Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

This product protects our computer systems. I use it as a traditional firewall service. I don't have any special use cases for it.

Firepower has reduced our firewall operational costs by about 25 percent.

Sometimes there is a lack of performance. One of my colleagues is using the firewall as an IPS, but he is worried about Firepower's performance. It is much lower than we expected. They need to improve the performance a lot. With the 10 Gb devices, when it gets to 5 Gbps, the CPU usage goes up a lot and he cannot manage the IPS.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for more than two years.

The most valuable property is the stability. It doesn't crash.

When I have had issues with the software, I don't think they have given me the right answers. The support for the software isn't that good, but support for the hardware is very good.

Although I work in Korea, I needed a means of deploying computer systems in other countries. Two or three years ago I was looking for a proper solution that would cover global sites. I chose Cisco products because Cisco has a very large presence all over the world.

Once I got used to this product, it was easy to use other products, but it was not easy for me the first time.

Firepower is a little bit expensive, although there are no additional costs beyond the standard ones.

We have several brands of firewalls in our organization. Compared to them, the ease of management of the Cisco firewalls is pretty good.

When you calculate the capacity you need, you should add a buffer for performance.

There are 25 users of the solution on my team and they are all network security specialists.

I work for an engineering company that has multiple sites located in different locations, overseas and domestically in Pakistan. There are 30 to 35 sites connected to our network. We restrict the website at these locations using the Cisco Firepower module.

The main thing that I love the most is its policy and objects. Whenever I try to give access to a user, I can create an object via group creation in the object fields. This way, I am not able to enter a user in the policy repeatedly. 

Cisco Firepower is not completely integrated with Active Directory. We are trying to use Active Directory to restrict users by using some security groups that are not integrated within the Cisco Firepower module. This is the main issue that we are facing. 

There are some other issues related to their reports where we want to extract some kind of user activity. When a user tries to connect to our website, we are unable to read its logs in a proper manner and the report is not per our requirement. These are two things that we are facing.

Per my requirements, this product needs improvement. For example, I want to use and integrate with Active Directory groups. 

We have been using it since last year.

It is a stable product.

I haven't tried to work with Cisco support.

In the last 10 years, we were using the Barracuda Web Security. Compared with that product, I would give this solution six or seven out of 10 when compared to Barracuda. Barracuda has one of the best web security features, giving access to users by deploying a web agent on client computers at different sites. 

Barracuda Web Security's hardware was obsolete so our management never tried to renew its license. That is why we are trying to use the Cisco Firepower module. We want to understand their web security gateways, web security logs, what it provides, and the kind of reporting it has. We are currently doing research and development regarding what features and facilities it provides us compared to our requirements.

I am happy with the web security. However, I am not happy with the groups, reports, and integration with Active Directory.

We are using the web security, and only the web security feature. Therefore, if someone asked me to give them advice about the Cisco product, then I will definitely not recommend it since it is not fulfilling our requirement. We have different sites located domestically and at overseas sites, which is about 30 to 35 sites. It is not locating any of the clients. This is compared to the Barracuda web agent on the client computer, which is always connected to Barracuda with live IP addresses, pushing and pulling all the procedures and policies to that client and computer. This is why I will not recommend the product to anyone who has a similar situation to ours. .

I would love to use the product in the future, if my requirements are met.

I would rate the product as four out of 10.

The primary use is as edge firewalls to the Internet.

We are only on-premise. There is still no cloud plan.

It provides visibility and information to the organization about what is being accessed on the Internet as well as the applications that it is protecting.

It is part of our security strategy.

• Anti-malware protection
• Web Filtering
• VPN Remote-Access

The most valuable feature is the anti-malware protection. It protects the endpoints on my network.

We use the application visibility and control feature of Cisco firewalls.

The ease of use needs improvement. It is complex to operate the solution. The user interface is not friendly.

I have been using it for eight to 10 years.

We have 200 users using this solution.

The technical support is good, but it could be better. I would rate them as six out of 10.

Neutral

The setup is not too complex. We implemented it on all our ports.

We have five people on our cybersecurity team.

The solution's ability to provide visibility into threats is fine, but the Fortinet and Check Point solutions have better dashboards and information about visibility.

We are also using Cisco AnyConnect, Umbrella (as a cloud proxy), and ISE. We have between five or six antivirus, proxy, anti-malware, data loss prevention, VPN client, and firewall tools.

I would rate this Cisco product as six out of 10.

Remote access through the VPN wasn't available in the old firewall that we used, so that was a value-add. That's one way Cisco ASA has impacted our company. Also, from an administrator's perspective, newcomers have a shorter learning curve working with the ASA firewalls.

Also, when we deployed it on the data center firewalls, we did some microsegmentation using different subnets for the whole environment, including UAT and production. We didn't have segmentation before, but with the growing security needs, we segmented the servers. For each of the subnets we made different gateways on the firewall. That helped us achieve the requirements of the latest standards.

Thanks to the IPS, the malicious traffic has dropped. Initially, when we deployed the IPS, it gave us some problems. But after a week or two, it worked very well. I used a balanced security policy when I integrated it with the FMC server. On the FMC, the GUI gives me a very good, extensive view of what traffic is getting dropped and at what time. It gives me all the visibility that I need.

• The normal firewalling features are very good. You can easily create objects and work with them. 
• The AnyConnect software for remote VPN is an added feature on the firewall that works very well in our environment.
• The IPS is another important feature that I use. It doesn't impact the overall performance of the ASAs.

All of these features work fine.

Cisco ASA works very nicely from an administration perspective. The management of the device is very nice. The ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager) is the software that we use and it is very easy to configure using the GUI. If you are familiar with the ASDM software, it's very easy for anyone to handle. The CLI isn't different from other Cisco CLIs, so that makes it easy as well.

Also, the visibility when doing packet inspection on the ASA, using the ASDM GUI, works well. You can go to the monitoring part and see the live logs, the syslogs. All the traffic events are displayed in the syslog. You can filter on whatever event you are interested in and it is visible to you in no time. It provides a real-time display of the traffic. Troubleshooting issues is very easy using ASDM. 

In addition, if you want to do some captures at the interface level, there's a packet tracer, a tool within the ASDM and the ASA, which is available on both the GUI and the CLI. That is on the newer firewalls as well and it's very nice. It shows you the life cycle of a packet within the firewall, from entry to the exit, and how many steps it goes through. It really helps while troubleshooting. I'm very satisfied with that.

The operation of the ASA is good but the problem is that whenever you require an upgrade, there are multiple pieces of software that you have to upgrade. Extensive planning is required, because if you upgrade one piece of the software it has to be compatible with the others as well. You always need to check the compatibility metrics.

For example, if the ASA Firewall's software has to be upgraded, it has to be compatible with the IPS software—the FireSIGHT software. So that has to be upgraded as well, in addition to the ASDM software that you use to manage the firewall using the GUI. Besides that, if you are using the remote VPN part of the firewall, there is the AnyConnect hidden software that also requires an update.

So upgrading is a very extensive exercise, both when you're planning it and when you are doing it. The upgrades are very lengthy. Then Cisco introduced FTD as a unified approach, and that was a leap forward, but it has its own issues.

I've been working as a Cisco partner for about four years. Before that, I was using Cisco firewalls as a network admin. I've been engaged with Cisco firewalls since 2015.

On the FTD (Firepower Threat Defense) model, I've been working with version 6.7. I haven't tried the latest 7.0 version.

The robustness of the ASA is very good. Whenever you upgrade it, it does very well. There are no hiccups or hitches, post-upgrade.

Cisco's TAC provides very good support. If you have any issues, you can contact them and they provide assistance. You need a subscription for that. The subscription comes with a notable cost but you get great value from it. I'm very satisfied with it. 

The tech support of Cisco is unparalleled if I compare it to any other product that I have used. I've been using Citrix, Juniper, and even Palo Alto, but the support that I get from Cisco is very good. It's easy to get support and the engineers get engaged. Sometimes they provide more than you need. For example, if there are design-level issues, they will tell you that it isn't implemented well and that there are things that need to be corrected. That's not their responsibility but they'll provide that feedback.

I consider Cisco support to be the industry standard.

Positive

I've seen Cisco deployed for five to seven years. The product life cycle is good and they're continuing to support things. If you add more features and utilize it to the maximum, using the remote VPN and the like, it becomes more cost-effective. 

Having the IPS part within one box also saves you on costs. Back in 2015, the IPS was a different box that had to be deployed separately. At that time, it cost more if I had to buy another IPS and a box.

Before ASA, we were using Juniper. It had a GUI, but the CLI part of Juniper was difficult. The network administrators required a little bit of a different type of expertise. Juniper was very good, but its CLI wasn't as simple as Cisco's. When somebody new comes into the company to work on the firewall, the Cisco learning curve is relatively short and easy.

Nowadays, everybody is working with Cisco. Juniper has almost been phased out. Some people use Juniper for certain reasons, but there's a very specific clientele for it.

We went with Cisco because it is very easy to operate. It provided next-generation firewalling when it came out with ASA plus Sourcefire IPS. That was very effective at that time, compared to the others.

These days, Palo Alto is matching Cisco and, in some ways, Palo Alto is better. From 2015 to 2018/19, Cisco was considered to be the best. The security leaders are always preferred and Cisco was a leader. That's why we preferred it.

We were also always happy with Cisco support. It was very convenient to get to Cisco support, and it was very prompt and effective. They really solved our problems.

The Nextgen firewalls have a good IPS, but that IPS part wasn't very configurable using the ASDM. Later, they introduced the FMC (Firewall Management Center) and we could integrate the ASA with the FMC and get the IPS configured from the FMC GUI. That was good, but you needed two things to monitor one box. For the IPS you needed an FMC server, and for the firewalls, you needed the ASDM or the CLI.

In terms of integration with other solutions, it is a simple firewall that is integrated with the syslog servers and the SNMP monitoring from the NMS. Those types of simple things work very well. I haven't worked with much integration beyond that. You can't attach that many feeds to it. That's more a function of the Next-Generation Firewall with the IPS and FMC.

SecureX is a relatively new cloud-based solution. It's been around for one or two years. It's offered for free if you have any Cisco security solution. It encompasses ADR and NDR. The clients I work with in Pakistan are mostly financial institutions. Because it's a cloud-based security solution, they are not interested. They want on-prem solutions.

It is the primary data firewall for our organization and our data centers.

We have faced multiple issues regarding bugs with Cisco Firepower products. A running product is hit with bugs most of the time, and we had a lot of challenges in using the Cisco Firepower product, actually. In the future, we are planning to replace it, or at least use it instead as a secondary firewall.

The content filtering is good. 

The maturity needs to be better. The product is not yet mature. A running product is hit with the software bugs most of the time, and whenever we then log a case with the tech team, they're sometimes helpless with that. They have to involve the software development team to fix that bug in the next release. It's not ideal. Being an enterprise product, it should be mature enough to handle these types of issues.

I've been using the solution for the last three years. 

The performance is okay, however, the product is not stable. It is all hit with CVL software bugs routinely. That portion requires attention from Cisco and the tech support in this area is somewhat delayed. An open ticket can sometimes take more than two to three months to resolve. For the production setup, it is tough to rely on the tech team alone for the closure of the case.

The solution is very scalable. 

Cisco support is always available. However, multiple times, it has been tough for them to fix the software bugs in the product. They have to then deploy their development team for the same ticket.

Earlier we used the Cisco ASA Firewall. Now, it has been phased out. Firepower is categorized as the next-generation firewall, however, we haven't found the utility of that level in this product. It lacks maturity at many levels.

We have two data centers at two geographical locations. We have two firewalls - one in one data center, at the perimeter, and another at a different location.

The initial setup was okay. We had more of an in-between partner doing the installation part since the product was also new to us. The product was part of my overall product solution. We procured a firewall and another ACL fabric portion for the data center. Overall, the solution installation took over seven to eight months.

We had two people assist with the deployment process. 

We used an integrator for deployment. Overall, the experience was positive. 

There is no ROI. It is functioning as a normal firewall, as a data center perimeter, however, we expected much more than that. At times, there has been downtime with the firewall, and our custom modifications have won at a very high level. The product has to be mature when it is being used at the enterprise level.

The solution offers mid-range pricing. We can get a cheaper product like Fortinet, and we can get a costlier product like Palo Alto, and these are all in the same category.

There's only one license based on the support. Cisco Firepower is priced on the support of the product that we require: with SSL and without SSL. Currently, we are not doing any SSL inspection. We have an ATP report firewall.

When we were looking for a product, we put it through tender and we put out specifications of the product that we required. Cisco had the lowest price. We evaluated the L1 after it was technically qualifying. That is how we acquired it.

We looked at Palo Alto, however, it was far too costly.

We are a customer and an end-user. 

It was earlier named Sourcefire. Cisco acquired that company and rebranded it as Firepower.

We are actually a public cloud provider. We offer data center services to clients.

I'd advise others considering the solution that, for implementation, the product needs some stability and maturity to be offered as a next-generation firewall at an enterprise level. If a company is in need of an enterprise-level solution, they need to be aware of this.

I'd rate the solution a five out of ten. 

The product needs maturity in terms of running without hitting a bug. We have used other products also. A running product is never hit with a bug. It is normally some vulnerability or something that needs to be attended to, however, a running product is seldom hit with a bug and the operation gets stalled. We rarely find this kind of thing in an enterprise scenario. That is what we ask from Cisco, to build a stable product before offering it to customers.

One of the things that we have solved the most with this solution is the P2P connection that we have with different clients. It gives us greater connection security with good management of the configured rules. 

Likewise, it has made it easier for us to have this type of equipment under monitoring, and, since we have implemented them, we have not been presented with any performance problems in the equipment as they have not presented CPU or RAM saturation or that for some reason it fails without any cause. We all have them managed and monitored. We always receive an email notifying us if there's something that the equipment has detected as well.

The ASA firewalls have undoubtedly helped us to improve our infrastructure throughout the corporation and currently we have just over 50 firewalls - all of them in different parts of Mexico. 

This infrastructure has been improved since, in our corporation, we handle the dynamic EIGRP protocol, which Cisco owns, and this solution has given us a geo-redundancy in our company. In case of presenting a problem with a firewall or a link, it performs an immediate convergence where end-users do not detect a failure, helping us to maintain a 99.99% operational level at all times.

I am very happy to use this type of Cisco equipment in my infrastructure. It has given us the most value is the management of dynamic routing, in this case, EIGRP. This protocol, together with a series of additional configurations, has helped us to maintain an automatic redundancy in all our infrastructure, keeping us with very high numbers of operability and without failures that take more than 1 minute or that have not been resolved automatically. With this solution, we only speak with our suppliers either for a link or equipment report, and even if the box or circuit is out of operation, the operation continues to work without problems.

Today, ASA firewalls are leaving the market and are being replaced by firepower equipment - a technology with which I am not very familiar. However, in the training or research, I have done on this new product, I see that it has many additional tools such as centralization of the administration through a single team (in the case the firepower management). It is something that we do not have, yet we are already considering it since this type of technology will help us to have better management and better administration of the equipment through a single platform. The management of additional services with this new module will certainly help us to have the internet network much more secure with connections to the outside.

I've used the solution for more than seven years.

The solution is great in terms of stability.

The scalability is great.

Technical support is great.

We previously used Fortigate.

The initial setup was not complex.

We handled the implementation in-house. 

We've seen an 80% ROI.

Cisco is not cheap, however, it is worth investing in these technologies.

We always evaluate various other options.

We are a payment switch and we deal with cardholder data and information. Our primary goal is to ensure the security of customers' payment data, that they are protected.

Our security maturity is now at a good level compared to the past. To be accepted to drive Visa and Mastercard, you have to pass security assessment audits and we have managed to pass all of them now, for some years.

Apart from our firewall, we have three security tools. We have a NAC, we have a SIEM, and our syslogs.

It's easy now because we have many Cisco devices in a central point. We don't need to log in to each device and apply rules to them. We can do it from the management control and apply them to the specific firewalls that we want to apply them to.

In addition, compared to our previous firewall solution, the security is much better. Through our monitoring, we now see all the information that we require on security, in terms of PCI. We can see exactly what is happening in our environment. We know what is going, what is going in and out. If an incident happens, it provides a notification so that we can do an analysis.

Web filtering is a big improvement for us. The previous version we used, the AC520, did not have that feature included. It was not very easy for us, especially because the environment had to be isolated and we needed to get updates from outside, such as Windows patches. That feature has really helped us when we are going outside to pull those patches.

Another important feature for us is user access. Now, we can base access on rules and specify that this or that user has privilege on the NG firewall. That was not available before. 

The IDS also makes it easy to detect abnormal traffic. When it sees such traffic in the environment, it sends a notification.

We have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for about two months.

The solution is stable. It's not hanging. With the firewalls from Cisco we are not facing a situation where devices are hanging because of too much traffic.

The scalability is fine.

We're getting support but there's a big delay until we get a response from their technical team. They're in the USA and we're in Africa, so that's the difficulty. When they're in the office, they respond.

We migrated from Cisco AC520 to the Cisco NGFW. We have also used HPE and IBM switches, as well as FortiGate firewalls. We are now completely Cisco.

Previously, we were also using AlienVault and it was easy to integrate with Cisco devices.

The initial setup is 50/50, between straightforward and complex. Migrating from Cisco to another Cisco product is okay, but migrating to Cisco from other network devices, like an IBM switch, is a bit tricky. You can't test the configuration to see if it's the same as what you're going to. But we managed with support from Cisco.

It took a month to complete the deployment.

Our implementation strategy was based on not upgrading everything at the same time. It was phased. We deployed a specific device and then we monitored everything to make sure everything looked okay, and then we moved on to the next one.

It requires a minimum of two people for deployment and maintenance, from our network and security teams.

We used internal resources with support from Cisco.

We have gotten exactly what we're looking for, based on the company's requirements.

The pricing is high.

Cisco NGFW's ability to provide visibility into threats is good compared to other solutions. The visibility is quite impressive and gives us what we're looking for, based on our security requirements.

The scalability, the performance of the devices, the features, and the support, when looking at them combined, make the product a nine out 10.

We're planning the deployment of Cisco ISE soon, to be like our NAC.

We provide IT solutions. We provide solutions to our customers based on their requirements. We support them from the beginning and do the installation and configuration in the head office and front office.

We installed Cisco ASA to support a customer in a WAN environment. They used it for site-to-site VPN and remote VPN. They used it for accessing remote office locations via the remote VPN feature. They had Cisco ASA 5500.

It made our customer's network more secure. They also have customers outside the office, and they are able to use the remote VPN feature to log in securely.

The high-availability and remote VPN features are most valuable.

It is easy to configure. It has a GUI and a CLI.

It doesn't have Layer 7 security.

I used this solution for maybe a year.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

For any issues, we contact the local support. They are very easy to deal with.

I have also worked with Fortigate.

It was easy to configure. The site-to-site VPN configuration didn't take too much time. It was complete in three to four hours.

Its price is moderate. It is not too expensive.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of 10.

We were using ASA 5585 without firepower. We were using it just as a stateful firewall. We also had an IPS module on it. So, we were also using it for network segmentation and network address translations for hosting some of the services or giving access to the internet for our end users.

Initially, it was good. At the time we bought it, usually, IPS was in a different solution, and the firewall was in a different solution. You had to kind of correlate between the events to find the attacks or unwanted behavior in the network, but it had everything in a kind of single platform. So, the integration was great.

Our bandwidth was increasing, and the number of services that we were hosting was increasing. Our old solutions couldn't catch up with that. Cisco ASA was able to handle a lot of traffic or concurrent connections at that time. We had almost 5 million per week. We didn't have to worry about it not having enough memory and stuff like that. It was a powerful machine.

The configuration was kind of straightforward from the command line and also from the ASDM. It was very easy to manage by using their software in Java. 

High throughput, high concurrent connections, easy site-to-site VPN were also valuable. It also had the capability to do double network translations, which is really useful when you are integrating with other vendors for site-to-site VPN.

When we bought it, it was really powerful, but with the emerging next-generation firewalls, it started to lack in capabilities. We couldn't put application filtering, and the IPS model was kind of outdated and wasn't as useful as the new one. For the current state of the network security, it was not enough.

One thing that we really would have loved to have was policy-based routing. We had a lot of connections, and sometimes, we would have liked to change the routing depending on the policies, but it was lacking this capability. We also wanted application filtering and DNS filtering.

We have been using it for around eight years.

Its stability is really great. It is very stable. We didn't have to worry about it. In the IT world, every time you go on holiday, you think that something might break down, but that was not the case with Cisco ASA.

Initially, we had just a single firewall, and then we moved to high availability. Even when it was just one hardware without high availability, we didn't have any problems. Apart from the planned maintenance, we never had any downtime.

We feel we didn't even try to make it scalable. We had 30,000 end users.

We haven't interacted a lot with them because we have our own network department. We were just handling all the problem-solving. So, there were only a couple of cases. Initially, when one of the first devices came, we had some problems with RAM. So, we opened the ticket. It took a bit of time, and then they changed it. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

Our bandwidth was increasing, and the number of services that we were hosting was increasing. Our old solutions couldn't catch up with that. We had some really old D-link firewalls. They were not enterprise-level firewalls.

After our IPS subscription ended, we couldn't renew it because Cisco was moving to the next-generation firewall platform. They didn't provide us with the new license. Therefore, we decided to move to Palo Alto. The procurement process is taking time, and we are waiting for them to arrive.

It was straightforward. Cisco is still leading in the network area. So, there are lots of resources where you can find information. There are community forums and Cisco forums, where you can find answers to any questions. You don't even have to ask. You can just Google, and you will find the solution. Apart from that, Cisco provides a lot of certification that helps our main engineers in learning how to use it. So, the availability of their resources was great, and we just followed their best-case scenarios. We could easily configure it.

The deployment took around two or three weeks because we had different firewalls. We had a couple of them, and we migrated all to Cisco. We also had around 30,000 rules. So, the data input part took a lot of time, but the initial installation and the initial configuration were done in a matter of days.

It took us one week to set up the management plane. It had different ports for management and for the data. After finishing with the management part, we slowly moved segments to Cisco. We consolidated the rules from other firewalls for one zone. After Cisco verified that it was okay, we then moved on to the next segment.

We did it ourselves. We had about five network admins for deployment and maintenance.

We definitely got a return on investment with Cisco ASA. We have been using it for eight years, which is a long time for IT. We only had one capital expenditure. Apart from that, there were no other costs or unexpected failures. It supported us for a long time.

When we bought it, it was really expensive. I'm not aware of the current pricing.

We had problems with licensing. After our IPS subscription ended, we couldn't renew it because Cisco was moving to the next-generation firewall platform. So, they didn't provide us with the new license.

I am not sure about it because back then, I was just an engineer. I didn't have decision-making authority, so I wasn't involved with it.

We recently have done pilots with Check Point and FortiGate for a couple of months. They were next-generation firewalls. So, they had much more capability than ASA, but because of being a pilot, we didn't get full-scale throughput like big enterprise-level firewalls. The throughput was not enough, and their memory cache was always filling up. They were smaller models, but both of them had the features that ASA was lacking. Traffic shaping in ASA is not as good, but these two had good traffic shaping.

I wouldn't recommend this solution because it is already considered to be a legacy firewall.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a strong eight out of 10. It is powerful, but it lacks some of the capabilities.

I have used the Cisco ASA 5585-X Series hardware. The software was probably version 9. We implemented a cluster of two firewalls. In these firewalls, we had four virtual firewalls. One firewall was dedicated for Edge, near ISP, and one firewall was for the data center. One firewall was for the application dedicated to that company, and one firewall was dedicated only to that application.

Dynamic policies were useful in the data centers for our clients. They were making some changes to the networks and moving virtual machines from one site to another. With dynamic policies, we could do that easily.

We find all of its features very useful. Its main features are policies and access lists. We use both of them, and we also use routing.

It is very stable. It is a very good firewall for a company that doesn't want to look at packets higher than Layer 4. 

The virtual firewalls don't work very well with Cisco AnyConnect. 

There are two ways of managing it. You can manage it through the GUI-based software or command-line interface. I tried to use its GUI, but I couldn't understand it. It was hard for me. I know how to use the command line, so it was good for me. You should know how to use the command-line interface very well to make some changes to it. Its management through GUI is not easy.

It is very stable. It has been five years since I have configured them, and they have been up and running.

It is not much scalable. It is only a Layer 4 firewall. It doesn't provide deep packet inspection, and it can see packets only up to TCP Layer 4. It can't see the upper layer packets. So, it is not very scalable, but in its range, it is a very good one. What it does, it does very well.

I have not worked with Cisco support for this firewall.

It is not straightforward. You should know what to do, and it needs to be done from the command line. So, you should know what to do and how to do it.

From what I remember, its deployment took a week or 10 days. When I was doing the deployment, that company was migrating from an old data center to a new one. We were doing configurations for the new data center. The main goal was that users shouldn't know, and they shouldn't lose connectivity to their old data center and the new one. So, it was a very complex case. That's why it took more time.

Our clients have seen an ROI because they paid only once, and they have been using their firewalls for five years. They didn't have to pay much for anything else.

I like its licensing because you buy the license once, and it is yours. We don't have to go for a subscription. So, I liked how they licensed Cisco ASA Firewall. Our clients are also very satisfied with its licensing model.

You cannot compare Cisco ASA Firewall with any of the new-generation firewalls because they are at a higher level than Cisco ASA Firewall. They are at a different level.

It is a very good firewall for small companies that don't want to do deep packet inspection at Layer 7. It is not easy, but you can manage it. You should know how to use the command-line interface. Otherwise, it would be difficult to work with it.

For Cisco ASA Firewall, there will be no improvements because they will not make these firewalls anymore. They want to make changes to the next-generation firewalls, and they are killing the old ones.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a 10 out of 10. I like it very much.