Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our primary use case is whatever is best for our customer. I'm the service provider. The customer's main purpose is to use the malware services protection and the firewall itself, as well as the application awareness feature.

My client company is Cisco Oriented. They wanted to leverage something which is equivalent that can give them the next gen features like application awareness and intrusion protection. That is a major reason they were looking forward to this. The original ASA firewall did not have these features. This was the major reason the customer moved on to Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD). Now they can go ahead and leverage those functionalities.

Firepower is an okay product. However, it is better as a firewall than the IPS or other services it provides.

I was trying to learn how this product actually operates and one thing that I see from internal processing is that it does fire-walling and then sends it to the IPS model and any other model that needs to be performed. For example, content checking or filtering will be done in a field processing manner. That is something that causes delays in the network, from a security perspective. That is something that can be improved upon. Palo Alto already has implemented this as a pilot passed processing. They put the same stream of data across multiple modules at the same time and see if it is giving a positive result by using an XR function. Something similar can be done in Cisco Firepower. Instead of single processing or in a sequential manner, they can do something similar to pile processing. An internal function that is something that they can improve upon.

They can also improve on cost because Cisco is normally expensive and that's the reason customers do not buy them.

Also, if they could provide integration with Cisco Umbrella, that would actually improve the store next level. Integration is one thing that I would definitely want.

From a technical perspective, maybe they could simplify the CLI. That is one thing that I would like to be implemented because Cisco ASA or Cisco, in general, is usually good at simple CLIs. That is one thing that I saw lacking in FTD. Maybe because they got it from another vendor. They're trying to integrate the product.

Two years

From a stability diagnosis, once I did the deployment it did not give me any issue for at least six to eight months. Once it went to a stable support, I did not see major problems. I don't think there were issues with stability.

However, the core upgrades frequently come in, so you need to be carefully devising that support management. From a stability perspective, if you are happy with your current stuff and you do not require past updates it would be very stable. If you're using an IPS, the only challenge would be past management. With Cisco having cloud integration and just firing one command and getting things done, it is still okay. It is a good stable product.

We have only one or two firewalls as a site data center firewall.

From what I have studied, they are scalable. You can have eight firewalls integrated with the FTP devices. I don't think scalability would be an issue but I do not have a first-hand answer on that.

There are approximately 2,500 customer base users using Cisco Firepower. It's a data center firewall, so all the sites integrate for one data center.

You do not need extra staff to maintain Firepower. One field technician engineer, FTE would be sufficient and should not be a problem. I don't think extra staff would be needed. For support, for instance, you need one person.

They have very good documentation, so there's a small chance you will actually need technical support. I would give kudos to the Cisco documentation. That would be the answer.

I have not tried the support because most of it has been solved with the documentation. Nevertheless, Cisco support has typically been a pleasant experience. I don't think that would be a problem with this.

We did previously use a different solution. They had two different solutions. One was Cisco ASA itself and before that, they used Check Point.

We are a Cisco company and that's the reason they are moving from one Cisco product to another Cisco product, which was better than the previous one. So, that was a major reason for the switch. I would say the other vendors are improving. This company was just Cisco oriented so they wanted something Cisco.

The initial setup is a bit difficult. Other vendors are doing the app integration solution. The initial setup was medium in complexity.

You need to install the Firepower CLI. You need to log into that and then you'll need to sit down to connect to the ASA and configure the ASA level services. You also need a Firepower management station for it to work appropriately. The setup is serious and a bit complex.

In my scenario, because I had to learn the entire technology over there and then apply it, it took me around two weeks time to do it. Then the integration, improvisation, and stuff that normally happens took some extra time. You can safely say around two to four weeks period is what it normally takes for deployment. This is based on how the company evaluates the product. It depends on how much you know at that point.

Usually, for the deployment, the company works with Cisco, so they only use Cisco products. I am a DIY person, I did the deployment myself.

We normally license on a yearly basis.

The hardware procurement cost should be considered. If you're virtual maybe that cost is eradicated and just the licensing cost is applied. If you have hardware the cost must be covered by you. 

All the shipping charges will be paid by you also.

I don't think there are any other hidden charges though.

We gave them Palo Alto as an alternative option. I think they were more into Cisco. They did not evaluate the Palo Alto though, they just opted for Cisco.

If you're really looking into Cisco Firepower, they have a good product, but I would say study hard and look around. If you want an easier product, you can always use Palo Alto. If you are a Cisco guy and you want to be with Cisco, you'll need to get an integration service engineer from the Cisco side. That will actually help you out a lot. Alternatively, maybe you can go for Palo Alto. That would be the best thing to do.

If you are not worried about the technical integration part and learning how it works and how well it can go with the environment, I would recommend you go ahead and take an integration engineer with you. Doing a POC could be troublesome for you. We have professional services. You can leverage that.

If you do not want to invest much money on all that stuff you can go ahead and hire someone who's already aware. Or if not, you can use any other vendor like Palo Alto.

The primary use case of for Cisco firewalls is to segment our network. We're using them on the perimeter network for traffic filtering. Since deploying them, we have seen a maturing of the security in our organization. 

We're using both the FTD 2100 and 4100. We have about 40 sites that are using our approximately 80 FTDs. We have about 2,000 users.

It has helped us to solve some problems regarding auditor recommendations. We used to have some audit recommendations that we were not able to comply with. With FTD deployed we have been able to be in compliance around our 36 remote sites.

Before deploying them we had a lot of incidents of internet slowness and issues with site access, as well as computers that had vulnerabilities. But as soon as we deployed them we were able to track these things. It has helped the user-experience regarding connectivity and security. 

In addition, it is giving us a better view regarding the traffic profile and traffic path. And we can categorize applications by utilization, by users, etc.

The solution has, overall, made us twice as productive and, in terms of response time for resolving issues or to identify root causes, we are three times more effective and efficient.

We can easily track unauthorized users and see where traffic is going. It is very useful.

FTD is also fully integrated with Talos. We are in the process of acquiring it and we will integrate it. That way we will have everything from Talos to do correlations.

We would like to see improvement in recovery. If there is an issue that forces us to do recovery, we have to restart or reboot. In addition, sometimes we have downtime during the maintenance windows. If Cisco could enhance this, so that upgrades would not necessarily require downtime, that would be helpful.

We would also like to have a solution on the cloud, where we could manage the configuration. CDO is in the ASA mode. If Cisco could do it in full FTD — the configuration, the administration, and everything — it would be very good, and easy.

The solution is stable. Last year, we deployed it in more 32 countries and it has been stable since the deployment. We haven't had any issues with the firewall. If we have any issues, it is usually due to the power. The solution itself is stable.

It's scalable.

Tech support is able to resolve 70 percent of the issues. In case of an emergency, we can open a case because we have a contract for Smart Net support on the devices. In case of an issue, we open a case and we get assistance.

Before FirePOWER we were using the ASA.

At the beginning, it was complex, but we were able to develop a step-by-step implementation. Now, we can deploy one in about two hours, including integration testing, physical testing, configuration, and applying the rules.

We have in-house engineers for the deployment. We haven't used external, third-parties. We are a big institution, based in 36 countries. The team that is focused on this deployment is a team of five. The person who is handling the implementation will be in contact with a local engineer at the remote site, and will assist him, remotely, to do the testing and follow the steps to deploy.

The one-time cost is affordable, but the maintenance cost and the Smart Net costs need to be reduced. They're too high. A company like ours, that has about 80 firewalls, has to multiple the maintenance cost per device by 80. Cisco should find a way to provide some kind of enterprise support. We don't want to buy support per unit of equipment. It would be easier for everybody.

We are using about ten different security tools, including analytics, monitoring, threat management, and email security. What we have integrated is the ISE and FTD but the third-party solutions are not fully integrated.

We had legacy Sourcefire Sensors and ASA state full firewalls.

Cisco offered the FTD NGFW solution, but the implementation of the two systems was not successful.

The firepower sensors have been great; they do a good job of dropping unwanted traffic.

The VDB updates run on schedule, so less hands-on configuration is needed.

The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed.

We are moving completely away from Cisco NGFW.  The product was pushed out before it was ready.

It's hard to judge how much time it saves our organization because it's doing things you don't realize. For example, when it's blocking web advertisements, when it's blocking phishing, when it's blocking geolocation, the time it saves is because of the things you might have had to deal with that, now, you don't. Any time we have some kind of internet-related event, it's definitely going to take us hours worth of time. We have to do an investigation, we have to report on it, we have to write something up. By protecting our environment it probably saves our security analysts a fair number of hours during the week.

It's the brick wall that keeps us from the bad guys. It does a lot of things. In the beginning when you just have a firewall, of course, it's your NAT and it's your Access Control List. It's the thing that allows traffic in and out. There is some routing involved in that too. But once you add Firepower onto to it and you start enabling some of its features, you get some IDS/IPS involved with it and you can even do web filtering.

We used to do some web filtering on the Firepower but we moved into Umbrella once we started. We do use Firepower for one piece of web filtering because Umbrella has yet to provide it: advertisement blocking. We don't allow our end-users to go into advertisements. If they're going to go to a site, they have to know what the site is, not just try to hit some kind of Google ad to get to it because those can be dangerous.

In Firepower, there is an ability to search and dig into a search, which is nice. However, I'm not a super fan of the way it scrolls. If you want to look at something live, it's a lot different. You're almost waiting. With the ASDM, where it just flows, you can really see it. The second someone clicks something or does something, you'll see it. The refresh rate on the events in Firepower is not as smooth. It's definitely usable, though. You can get a lot of good information out of it.

It's hard to stay on the bleeding edge on firewalls because you have to be careful with how they integrate with Firepower. If you update one you have to update the other. They definitely have some documentation that says if you're at this version you can go to this version of Firepower, but you need to be careful with that.

We've been using Firepower for two to three years.

It's pretty stable. There are times where I'll get an email saying a process has stopped. But a few seconds later, they'll say it restarted it on its own. It's hardy enough that if it is having problems, it's bringing things back up. For the most part, it's been very reliable.

It's been really good. And even so, if I've had to reboot the actual appliance, I'll bring it back up and it's good to go.

We haven't hit that issue of scalability. We have increased the amount of traffic through it and it's handled it, but I think that's also a product of the ASA as well. If the ASA is going to choke, Firepower is going to choke as well.

We're going to be bringing in two new firewalls, as early as the fourth quarter or first quarter of 2020, and those are going to be pure FTD appliances. We'll probably be using those a little bit more extensively. I don't think we're going to be using the SSL portion, but we'll probably have the IDS/IPS, and we'll probably have the AMP turned on. That's because with the endpoints, we're not sure if we're going to be able to install an antivirus, so we can at least watch that. We'll probably use most of the suite on it.

I've always liked Cisco support. We're a pretty big Cisco shop, so you're not going to hear a lot of complaints from me about support. And not only that, but if I do have a problem with Cisco support, we get ahold of somebody - our customer-success people and the salespeople from Cisco who are focused on our organization - and we get help. It's very good.

Sometimes, I'll have to contact the first tier of tech support. I'll still open up a case. But in case that, for whatever reason, is not going to our satisfaction, at least we have a chain of command we can go through and talk to some different people. We might get it escalated if we're just not getting something fixed on time. But Cisco has very top-notch support.

We've been with Cisco and haven't had anything else yet. We haven't had a desire to move in a different direction. We've stayed with it because of how good it is.

We were initially introduced to Firepower by a consultant. At that time, it was for the web filtering because the web filtering we had was awful. We were using Sophos. Without getting too derogatory, it was just awful. There was no alerting and it was very hard to manage, whereas this is really easy to manage. With Cisco, it was very easy to set up content groups, to allow some users to get to some stuff and other users to not get to it. That's where it really started. There weren't any pros to Sophos that weren't in Firepower. We got rid of Sophos.

Our organization is a big believer in training, So I attended a five-day class on this. From that, I was able to set it up pretty easily.

We have a virtual appliance. Once it actually installs and we set IPs and got some of the base set up, it was done within about a day. But the time it takes will depend. We're not an organization that has 10,000 users. We're probably a medium enterprise, of about 400+ users, rather than a large enterprise, so our ruleset is comparatively small. As a result, it didn't take me as long as it might for some, a total of two or three days, and that's even with fine-tuning. But because we're still using the ASA and the ASDM, we still have those rules in the firewall. We're not really at the FTD point where all the rules are in there. If we were, to migrate it would probably take some time.

For me, it was relatively simple because of the valuable training I had. There are some good resources online, don't get me wrong. It was just nice to be able to do something hands-on at a place, in training, and then come back and be able to do it.

The neat thing is that the gentleman who taught us, instead of just teaching us the material from a book or even, "This is how you can pass the Firepower test," taught us how he would go into a Fortune 100 and set up an organization. I had almost a step-by-step lesson on how to keep going through the configurations to get to a finished product.

With a firewall, you're always coming back to it to tweak it a little bit. You might find, "Oh, I'm not getting the logging a lot," or, "Oh boy, this rule is doing this, but maybe I want to tighten it down a little bit more." But to get the base configuration, to get the objects in, it takes about a couple of days. At that point, you can at least have traffic going through it. You may not be blocking anything, but you can be monitoring things.

It was just me.

The return on investment would be the fact that I'm just not spending a lot of time either searching for things or trying to stop what's coming in and out of our network. The return on investment is the time I would have to spend during the day looking at things versus it proactively doing its job.

We're going to get to a point, not this year and not the coming year, probably going into 2021, where we're going to want to replace the ASA appliances with either virtuals or actual physicals. But the Firepower series of appliances is not cheap.

I just got a quote recently for six firewalls that was in the range of over half-a-million dollars. That's what could push us to look to other vendors, if the price tag is just so up there. I'm using these words "fictitiously," but if it's going to be outlandish, as a customer, we would have to do our due diligence and look at other solutions at that point.

In addition to that cost, there are licensing fees for some of the individual things like AMP, the IPS/IDS piece. It depends on what you want to use, such as the SSL piece and the VPN piece, which we don't use.

We haven't evaluated any other options. The only thing that may ever force us in that direction would be cost. Only if the cost of the solution got so large would we have to look at something comparable.

The neat part about this is how Cisco continues to evolve its product line and help us stay secure, while still doing our day-to-day business.

My advice would depend on how you want to use it. What are you looking for Firepower to do?

Firepower added features that, until we introduced into our environment, we could not have done. We probably could have added a third-party product but we would hate to keep doing all that. It's nice to be able to have our products from the same organization because then, if something's really wrong, we can talk to the same organization as we're trying to troubleshoot something through our environment. We use Cisco switches, Cisco routers, we use ISE, and Umbrella. We have a lot of products through Cisco.

We use the ACLs. We use the intrusion side, just to watch traffic. We have used the malware and have actually caught stuff in there. We do have a DNS policy so that at least we can check to make sure someone's not going to a bogus site; things can get blocked for that, but Umbrella is really good at what it does. We also have it connected to our Active Directory so I can see which users are going where, and that is valuable. But I can also see that in Umbrella, so there's some overlap.

For managing the solution it's me and at least one other person. I'm the primary resource on it.

We used to use AMP for endpoints through the Firepower but we decided to discontinue that. We have AMP on all our endpoints but with all the other things we have, such as Umbrella, we were satisfied enough with the security we have. We didn't want two different things possibly stopping files instead of having one console area to be able to see those kinds of things.

Overall, I would rate Firepower at eight out of ten. Every product can improve. But for what we're looking to do, it does a very good job.

We are a reseller and system integrator, and this is one of the solutions that we provide for our end users. We have experience with many firewall products from different vendors.

The specific use case depends on the customer and their environment. They design the firewalls, and we supply the appropriate equipment.

The majority of deployments are on private networks.

The most valuable feature of the Firepower solution is FireSIGHT, which can be easily managed and is user-friendly.

The performance and the level of throughput need to be improved. This would make things easier for us.

I would like to see the inclusion of more advanced antivirus features in the next release of this solution.

Adding internet accounting features would also be a good improvement.

This solution is completely stable, and we have not had any issues.

Scalability of this solution is ok. They have the IPS (Intrusion Prevention System), online updates, and signature updates.

One customer might have, for example, two hundred and fifty users, whereas another might have one hundred users. There are different models for different numbers of end-users.

Technical support is ok, and we have had no problem with them.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

The price of this solution is not good or bad. It is ok.

This is a solution that I recommend.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from working with this solution is to always update the firewall. If you do not have the latest updates then it will not function well, so always keep it up to date.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is to protect data from unauthorized access.

The most valuable feature of this solution is AMP (Advanced Malware Protection), as this is really needed to protect against cyber threats.

The IPS is a must for a firewall.

The firewall throughput is limited to something like 1.2 Gbps, but sometimes we require more. Cisco makes another product, Firepower Threat Defence (FTD), which is a dedicated appliance that can achieve more than ten or twenty gigabits per second in terms of throughput.

I have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved.

This is a reliable solution.

We started with version 5.4, but there were many releases available on the website and we were obliged to aggregate, step by step, to reach the current version.

This solution is really scalable and reliable. In my opinion, Cisco products are always scalable.

Cisco has a very good team for support. They are always available, and they give you a flexible solution. It is not just about getting a solution. We are learning, as well, when we request assistance. They also have a knowledge base that we can access in order to find resolutions for problems.

We were using the SonicWall solution prior to this one, but it reached end-of-life because we had updated our architecture. This is why we migrated to a next-generation firewall. We had also been using Fortinet FortiGate.

The initial setup of this solution was a bit complex because it was a new technology for us. We did find documentation on the vendor's website, and it also helped that we found some videos on how to do the configuration.

Our initial deployment took approximately three months because we were learning from scratch. We still had some service requests open because we could not fine-tune the solution, and ultimately it took a full year to fully deploy.

This solution is managed by the qualified people in our network engineering team. 

We tried to deploy this solution by ourselves, but our team was not quite qualified to implement this solution. It was a good opportunity for us to learn about it. 

We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months. In terms of licensing, this product costs a lot, but this cost can save my assets that could be millions for my company. There is no choice.

We did have knowledge of other products, but we chose this solution because it facilitates the sharing of information with their knowledge base. It helps you learn from scratch.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is not to think twice about it. There are a lot of features that come with the cost. These institutions secure our network and they have to do research. The price of this solution is justified when you consider that it secures our network and protects our valuable assets.

This is a very good solution but it is not perfection.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this program is network protection.

Up until now we haven't been down due to issues with the internet connection or denial of service, so the program does what it claims to do.

The firewalls of this program protects my internet from dangerous internet sites. For us, Cisco is the number one in firewall protection. We are seeking to buy another UTM solution for band management.

The program is very expensive.

We haven't had any problems with the stability so far.

We have 500 users working on the solution and I believe it may increase, so I believe the program is scalable.

The technical support from the company is very good. They are always available when we have problems.

We did use another UTM solution before for firewall, URL and band management. We didn't switch, we just have two layers now. If we want to use Cisco for band management or URL safety, we have to pay a license fee and it is very expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward and it took the company about a day to deploy the firewalls.

The licensing is very expensive.

In the future, I would like to see friendlier configuration and only one license because everything needs a license. You need a URL license, security license, everything is based on a license. I would like to have one license that covers everything. But I am really impressed by the program and my rating is nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for internet access firewalls.

The solution allows you to be more agile and react faster.

The Sourcefire stuff itself is the most valuable feature. Signature detection, intrusion detection, IDS, and IPS are all very good. AMP is very useful. I like that you can put it onto devices as well.  The aggregated views in FMC that you get when you're a global shop which is centralized, and then offers gateways per region. In Europe, America and APAC, you have all the data coming together in the FMC. That's quite nice.

The FMC could be a little bit faster.

It will be nice if they had what you traditionally would use a web application scanner for. If the solution could take a deeper look into HTTP and HTTPS traffic, that would be nice.

The stability of the solution is very good. We can see that it gets even better with every release.

For us, the scalability is good, because we sized everything right, right from the beginning. If you size it right, it's very good. We don't plan on adding more firewalls, unless we suddenly grow exponentially, which we're not expecting to do at this point.

We only contacted technical support during initial implementation and that was all handled by the consultant. I have a lot of other Cisco related tickets open, so we're used to the process.

I would say, however, that we're also using Meraki, and the Meraki support is way better, in my opinion. 

Cisco support tends to take longer, and I mean really long given the fact that subject matter is sometimes also more complicated, so it really depends. When you compare that directly to Meraki, Meraki answers the same day, and I cannot say that about the legacy Cisco support items. I can understand that the market for the legacy service is so much bigger for Cisco, so I can see why it takes longer.

The initial setup was complex because we had to migrate old ASA firewalls. The ACLs, or rather the policies, are very different now, and way more elaborate, so that that took some tweaking, and some consulting and some time. 

Deployment took two months. We had to make sure that our old ACL base settings from the ASAs were correctly translated and implemented into the new FTD setups.

We used a consultant to assist with implementation.

We've looked at a few options, but we have an internal policy that says, unless noted otherwise, network equipment has to be Cisco based. We had to go with a Cisco product.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

My advice for those considering the solution is this: if you want to migrate something, plan enough time for testing before you come over to the solution. You should also watch as many webinars as you can about that solution, or get a consultant and do a proper lab set up and go through the whole thing with them. It's is definitely worthwhile, given the complexity of the whole product.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.