Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use the platform to provide secure perimeter internet access for customers and also to provide secure networks or secure SANs for customers. We have a global partnership with Cisco and I'm a re-sales and security manager of IT services.

The top features for me are the filtering, the intrusion prevention system, and the AMP on small operations. 

To configure the FirePower it is required an external console. It would be nice to have the console embedded in the Firewall so you don't require an extra device. I'd like to see some kind of SD-WAN included as a feature. 

I've been using this solution for six years. 

The solution is very stable and we feel very secure with it. 

The scalability is no problem. 

The technical support is excellent. 

The initial setup is quite straightforward. I think someone who knows the iOS platform and knows about firewalls can setup the device. If you don't have experience, it will be somewhat complicated. If you know the platform, implementation is very quick. We've installed over 1,000 firewalls for different customers.

This is a very stable platform, and you can adjust the engine for malware protection. It is one of the best and a very reliable solution.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. 

We use this solution for our firewall and intrusion prevention system.

The most valuable feature is that I have 16 public IP addresses that tunnel through into servers inside. 

There are no issues that we are aware of. It does its job silently in the background.

The initial setup could be simplified, as it can be complex for new users.

We have been working with this solution for a couple of years.

It's stable. If there is ever a problem, it never seems to be the firewall.

This particular model can't quite handle the bandwidth we need. We're actually replacing it shortly with the new higher capacity model.

Technical support is good. They are responsive.

The initial setup was somewhat complex at first.

We had help from an integrator, which was Dell. They were helpful.

The price is comparable.

We are just at the beginning of the deployment of Arctic Wolf for managed detection and response. We don't have a lot of information yet, as we are onboarding it now.

We wanted to have someone watching and we couldn't set up the SOC by ourselves because we need six security dedicated people to man it at all times. With a staff of 80, it was too much. We engaged Arctic Wolf to be our 24/7 eyes on the potential risks that are happening. They can alert us and we can deal with it.

We like to use the integrator just to make sure that the firewall is set up correctly. If you don't have people dedicated to the firewall, then you can't do it in-house.

I would rate the Cisco firepower NGFW Firewall a nine out of ten.

The feature set is fine and is rarely a problem.

Cisco makes horrible UIs, so the interface is something that should be improved. Usability is poor and it doesn't matter how good the feature set is. If the UI, whether the command-line interface or GUI, isn't good or isn't usable, then you're going to miss things. You may configure it wrong and you're going to have security issues.

Security vendors have this weird approach where they like to make their UIs a test of manhood, and frankly, that's a waste of my time.

The SNMP implementation is incredibly painful to use.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall within the past year.

I work with a lot of different IT products including three different firewall solutions in the past 12 months.

Everything has room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to create access rules. That's what I use it for mostly. Sometimes, if I need to do some mapping, I may also leverage this product.  

In terms of access, the solution is great at making sure that the firewall has the right IPs, or that the right IPs are passing through where they should be. 

The product does a good job of making sure that the connection is one that the user can trust. It keeps everything secure.

From what I've already done with ASA, I've noted that it's a very simple solution. 

It is a very user-friendly product. I started with the GUI version. There are different versions. You could have the CLA, and the GUI version if you like. Both are really user-friendly and they're easy to learn. 

We haven't been working with the product for too long, and therefore I haven't really found any features that are lacking. So far, it's been pretty solid.

One of the things that would make my life easier on ASA, especially for the CLA, is if it had an ASBN feature, specifically for the CLA. This would allow you to be able to see at once where a particular object group is being used without having to copy out all the object groups that have already been created.

I don't have to see all the object groups that have been created on that firewall. That's just something that I would really appreciate on the CLA, even though it already exists on the GUI.

I've been using the solution for six months now. It's been less than a year. It hasn't been too long just yet.

The solution has been quite stable.

Most of the clients that we deal with use this solution. No one has ever complained about having a breach or anything, to the best of my knowledge, even though we see some people combine different firewalls together, and use them alongside Cisco ASA. So far, we've not had any issue with Cisco ASA. It's reliable and keeps our clients safe.

I've never tried to scale the product. I haven't worked with it too long at this point. I wouldn't be able to comment on its scalability potential.

I've never dealt with technical support yet. I can't speak to their level or response or their knowledge of the product.

In the past, I've worked with Check Point and Fortinet as well.

I've been handling the implementation. So far, it's been good, even with no prior knowledge of the solution itself. It's my first time working with it.

On my team, lots of people are working on different aspects, and most of the setup is being done by those that have more knowledge about the firewall than we have. We don't have anything to do with the setup, we just make sure that we implement whatever connections the clients already have. It's already broken down that way, just to avoid as many mistakes as possible.

We already have a process for implementation based on the number of connections. The maximum we normally work on each connection is maybe 20 to 30 minutes. However, the process could be as little as one minute. It depends on how many connections we want to add at a time.

We're handing the implementation via our own in-house team.

I'm just handling the implementation and therefore don't have any insights on the pricing aspect of the solution. I wouldn't be able to say how much the company pays or if the pricing is high or low.

That said, the pricing isn't an issue. It's more about what's best for the customer or the client. We want to give the client the best service, and very good protection. If a client begins to worry about pricing, we can't exactly guarantee the same level of safety.

Our company has a partnership with Cisco.

We have different clients and therefore use different versions of the solution. Nobody wants to use an out-of-date version, and therefore, we work to keep everything updated.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using this solution for the site-to-site VPN tunnels and VPN Connections.

I like all of the features.

It is my understanding that they are in the process of discontinuing this device.

They are in the process of shutting down this ASA series and will continue with Firepower.

In the next release, it could be more secure.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for six years.

We are not using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. I have not had any issues.

This product is scalable. We have 100 users in our organization.

We will not continue to use this solution. We will be upgrading to either Firepower or Check Point.

Technical support is perfect.

I was using Dell SonicWall before Cisco ASA Firewall.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

It's easy to install and it doesn't take a lot of time for the initial configuration.

It took an hour to install.

I completed the installation myself. We did not use a vendor or vendor team.

There are licensing costs.

I would not recommend this solution. The technology is old and they should move to Firepower or NextGen Firewall.

I would rate the Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of ten.

The way we've installed Firepower was for the migration process. For example, there was a data center consolidation, and therefore we had to move everything. We offer data center products to our customers across VPN funnels. We had to move away from older ASAs, so it's a lift and shift. We move older ASAs, which were dispersed in many sites, and we consolidated a couple of services in a single site. Firepower was left there in place. I came in and I took over the administration duties, and now I'm trying to put everything together in a way that it makes sense.

With Firepower, they have better hardware. It's fitted for more throughput, more load. I'm trying to centralize service delivery on this high-availability pair and move all the remote access to Firepower. Then, it's all part of a transition process from a hybrid cloud to a full cloud deployment on a cloud provider. It's mostly just a necessary pain, until we move away from our on-prem deployments. Currently, I'm working with Azure, etc. and I try to look at the main design of the whole process, even though it's going to take two years. 

COVID has also made everything very, very slow for us as we try to move away from our initial plan.

The 2100 models are extremely useful for us.

It's got the capabilities of amassing a lot of throughput with remote access and VPNs. 

They need a VTI. I know it's going to be available in the next software version, which is the 6.7 version. However, the problem with that is that the 6.7 is going to deprecate all the older IKEv1 deployment tunnels. Therefore, the problem is that we have a lot of customers which are using older encryptions. If I do that, update it, it's not going to work for me.

We've been using the solution for about a year.

The solution is pretty solid in terms of stability, however, I prefer Palo Alto. For the enterprise world, it's better to have Palo Alto. For the service provider field, Firepower is quite well suited, I'd say. That said, Palo Alto, is definitely the enterprise way to go. For a smaller deployment, you can also go with FortiGate. It's simple, however, it works for smaller offices.

The scalability of the product is pretty good. If you need to expand it, you can do so with relative ease.

The technical support is amazing. They do reply quickly, and often within an hour. It's been great. I've worked at Cisco before, however, with the type of contract we are in, I find it super fast right now. We're quite satisfied with the level of support.

I don't have any knowledge as to what the product costs. It's not part of the business I deal with.

Palo Alto, it's my understanding, is a little more expensive, however, it depends on the users and on the design. It always depends on the contract

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

It's a solid, reliable product, however, if it's right for a company depends on the use case and the size of the organization. For a startup, this might not be a suitable option.

Overall, I'd rate this solution nine out of ten. As a comparison, if I was rating Palo Alto, I would give it a ten out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for protecting the environment, or the cloud environments for our customers.

All the specific features you find within the NextGen firewall are quite useful. The touch intel feature is specifically useful to us. We deliberately choose this kind of product due to its set of features. 

The implementation is pretty straightforward.

The security market is a fast-changing market. The solution needs to always check if the latest threats are covered under the solution. 

It would always be helpful if the pricing was improved upon a bit.

In a future release, it would be ideal if they could offer an open interface to other security products so that we could easily connect to our own open industry standard.

We've been using the solution for about five or more years at this point.

The solution is stable. It's very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze and doesn't seem to be plagued by bugs or glitches.

The solution can scale quite well. A company that needs to expand it can do so easily.

In our case, we have clients with anywhere between 1,000 and 10,000 users.

We have our own in-house team that can assist our clients should they need technical support. They're quite knowledgeable and can handle any issues.

I also have experience with Fortinet and Check Point.

The implementation isn't complex. It's straightforward. However, it also depends on the specifications of the customer. Normally we check that out first and then we can make a judgment of how to best implement the solution.

Typically, the deployment takes about two days to complete.

In terms of maintenance, we have about five people, who are engineers, who can handle the job.

We deliver the solution to our customers.

You do need to pay for the software license. In general, it's a moderately expensive solution. It's not the cheapest on the market.

We're a partner. We aren't an end-user. We are a managed security provider, and therefore we use this solution for our customers.

We always provide the latest version of the solution to our clients.

Typically, we use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It's quite good.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight.

We primarily use the solution for the various firewalls.

Cisco is powerful when it comes to detecting intrusions. It's better than, for example, Fortinet.

Cisco has multiple products - not just firewalls. The integration between other items provides a powerful end-to-end solution. It's nice and easy. There is one management system and visibility into all of the features. Using the same product is more powerful than using multiple systems. Cisco is known by most customers due to the fact that at least they have switches. However, when clients say "we need an end-to-end option" Cisco is there.

The stability is very good.

Technical support services are excellent.

Before an ASA, it was a live log. It was easy and comfortable to work with. After the next-generation firewall, Firepower, the live log became really slow. I cannot reach the information easily or quickly. This has only been the case since we migrated to next-generation firewalls.

There is some delay between the log itself. It's not really real-time. Let's say there's a delay of more than 20 seconds. If they had a monitoring system, something to minimize this delay, it would be good.

It would be ideal if I could give more bandwidth to certain sites, such as Youtube.

I work with Fortinet also, and I find that Fortinet is easier now. Before it was Cisco that was easier. Now Fortinet is simpler to work with.

On firewall features, Fortinet is better. Cisco needs to become more competitive and add more features or meet Fortinet's offering.

I've been using the solution since about 2003, when I originally implemented it.

The solution is extremely stable. We don't have any issues whatsoever. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It works well. Occasionally, it may need patches, however, there's very little downtime.

The scalability of the solution is very good. We have no trouble expanding the solution.

They have multiple products that fit in multiple areas. They also have virtual firewalls, which are working well in virtualization systems. They have the data center firewalls feature for data centers. It's scalable enough to cover most of the use cases that might arise.

Cisco offers excellent technical support.  They're useful and very responsive - depending on the situation itself. Sometimes we require the support of agents and we've found Cisco to have one of the best support systems in the market.

I also work with Fortinet, and it's my sense that, while Fortinet is getting easier to use, Cisco is getting harder to deal with.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's pretty straightforward.

A full deployment takes between two and three days. It's pretty quick to set up.

The pricing is neither cheap nor expensive. It's somewhere in the middle. If you compare it to Fortinet or Palo Alto, Fortinet is low and Palo Alto is very high. Cisco falls in the middle between the two.

As far as deployment options go, they often have more wiggle-room with discounts, especially for larger deployments. Therefore, in general, it ranges closer to Fortinet's pricing.

We're partners with Cisco, Fortinet, and Palo Alto.

I work with on-premises deployments and virtual firewalls, however, I don't use the cloud.

The solution works well for medium-sized enterprises.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd recommend users to layer in solutions. At the perimeter, if they have two tiers, I'd recommend Palo Alto as the first and then Cisco ASA as the second. Cisco can work on the data center or Fortinet. In the case of Fortinet, they have the best backline throughput from all of the other products.