Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

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 tend to use the solution as it's forced on us by corporate. Our company wants us to use it.

The solution is stable. We haven't had any issues in that sense.

The security of the hardware is excellent. Cisco is very serious in its approach to security.

We have a high level of trust in Cisco and its products.

The solution is excellent for enterprise-level networks.

The solution is difficult to use. There's more required than a typical firewall. It's different than, for example, Palo Alto and Fortinet, which we find are easier to set up. 

If the implementation was easier, it would be a lot better for us.

It would be such a great product for us if it was easier to manage.

I've been working with the solution for more than ten years. It's been a long time. It's been over a decade at this point.

The solution is quite stable. We have no problems with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

We've found the solution to be scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with expanding it if it needs to.

We have about 300 users on the solution currently. We do plan to continue to use Cisco in the future.

We use third-party technical support that's offered and we're quite satisfied with the level of attention we receive.

I have knowledge of Palo Alto and Fortinet.

While those two are easier to set up and control, nothing compares to Cisco in terms of security. They're very strong in that regard. We also find Cisco to be more stable.

However, we only use Cisco firewalls in our organization. We don't use anything else.

The implementation is not so straightforward. It's rather complex and we have a lot of trouble with it.

The implementation took us about one month.

We plan to implement an updated version next month as well.

We need three to eight people to handle the setup.

I did not handle the implementation by myself. Rather, it's done by another team including the original support from Singapore and with license support from headquarters in Japan.

However, our team does handle the implementation in-house, and we can handle the setup for clients as well.

We do need to purchase licenses. Those come from headquarters in Japan. They handle the details in terms of pricing. I'm not sure of the overall costs.

We're both a customer of Cisco and a reseller.

This month we plan to upgrade from our existing hardware.

Overall, we've been happy with the results we've gotten. I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We primarily provide implementation and maintenance services to our clients.

The software itself is very simple.

The solution is easy to operate. It's not overly complex.

The command line is the same as it is on the Cisco iOS router.

The technical support is very helpful and responsive.

The solution needs to have better logging features.

Cisco needs to migrate its ASA Firewall to a management console or to a web console.

I've been working with the solution for six years at this point.

The solution is largely stable. Once we adopted Cisco services, we found that everything was pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The scalability is a problem as the solution has a low throughput.

We've been in touch with technical support and I've always found them easy to reach. They're responsive and helpful. I find their service much better than, for example, Fortinet or Palo Alto. Overall, we're satisfied with Cisco with respect to their technical support.

We have some experience working with Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions as well.

While I don't have the exact pricing of the solution, it's my understanding that Cisco is rather costly. It's not the cheapest option on the market. It's expensive. It's more costly, for example than Palo Alto.

We have a gold partnership status with Cisco, however, we are also partners with companies such as Fortinet and Palo Alto.

For a next-generation firewall, I would likely recommend Palo Alto. However, if a company had the budget, I would recommend Fortinet. That said, for a VPN gateway, I would recommend Cisco ASA.

In general, I would rate Cisco's ASA Firewall at seven out of ten.

We use Cisco ASA for traffic control.

It's a flexible solution.

The configuration is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see the UI include or provide web access, and more integration.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for five years.

We are not using the latest version, as it is not available.

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

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 2,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue to use it.

Technical support provides us with good service.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy for us because we have experience.

It was already deployed when I arrived.

We have two or three guys for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product that I would recommend to others.

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

The feature I have found most valuable is the IPS advanced threat detection for removing ransomware and malware.

An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization.

I have been using this solution for two months.

The solution is stable.

The customer service/technical support is very good with this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took two weeks to deploy. Currently, 5000 employees use this solution in our company.

The solution was chosen because of its price compared to other similar solutions.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

This is a product that is used at the infrastructure level to protect the network from outside traffic.

The most valuable feature is stability.

When using this product, our network is slower. The performance should be improved.

The installation could be made easier.

We have been working with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for more than two years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Support from Cisco is good enough.

The installation can be easy, although it is slightly more difficult to install than Fortinet FortiGate. One day is enough for deployment but it takes a long time to configure.

I deployed Firepower with support from the team in India.

We have a team of three people for deployment and maintenance.

The price of Firepower is not bad compared to other products.

This is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.