually fit in there? So, there are different scales based on what you are trying to look for and how deep security-wise you want to go into it.

SecureX is a nice feature, but it has to be for the right environment. It is nice that we get it, but most people don't take advantage of it.

The dynamic policy capabilities can enable tight integration with Secure Workload at the application workload level, but I am not using much with Secure Workload at this point.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall as nine out of 10. I would not give it a 10 because of bugs.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a next-generation firewall that can be used for various security applications. 

The advantage of using Cisco is its integration within the Cisco fabric, which allows for effective threat detection and mitigation.

Cisco could improve its score by developing more features that integrate seamlessly with various applications and investing in hardware acceleration to enhance performance.

The product is stable with minimal glitches or latency issues.

The solution is easy to install, requiring minimal expertise. Deployment time varies, but it can take about two days for a medium-sized company with 200-300 users to configure and install.

After five years of product usage, the high return on investment and low total cost of ownership can be observed.

Pricing depends on partnerships and certifications. The engineering team's certifications can qualify it for seven to eight percent discounts.

The platform's integration capabilities depend on the project context. In some cases, integrating Palo Alto may provide better performance, but Cisco can still be effective.

However, its classification in industry comparisons, such as those from Gartner, is lower than that of competitors like FortiGate and Palo Alto.

Overall, I rate it seven out of ten. 

Cisco Secure Firewall has impacted our cybersecurity cost efficiency.

The important features are IPS intrusion prevention, anti-malware, and anti-spam.

Cisco firewall needs experience with hardware. They should also enhance security antivirus, application detection, user detection, and ID detection. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years.

300 users are using this solution.

The support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy, but it takes some time to push the configurations. Also, it's a little complicated and not friendly to use. It is good only for IT and experienced people. 

The deployment took two months and a team of two to three people.

The pricing is average.

I recommend the solution to medium and enterprise customers since it is expensive. 

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

We mostly use Cisco Secure Firewall as a VPN concentrator and for its firewall features.

Using Cisco Secure Firewall has helped grow our familiarity with people that know Cisco.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is its ease of configuration and that it's scalable for firewalls and VPNs.

Changes you make in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line and vice versa.

We have been using the solution since its inception, so, for many years now.

We did not have any stability issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

We did not see any limitations with Cisco Secure Firewall’s scalability.

We also use Aruba in our organization. We never have to factor in extra development time when we go to a new major version of Cisco. With Aruba, we have a pretty drawn-out development timeline for any upgrades or software improvements. Aruba and Cisco Secure Firewall are very different in their implementation and development.

The initial setup of the Cisco Secure Firewall is very straightforward. The average time it took to deploy the solution was very short. Deploying the VM and automating our configurations took a couple of minutes.

Cisco smart licensing is a hassle for a disconnected environment. However, I haven't licensed anything in a while. There have been many changes, making it easier to license disconnected devices connected to the internet.

ASAv uses the solution as a VPN concentrator and a firewall because it could be used for both. It can be used for landing AnyConnect clients on ASAv and as a firewall.

What sets Cisco Firewall apart from other products is that when we do an update, we know we're not going to break a lot of things, and there are not a lot of bugs. The integration on the Cisco side is pretty good.

Most of our team is familiar with Cisco, and everyone knows what to expect when they log in. So it's easy in that way.

I like the application visibility and control with Cisco Secure Firewall. My only complaint is that the changes made in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line.

I haven't had any problems with Cisco Secure Firewall. It's very straightforward and reliable. Also, it's trustworthy because it has the Cisco name.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped free up our IT staff for other projects. The product is quite heavy into automation. So with it being Cisco, it is very scalable in generating configs. The solution saves a week or two for implementation and integration.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience through the reliability aspect.

You know what you're getting when you use an ASAv from Cisco. Cisco Secure Firewall is a great product in terms of reliability and scalability.

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