Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We are using Cisco ASA Firewall 5525 for network security. We needed a network security solution that can take care of the network security and URL filtering. We also wanted to create site-to-site VPNs and have remote VPNs. For all these use cases, we got Cisco ASA, and we are pretty happy with it.

The remote VPN and IPsec VPN or site-to-site VPN features are valuable. The clustering feature is also valuable. We have two ISP links. Whenever there is a failover, users don't even get to know. The transition is very smooth, and the users don't notice any latency. So, remote VPN, site-to-site VPN, and failover are three very powerful features of Cisco ASA.

Cisco has the best documentation. You can easily find multiple documents by searching the web. Even a child can go online and find the required information.

There is huge scope for improvement in URL filtering. The database that they have is not accurate. Their content awareness and categorization for URL filtering are not that great. We faced many challenges with their categorization and content awareness. They should improve these categorization issues.

It is very reliable.

It is scalable. Cisco is pretty popular with organizations, and many customers are using it. It is suitable for all kinds of customers. It can cater to small, medium, and large organizations.

I have interacted with them many times. I have been on a call with their technical support continuously for 48 hours. They were very prompt. In terms of technical support and documentation for switching, firewall, and routing solutions, no one can match Cisco.

Its initial setup was very straightforward. Its documentation is very easily available on the web, which is very useful.

Their pricing is very aggressive and good. Even a small company can afford it. I am happy with its pricing. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others if they are not specifically looking for URL filtering and want to use it for their infrastructure. It is a perfect and very reliable solution, but it lacks when it comes to URL filtering. 

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

We use this solution for advanced IPS, IDS, advanced malware protection, and web filtering.

The most valuable features of this solution are advanced malware protection, IPS, and IDS.

web filtering needs to improve because cisco firepower sync with bright cloud website for the website category. sometimes your URL is falling in the wrong category because of the bright cloud. so if you want to change the category you will have to drop the mail to the bright cloud and they will take action and it's a very long procedure. 

more than 2 years

This is a very reliable solution.

I have extended my Cisco solution and did not have any trouble.

We have more than 400 users and we plan to increase usage.

The initial setup is very simple to deploy in the Egyptian network. It takes two to three days to deploy but if you are implementing AMP then it will take an extra one or two days.

I am happy with the product in general, including the pricing.

We evaluated a Sophos firewall but when I checked the reviews, I found that Sophos did not rate as well in terms of IPS, IDS, and malware protection.

Cisco utilizes BrightCloud for URL filtering. Web filtering is the main problem with this product.

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that if they want good security, compared to other offerings such as those by Check Point and Palo Alto, then they should implement Cisco Firepower.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to operate that LAN environment over the internet and use the public and private networks separately. It's a very good firewall in terms of security, in terms of certain scenarios, and also from an ethical hacking point of view. Both are available in our environment. Both are doing great.

Cisco, obviously, gives you a great amount of reliability which comes in handy. The brand is recognized as being strong. 

Even in very big environments, Cisco comes in handy with configuration and offers reliability when it comes to managing multiple items on one platform. You are able to integrate Firepower and all AMP. With so many items to configure, I haven't yet done them all, however, I hope to.

It's great for securing the network. You learn a lot.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability of the solution is very good.

Most of the firewalls almost 90%, 95% of the firewalls will move to GUI. This is the area which needs to be improved. The graphical interface and the monitoring level of the firewall need to be worked on. 

Most of us are using the monitoring software where we get the alarm, then details of the servers, et cetera. This aspect needs to be much updated. 

From just the security point of view, in the security, it needs to be updated every day and every week. It is getting better day by day, however, from a monitoring point of view is not the same view as we have on the different monitoring servers or monitoring software, such as PRTG and Solarwinds. It needs to be changed and improved.

Cisco has launched its multiple products separately. Where there's a new version of the hardware, there is Firepower in it. However, there must be a solution for an integrated version that includes everything in your network and your firewall as well so that you can manage and integrate from the same web portal without going to every device and just configuring it and just doing everything separately. 

It would be ideal if a solution can be configured separately and then managed centrally on one end.

We have more than one Cisco firewall and it is difficult for me to integrate both on the single UI. If I have three firewalls and one is a normal firewall, I need to configure everything separately. I can't have it on the same port or integrated on the same single IP or bind it something like it.

We've mostly used Cisco solutions for two or three years at this point. Our old Cisco devices were due to be changed, and we moved over to ASA.

The firewall is stable, however, every two, three, or four years, you have to change the hardware and therefore get an updated version of the firewall.

This is something which companies have been doing for the sake of a new product and launching a new device. Yet, the stability needs to be considered where you have to upgrade for every two, three, four years and change the product and go for the new updated version. What I mean is that there is stability, however, obviously, it's not long-term.

The firewall is very scalable. Most contact versions are available depending upon the organization you have. It works for very large organizations. They are scalable for many scenarios. The scalability obviously is there for sure.

Cisco technical support is one of the best around. They have the most advanced and most experienced level of tech support I've been in contact with. Whether it is a hardware or software issue, the tech team can support you and help. They are very helpful and knowledgeable. We are quite satisfied with the level of support on offer. 

We also have experience using FortiGate.

The Cisco firewall is straightforward. It isn't a complex implementation. Obviously, you have to bind your IP on the port and then you must go on to configure for security and something like that. It's easy for me to configure a firewall at such a level.

If you pay for the hardware, you get the Firepower and if you don't, then you get the Cisco Firewall. 

We are just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Obviously, you need to have one tech person on your online when you are configuring it, or just implementing when you are integrating with your live environment and organization. My advice is that the configuration is easy when a network engineer like myself handles it. A trained person is more than capable of the task. Other than configuring, a less technical person can manage the solution.  

I am using the solution as a firewall.

I like the IPS feature, it is the most valuable.

I do not like the assembly of this solution. For example, they should combine FirePOWER into one solution.

I have used Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point previously and I prefer the process of everything working together. We are in the process of moving on to Fortinet from this solution.

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall a six out of ten.

We are using it to manage our environment.

The whole firewall functionality, including firewall policies and IPS policies, is valuable. It has all kinds of functionalities. It has IPS, VPN, and other features. They are doing quite a lot of stuff with their devices.

It lacks management. For me, it still doesn't have a proper management tool or GUI for configuration, logging, and visualization. Its management is not that easy. It is also not very flexible and easy to configure. They used to have a product called CSM, but it is no longer being developed. FortiGate is better than this solution in terms of GUI, flexibility, and user-friendliness.

I have been using this solution for five to ten years.

It is rather stable. It can have some peculiarities, but most of the time, it is quite stable.

These are big devices. They have multiple models, but most of the models can be virtualized. You can create many virtual firewalls and add whatever you want.

We faced some issues, but I don't deal with these issues. My colleague interacts with them, and it seems it is not that easy. Cisco is a large company, and sometimes, it is not easy to get quick and very efficient support.

We have a firewall specialist who handles the installation.

It is affordable. The hardware is not that expensive anymore. It is a matter of licensing these days. 

It is a good solution for a big traffic load, but its management is not very easy. FortiGate is better in terms of management and user-friendliness.

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

I use it for VPNs, remote-access VPNs, environment issues, and failover issues. I also use the
content mode, NAT, and PAT in this firewall. We always use ASA for VPN sites and firewall sites. We use the edge for internet access for data center servers or company customers' internet access.

We always use ASA for integration another companies  and branches easily. 

The Inline Mode configuration works really well, and ASA works very impressively.

I think the ASA layer is thin. It's always Layer 3 or Layer 4 source controller and doesn't control the Layer 7 traffic at all. It's important, and you'll need an additional firewall. 

All next-generation firewalls don't have much control over Layer 7, but there's a little bit of control for inspection. ASA never controlled Layer 7, and it's a bad point.

 I don't like to use ASDM, a graphical interface, and other solutions for ASA. I wouldn't say I like this, and it's not good(ASDM).

I have over seven years of experience with Cisco ASA Firewall.

It's stable. ASA works very well, and it's impressive. I use only ASA and only the Inline Mode. 

It's a scalable, high availability solution. It's an active/standby model for VPN. But if you don't use VPN in these devices, it works as an active/active high availability model.

If you're a Cisco Administrator or Cisco certified, the initial setup isn't a problem. But if you don't know Cisco devices and how they work, it can get a little complicated.

I would advise new users to look at next-generation firewalls like FTD or other models from Cisco. It's better than Cisco ASA. Cisco ASA Firewall isn't a next-generation firewall.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ASA Firewall an eight.

We are using the solution for airports.

The Cisco NGFW is an excellent fit for purpose for our network security.

I have been using the solution for five years.

We have not had to deal with stability issues.

The support of the solution is great, their staff is perfect.

My team tells me that other solutions such as Fortinet and Palo Alto are easier to implement.

People have said that Palo Alto is a less expensive solution than Cisco, but in my experience, at least from today, Cisco is cheaper than Palo Alto. 

I do not hear anything bad about the competition. I am difficult to change my ways and learn a new product. Unless somebody comes and makes a SWOT analysis and shows me the evidence of how the alternative is better, I am fine with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall an eight out of ten.

Most of our use cases revolve around the basic firewall features. Our client is also leveraging on Anyconnect, which is serving the client-based VPN. Sometimes they will establish a VPN connection from one firewall with another. It's the type-for-type VPN. In terms of Cisco, typically, these are just some of the legacy features, that's what we use. In terms of a next-gen firewall, I feel that our customers would prefer to use other brands like Palo Alto, Check Point, and FortiGate.

Our clients who use this solution are typically small businesses. I think there's a Gartner chart that says that Palo Alto is actually the foreleader, followed by Check Point, then FortiGate. Cisco is not anywhere near. From a cybersecurity standpoint, they are quite weak.

They need to do an overhaul of the management console because they are still using the client-based management tool, which is quite outdated in terms of functionality and usability. The interface hasn't changed since the last generation many years back.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for roughly four years.

It is extremely stable I would say — at least after you deploy it. Typically, there won't be any instability in terms of the hardware as well as the software. It can be running for many years without any issues. It's a totally different story when compared to other brands because, out-of-the-box, they offer far more features and are actually leveraged on more resources which leads to more instability.

I would say in terms of scalability, they are still the greatest family of products. Scalability means you can actually add on some processing parts to actually increase the throughput when the requirement comes up. They have a range of products for that, but this solution, it's already going out of phase, because at JSC, you can only allow up to a certain amount of upgrades that can be added on.

Support is not a requirement. In the whole industry, there are a lot of Cisco-trained personnel that we can actually seek advice from. There's not much leveraging on the Cisco support so far.

If our clients need support, we provide it. Support is not cheap. Sometimes a device will go out of warranty, but the customers are not willing to renew the support contract. Of course, there are a lot of cheaper alternatives. In Singapore, a lot of companies outsource support. Most of the time we go through third-party companies instead of Cisco directly.

For a non-Cisco guy like me, there is quite a substantial amount of learning that needs to be done to actually understand how the products are. Some brands like FortiGate, require only an hour and 15 minutes to enable the product, to facilitate the basic requirements of connecting up the traffic and adding on the firewall router. For Cisco, there are levels of challenges because it's a hardened solution that sees a lot of restrictions right out of the box.

Without really understanding how it works, then there'll be a lot of confusion regarding the traffic, etc. You'll find yourself wondering if there are any security concerns if you alter it out-of-the-box. The management console is quite outdated; usually, a lot of configuration is through Commander. We really need to understand how to articulate the Cisco Commander to perform even the most basic feature.

We handle the implementation for our customers. 

I am a sales engineer, we are mainly in charge of selling the product. In terms of support, we have a department that covers that aspect. Sometimes after implementation, we also provide maintenance support services towards the whole project and sell it as a whole bundle. As a distributor, we also sell our products, our equipment, and devices. So the support team covers that aspect.

We sell Cisco ASA Firewall as a bundle — the price is very cheap. If a customer were to go for renewal direct from Cisco, then the price would be quite high.

My main concern is the full revamp of the management console. We'd like to see a more user-friendly total revamp of how to manage the firewall rules. Also, there are a lot of additional features that need to be granular because with Cisco, at this point in time, all these features are still working in silos. A lot of integration needs to be done in general. 

Personally, I would discourage people from using Cisco. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of six.

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. 

I often work with financial sector companies such as banks as well as retail organizations.

The solution offers very easy configurations.

The administration of the solution is very good.

The product integrates well with other products.

The initial setup can be a bit complex for those unfamiliar with the solution.

There are better solutions in terms of border security. Palo Alto, for example, seems to be a bit more advanced. 

The cost of the solution is very high. Fortinet, as an example, has good pricing, whereas Cisco has very high costs in comparison.

We've used the solution recently. We've used it at least over the last 12 months or so.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. I don't recall having issues with this aspect of the solution.

This particular product does not have high availability and therefore scalability is limited.

You need a pretty sizable solution for a center.

We have about 300 clients using this solution, and therefore the amount of people on the solution is very high, however, I don't have the exact number of users across all clients. For solutions providers, we have IT solutions for maybe around 5,000 users.

I have experience working with technical support from Cisco. It's very easy to contact them and talk with them. There were times we worked using email, for example, for communication. We also worked with Cisco engineers in Mexico directly. We're very satisfied with the level of service so far.

We also work with Fortinet and Palo Alto, for example. As a reseller, we work with many solutions.

I did not directly implement the solution. I don't have the right type of expertise. You need to know a bit about what you are doing, otherwise, the initial setup is a bit complex.

You may need, for example, a separate management device for this kind of solution. It's quite difficult to handle if you don't have in-depth knowledge.

The cost of the solution is quite high. It's very expensive compared to other options. For example, Fortinet is much more reasonably priced.

I am working for a Cisco seller in Mexico, and we have a relationship with Cisco. We are a gold partner. We ensure that the development is of the proper sizing for our clients.  

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've had a very good experience so far. The only downside is that it's not as advanced as, for example, Palo Alto. That said, if you have the right skills to manipulate the configuration capabilities, Cisco is quite good.