Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

I use Firepower for all kind of customers; healthcare, government, banks etc. All all of them have different use cases and requirements. In most cases, I would mostly end up with enterprises or government organizations. If you are already have all Cisco gears, I would suggest to consider it as it will allow you to have a more integrated approach toward other network components.                                                                                      

I will definitely recommend it to any customer. But, it all depends on the requirements and money you have. But the Intrusion Prevention and anti-malware is really good with this solution. Overall, it is a really good product.

I remember a customer who was using another firewall product and they had serious issues in intrusion and malware detection and prevention. Plus, the reporting was not that detailed. I did a demo with these people with FTDv and FMCv and they were amazed with the solution.

The Firepower+ISE+AMP for endpoint integration is something that really stands it out with other vendor solutions. They have something called pxGrid and i think it is already endorsed by IETF.  This allows all devices on the network to communicate. I find it to be a more proactive approach as all devices collaborate with ISE in real time. I did a demo for a customer and there were no second thoughts in the usability of the solution. You should give it a try to find out more about how this works.

The product line does not address the SMB market as it is supposed to do. Cisco already has an on-premises sandbox solution. They should include a cloud-based sandbox as part of the security subscription service. In my experience, apart from the expensive price, SMB customers are lured away by other vendor solutions because of these reasons.                      

I work for a systems integrator, who is also a partner for Cisco and other security vendors. I have a reasonable hands-on with different firewall products. I have been doing it since v6.1 release. Firepower is a bit difficult and takes time to learn.

I did use and deploy different firewall solutions for various customers. But every customer has his own pain points. For example, for one of the customers, he was purely looking for URL filtering. We went with Sangfor IAM in that case. They have a very strong focus on application and URL filtering and user behavior management. Plus, reporting was very extensive. 

In my country, deployment may be charged from USD 1K to USD 10K depending on setup cost. There are different types of licenses:

• Threat
  
• URL
• Anti-malware

I would suggest going with an all-in-one bundle. You will end up saving money. Also, Cisco has a better discount on a 3YR subscription plan. Discuss this with your Cisco AM.

Yes, this included firewalls from Huawei, Fortinet, Sangfor, and Sophos. Most of the customers end up with:

• Fortinet,
  
• Sophos
• Sangfor

My primary use case is to have as VPN hardware. I have 2,000 providers. I am a reseller and as such, I am connected to telcos. I use ASA because our providers use Cisco in their core network as well. 

We had a situation where our network was down and the telecom providers at Cisco support helped us to resolve those issues. The downtime was brought down to a minimum.

The most valuable feature is that the encryption is solid. 

I have been using Cisco ASA for thirteen years. 

What I use now is sufficient based on the traffic that we are generating. We won't have to expand.  

We have two providers for ASA. There is only one administrator. We have about 1.2 million connections going through one ASA per month.

Their technical support is very good. 

I didn't previously use a different solution. We used Cisco and then we upgraded to ASA. 

The initial setup was straightforward. To set up the VPN we are able to set up the feature key networks that are going to talk to each other. We can set up what access is going to be used. The connection was set up in one or two days. 

We set it up twice. The first time it took four hours and the second time took ten hours spread out over two days. 

I have seen ROI. We use ASA because our provider uses it and they have support. The provider initiates the support with Cisco. The support is good. The license for the support is expensive. 

It is expensive. 

I would recommend this solution. If you have the money, it's a very stable product. Make sure to keep critical spare parts. You might have for instance some modules that will need acceleration cards and those types of things.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

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.

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 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.