Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We are using it for border firewalls, VPN access, and site-to-site VPN tunnels.

It is deployed at a single location with about 2,500 users.

So far, the remote VPN access has been a perfect solution for our company.

The user interface is a little clunky and difficult to work with. Some things aren't as easy as they should be.

I have been using it for five years.

So far, it has been very stable.

It does require maintenance. There is a team of two who manage it.

We haven't scaled it much at this point.

The technical support has been good so far. I would rate them as eight out of 10.

The VPN solution works much better than our previous solutions.

We previously used Palo Alto. The switch was driven by Cisco's pitch.

It was fairly straightforward. We stood it up side by side with our nesting firewalls. We did some testing during an outage window, then migrated it over.

We used a partner, CDW, to help us with the deployment. Our experience with CDW was good.

Internally, it was just me for the deployment.

The pricing seems fair. It is above average.

Take the time to really learn it, then it becomes a lot easier to use.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We use it for perimeter and internal firewalls. We wanted a firewall with traffic inspection, packet analysis, and decryption.

Our deployment is on-prem and hybrid. We don't use it in the cloud as we use other vendors for that.

I'm not sure the firewall has improved our organization because a firewall is a must. It's something that you pick up and then trust. It just works for us.

Cisco is still catching up with its Firepower Next-Generation firewalls. It's naturally growing and getting better.

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

It's stable.

It's used around the world. We have 20 data centers and each data center handles six offices. We have Cisco in every single location. If something new comes up, we'll increase our usage of the product.

Cisco's technical support is good.

Positive

We're a multi-vendor shop when it comes to firewalls, and we use Check Point and Palo Alto in addition to Cisco. We used to have Fortinet but that amounted to too many vendors.

When the Cisco product changed from legacy traffic inspection to the new Firepower it became a next-generation firewall. It was just a new product. That's why we decided to try it and stay with Cisco. It's like two different products: the legacy product and the new one. The legacy product was much simpler and the new one is, obviously, more complex.

I'm a designer, so I don't do racking and stacking, but I'm hands-on when it comes to configuration. I have used this product for years, so for me, it's not like adding a brand new product. It is just a matter of adding features, a hardware refresh. I wouldn't call it a challenge.

For maintenance, we have two to three network engineers involved.

The pricing of Cisco firewalls, in the security market, is fair. Their pricing of other products is questionable, but for firewalls, it's fine.

Compare Cisco ASA with other vendors' products and compare the features one-on-one. Pay special attention to the security portion, such as traffic inspection. That's probably the most important aspect. And then look at performance.

It is for our VPNs and filters out websites. 

It helped us a lot with our VPNs for the home office during COVID. There has been more security and flexibility for VPNs and other applications.

Its security is easy to use.

I would like more features in conjunction with other solutions, like Fortinet.

I have been using it for five years.

It has very good stability.

It has really good scalability.

The customer service and technical support are good. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

We were previously using Fortinet. We switched to ASA and Firepower when our contract with Fortinet ended. Now, we are only using ASA.

The deployment was simple.

The ROI is good. Using ASA, we have saved 10% to 20% on our costs.

The pricing is fine. It is not too bad.

We had it integrated with the Umbrella solution a few years ago.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

We use it for basic firewalling, building VPN tunnels, and for some remote VPN connections.

We have two ASAs servicing external remote connectivity sessions for about 300 users.

It has definitely improved our organization. It gives us remote connectivity, helps workers connect remotely, and also gives us good connectivity to our other branches.

It would be nice if it had the client to actually access the firewall. Though, web-based access over HTTPS is actually a lot nicer than having to put on a client just to access the device.

For Firepower Threat Defense and ASAs, I would like it if there was a centralized way to manage policies, then sticking with the network functions on the actual devices. That is probably the thing that frustrates me the most. I want a way that you can manage multiple policies at several different locations, all at one site. You then don't have to worry about the connectivity piece, in case you are troubleshooting because connectivity is down.

I have been using ASA for about three years.

It is stable.

We just run updates on them. I don't know if we have had to do any hardware maintenance, which is good.

We have been just using ASAs for a smaller environment.

I don't know if I have ever worked with ASA in a highly scalable environment.

I haven't really gotten involved with the technical support for ASAs.

I work with a lot of different companies and a number of different firewalls. A lot of times it is really about the price point and their specific needs. 

This solution was present when I showed up.

The pricing is pretty standard. 

I wish there was an easier way to license the product in closed environments. I have worked in a number of closed environments, then it is a lot of head scratching. I know that we could put servers in these networks and that would help with the licensing. I have never been in a situation where we connected multiple networks, i.e., having an external network as well as an internal network, as those kinds of solutions are not always the best. I think licensing is always a headache for everyone, and I don't know if there is a simple solution.

We can build GRE tunnels. Whereas, Firepower can't route traffic nor do a bit more traffic engineering within the VPN tunnels. This is what I like about using ASAs over Firepower.

Firepower Threat Defense has a mode where you can manage multiple firewalls through a single device. 

I really like how Palo Alto does a much better job separating the network functions from the firewalling functions.

I would consider if there is a need to centralize all the configurations. If you have many locations and want to centrally manage it, I would use the ASA to connect to a small number of occasions. As that grew, I would look for a solution where I could centrally manage the policies, then have a little more autonomous control over the networking piece of it.

Know specifically what you want out of the firewall. If you are looking for something that will build the GRE tunnel so you can route between different sites, I would go with ASA over Firepower Threat Defense.

I like the ASA. I would probably rate it as eight or nine out of 10, as far as the firewalls that I have worked with.

We use it as a security solution. It is our firewall.

We run three data centers and have three ASAs at each data center.

It is pretty user-friendly and straightforward to use.

It is secure and very reliable.

I like the heartbeat between the two devices that we have. Because if something fails, it immediately fails over.

I have been using ASAs for 15 years at two different companies.

Cybersecurity resilience has been outstanding because it is very stable. There are not a whole lot of upgrades that we need to do for the firmware.

Four engineers support it. From time to time, there are firmware upgrades that we need to keep up to date with. Sometimes, we need to run debugs to figure out what's going on with it, and if it needs a patch, then we will figure it out. Usually, Cisco has been really good about getting us that.

Scalability is actually pretty exponential. In the grand scheme of things, we are a small network. We only have 15,000 subscribers. However, if we need to expand, it is reasonable.

The TAC is always very helpful. We pay for Tier 1 support, so we get whatever we need from them. They always give us a solution. If they can't give us an answer that day, they get back to us within at least 24 hours with a solution or fix. I have never had a problem with the TAC. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We haven't really used anything different. The only thing that we run inline with Cisco ASAs is Barracuda Networks. We kind of run that in tandem with this firewall, and it works really well.

We wanted to integrate Firepower with our solution, but it didn't have the capability to accommodate our bandwidth since they only had two 10 gig interfaces on the box. We run way more than that through our network because we are a service provider, providing Internet to our customers.

Do your homework and know what you are doing. Know how to use your product, stay current, and hire smart people.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

It has been great for blocking incoming bad actors. The new Firepower modules have been a welcome additive to that.

Cybersecurity resilience has helped us be able to react and respond in a quick fashion to anything that may be happening or any anomalies within the environment.

The solution has provided us a sense of security, reliability, and trustworthiness.

The most valuable feature would be the IP blocking. It gets rid of things that you don't need in your environment.

Its resilience helps offer being able to react and self-heal.

The solution is overcomplicated in some senses. Simplifying it would be an improvement.

I have used the ASA solutions for a better part of 10 years.

The stability is unparalleled.

All solutions require maintenance, and we do that routinely. Anywhere from three to four people from the network teams to application owners are involved in the maintenance. This is a firewall in production, so we need to do maintenances after hours, but it would be nice if we didn't need to do it after hours

Scalability is unparalleled. It is easy to scale.

We don't have plans to increase our usage at this time.

In previous years, Cisco's tech support has been great. Although, I have seen it declining. I would rate their support as seven out of 10.

Neutral

We have used the Check Point firewalls as well as several different vendors.

It secures the network. The ROI is really incalculable at this point as keeping our data secure is keeping the company's assets secure.

We did evaluate other vendors.

You need to be always looking ahead and proactively developing to build resilience.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10. It is a world-class firewall.

For our customers, Firepower is a classic perimeter firewall. Sometimes it's also for branch connections, but for those cases, we prefer Meraki because it's simpler. If a customer has Meraki and requires advanced security features, we will offer Firepower as a perimeter solution for them. Meraki is for SD-WAN and Firepower is for the perimeter.

Firewalls are not a new technology but they have a very distinct role in an enterprise for defending the perimeter. Firepower is for organizations that have traditional infrastructures, rather than those that are heavily utilizing cloud services. For us, the clients are government agencies and ministries, and we have a lot of them as our customers in Latvia.

Most firewalls do the same things, more or less. Because we have to compete with other vendors, it's the things that are different that are important. With Cisco, it's the security intelligence part. It's quite simple to configure and it's very effective. It cuts down on a lot of trouble in the early phases.

IPS and Snort are very important because they also differentiate Cisco from other vendors and competitors.

I also like that, in recent years, they have been developing the solution very quickly and adding a lot of new, cool features. I really love the new web interface of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center. It looks like a modern web-user interface compared to the previous one. And the recent release, 7.2, provided even more improvements. I like that you have the option to switch between a simplified view and the classic view of firewall policies. That was a good decision.

A major area of improvement would be to have more functionality in public clouds, especially in terms of simplifying it. The high availability doesn't work right now because of the limitations in the cloud. Other vendors find ways to make it work differently than with on-prem solutions.

This is very important because we have customers that build solutions in the cloud that are like what they had on-prem. They have done a lift-and-shift because it's easier for them. They lift their on-prem physical boxes and shift them to the cloud, convert them to virtual, and it continues to work that way. Many times it's not the most efficient or best way to do things, but it's the easiest. The easiest path is probably the way to go.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls for four or five years now, but before that, I worked with ASA Firewalls a lot. It was just a transition. I have been using Firepower almost from day one.

We are an integrator and we resell as well as provide professional services. We do everything from A to Z.

There are a lot of things that can be improved. As a Cisco partner, I usually take the first hit if something doesn't work. In recent years, the solution has improved and is more stable. But it has to continue to improve in that direction.

A Firepower firewall is a very important point of exit and entry to a network. It's a critical piece of infrastructure. They should have high availability.

By comparison, I am also a huge fan of Stealthwatch (Cisco Secure Network Analytics) and I use it everywhere. I've been working with that solution for 15 years but it's not mission-critical. If it doesn't work, your boss is not calling you. If it doesn't work, it is not collecting telemetry and it doesn't do its job, but you are not stressed to fix it. With firewalls, it's a little different.

Tech support really depends on how lucky you are. It depends on when you create a TAC case and in which time zone the case is created. That determines which part of TAC takes ownership of your case. I have had a few unpleasant cases but, at the end of the day, they were resolved. I didn't feel like I was alone in the field with an angry customer.

Positive

We made a gradual transition from ASA to Firepower because they first had this as Sourcefire services. That is what we used to install first for our customer base. Then Firepower defense appliances and firmware came out. It was a natural process.

My view may be a little bit biased because I do a lot of Cisco deployments, and I have a lab where I play all the time. But overall the deployment is not too complicated.

The deployment time depends on what type of deployment you have. If it's a physical deployment, it may be a little bit faster because you don't have to set up virtual machines. But I recently had a project in AWS, and I used Terraform Templates and it was easy. I still had to configure some additional things like interfaces, IP addresses, and routing. 

Because I know where everything is in the UI, the deployment is okay. One thing I miss a little bit is being able to configure things, like routing, via the command line, which is how it used to be done with the ASA Firewalls. But I understand why they've taken that ability away.

With ASA Firewalls, even when you were upgrading them, the experience was much better because it didn't have those advanced Snort features and you could usually do an upgrade in the middle of day and no one would notice. You didn't have any drops. With Firepower, that's not always the case.

It's hard to talk about pricing when you compare firewalls because firewall functionality is almost the same, regardless of whether it's a small box or a large box. The difference is just the throughput. Leaving aside things like clustering, what you have to look at are the throughput and the price.

Cisco's pricing is more or less okay. In other areas where we work with Cisco solutions, like other security solutions and networking, Cisco is usually much more expensive than others. But when it comes to firewalls, Cisco is cheaper than Check Point although it is not as cheap as Fortigate. But with the latest improvements in hardware and speed, the pricing is okay.

To me, as a partner, the licensing is quite simple. I'm responsible for providing estimates to my sales guys and, sometimes, as an architect, I create solutions for my customers and give them estimates. There are other Cisco solutions that have much more complicated licensing models than Firepower. In short, the licensing is quite okay.

Not all of our customers use Cisco and that means we have competition inside our company with Check Point. We also made some attempts with Palo Alto Firewalls, long before we became Cisco partners, but somehow it didn't work for us.

I enjoy working with Cisco because it's more of a networking-guy approach. It reminds me a lot of all the other Cisco equipment, like their switches and routers. The experience is similar.

I haven't worked a lot with Checkpoint firewalls, but I like how they look. What I don't really like is the way you configure them because it's very different from what networking guys are used to doing. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just different. It's not for me. Maybe it appeals more to server guys. Cisco has a more network-centric approach.

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 Firepower for outbound/inbound traffic control and management as well as for our internal security. We are using it for LAN security and VMware network security. It is a hardware device, and it is deployed on-prem.

Our target is to make our network 100% secure from the outside and inside traffic. For that, we are using the latest versions, updates, patches, and licenses. We have security policies to enable ports only based on the requirements. Any unnecessary ports are disabled, which is as per the recommendation from Cisco. For day-to-day activity monitoring and day-to-day traffic vulnerabilities, we have monitoring tools and devices. If there is any vulnerability, we can catch it. We are constantly monitoring and checking our outside and inside traffic. These are the things that we are doing to meet our target of 100% security.

We have a number of security tools. We have the perimeter firewalls and core firewalls. For monitoring, we have many tools such as Tenable, Splunk, etc. We have Cisco Prime for monitoring internal traffic. For malware protection and IPS, we have endpoint security and firewalls. The outside to inside traffic is filtered by the perimeter firewall. After that, it goes to the core firewall, where it gets filtered. It is checked at port-level, website-level, and host-level security.

We have the endpoint security updated on all devices, and this security is managed by our antivirus server. For vulnerabilities, we have a Tenable server that is monitoring all devices. In case of any vulnerability or attacks, we get updated. We are also using Splunk as SIEM. From there, we can check the logs. If any device is attacked, we get to know the hostname or IP address. We can then check our monitoring tool and our database list. We can see how this attack happened. We have configured our network into security zones. We have zone-based security.

It integrates with other Cisco products. We use Cisco ASA and Cisco FTD, and we also use Cisco FMC for monitoring and creating policies. For internal network monitoring purposes, we use Cisco Prime. We also use Cisco ISE. For troubleshooting and monitoring, we can do a deep inspection in Cisco FMC. We can reach the host and website. We can also do web filtering and check at what time an activity happened or browsing was done. We can get information about the host, subnet, timing, source, and destination. We can easily identify these things about a threat and do reporting. We can also troubleshoot site-to-site VPN and client VPN. So, we can easily manage and troubleshoot these things.

Cisco FMC is the management tool that we use to manage our firewalls. It makes it easy to deploy the policies, identify issues, and troubleshoot them. We create policies in Cisco FMC and then deploy them to the firewall. If anything is wrong with the primary FMC, the control is switched to a secondary FMC. It is also disconnected from the firewall, and we can manage the firewall individually for the time being. There is no effect on the firewall and network traffic.

Cisco FMC saves our time in terms of management and troubleshooting. Instead of individually deploying a policy on each firewall, we can easily push a policy to as many firewalls as we want by using Cisco FMC. We just create a policy and then select the firewalls to which we want to push it. Similarly, if we want to upgrade our firewalls, instead of individually logging in to each firewall and taking a backup, we can use Cisco FMC to take a backup of all firewalls. After that, we can do the upgrade. If Cisco FMC or the firewall goes down, we can just upload the backup, and everything in the configuration will just come back. 

We can also see the health status of our network by using Cisco FMC. On one screen, we can see the whole firewall activity. We can see policies, backups, and reports. If our management asks for information about how many rules are there, how many ports are open, how many matching policies are there, and which public IP is there, we can log in to Cisco FMC to see the complete configuration. We can also generate reports.

With Cisco FMC, we can create reports on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. We can also get information about the high utilization of our internet bandwidth by email. In Cisco FMC, we can configure the option to alert us through email or SMS. It is very easy.

It has a good security level. It is a next-generation firewall. It can protect from different types of attacks. We have enabled IPS and IDS. To make out network fully secure, we have zone-based security and subnets.

It is user-friendly with a lot of features. It has a CLI, which is helpful for troubleshooting. It also has a GUI. It is easy to work with this firewall if you have worked with any Cisco firewall.

With Cisco FMC, we can see the network's health and status. We can create a dashboard to view the network configuration, security policies, and network interfaces that are running or are up or down. We can also see network utilization and bandwidth utilization. We can see if there are any attacks from the outside network to the inside network. We can arrange the icons in the dashboard. For troubleshooting, we can also log in to the FMC CLI, and based on the source and destination, we can ping the firewall and the source. 

I have been using this solution for three to four years.

It is stable, but it also depends on whether it is properly configured or maintained. If you don't apply the proper patches recommended by Cisco, you could face a lot of issues. If the firewall is up to date in terms of patches, it works smoothly and is stable.

There are no issues in terms of the number of users. This is the main firewall for the organization. All users are behind this firewall. So, all departments and teams, such as HR, finance, application team, hardware teams, are behind this firewall. All users have to cross the firewall while accessing applications and websites. They cannot bypass the firewall. 

Their support is good. If we have an issue, we first try to resolve it at our level. If we are not able to resolve an issue, we call customer care or raise a ticket. They investigate and give us the solution. If there is a hardware issue or the device is defective, we will get that part as soon as possible. They replace that immediately. If it is not a hardware issue, they check the logs that we have submitted. Based on the investigation, they give a new patch in case of a bug. They arrange for a technical engineer to come online to guide us and provide instructions remotely. They provide immediate support. I would rate their support a nine out of 10.

We have HA/standby devices. We have almost 70 to 80 access switches, and we have 30 to 40 routers, hubs, and other monitoring tools and devices. We keep one or two devices as a standby. We have a standby for each Cisco tool. We have a standby for the core and distribution switches and firewalls. We have a standby firewall. When there is any hardware issue or other issue, the secondary firewall is used, and the workload moves to the secondary firewall. Meanwhile, we work with Cisco's support to resolve the issue.

For the past four to five years, we have only had Cisco firewalls. However, for some of the branches, we are using Palo Alto firewalls. It depends on a client's requirements, applications, security, etc.

I didn't do the implementation. We have, however, upgraded to a higher version. From the Cisco side, we get the updates or patches using which we upgrade a device and do the configuration. We register the product model and serial number, and after that, we can download a patch. We also can get help from Cisco. It is easy to migrate or upgrade for us.

We have vendor support. They are a partner of Cisco. When we buy the hardware devices, the vendor has the responsibility to do the implementation and configurations. We do coordinate with them in terms of providing the space and network details such as IP addresses, network type, subnets, etc. We also provide logical diagrams. We monitor the configuration, and after the configuration is done, we check how the network is working and performing.

We have an IT department that includes an applications group, a hardware group, and a security group. There are also Network Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 teams. The Level 1 team only takes care of the network side. The Level 2 and Level 3 teams do almost similar work, but the Level 3 team is a bit at a higher level in IT security. The Level 2 and Level 3 teams take care of firewalls-level and security-level configuration, policy upgrade, etc. They manage all network devices. Overall, we have around 20 members in our department.

For the maintenance of Firepower, two guys are there. A Level 2 engineer takes care of policy creation and deployment for new networks. A Level 3 engineer takes care of a new firewall, upgrades, and network design and architecture.

When we purchased the firewall, we had to take the security license for IPS, malware protection, and VPN. If we are using high availability, we have to take a license for that. We also have to pay for hardware support and technical support. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

It is a good product. It is easy to manage, but you need to have good experience and good knowledge, and you need to configure it properly.

Cisco FMC only supports Cisco products. If you have a large network with Cisco firewalls and other vendors' firewalls, such as Palo Alto, you can only manage Cisco products through Cisco FMC. Other vendors have their own management tools.

Most of the organizations nowadays are using the Cisco Firepower and Cisco ASA because of the high level of security. Cisco is known for its security. Cisco provides a lot of high-security firewalls such as Cisco ASA, Cisco FTD, Cisco Firepower. Cisco ASA 8500 came out first, and after that, new models such as Cisco FTD came. 

I would rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a nine out of 10. It is excellent in terms of features, ability, and security. Whoever gets to work on Cisco Firepower, as well as Cisco ASA, will get good experience and understanding of security and will be able to work on other firewalls.