Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our primary use case is to support a security environment. It has performed well.

I am a security business of consultant. I deploy this solution for our customers. 

I like the easy administration.

It could use more of a system interface.

The security features in the URL category need more improvement. 

More than five years.

It performs very well. 

Scalability is good. 

Cisco has the best technical support. 

I worked with Check Point, but Cisco Firepower is better. It was an easy transfer to this solution. We chose Cisco because of its trustworthy reputation. They're a big, recognized brand.  

The most important criteria that we consider when evaluating a solution are performance, administration, and price.

The initial setup was easy and simple. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. An eight because it's a good security solution. It's more mature than its competitors. 

Our primary use case is for handling office traffic VPN tunnels and filtering the traffic. All the traffic comes into the house and gets filtered in and out the Firepower interface. It's performed well.

Because of the deeper inspection it provides we have better security and sections that allow users broader access.

With this solution, you can have an inspection of each package and see what the threat level it's at. It has made the work more dynamic. We don't have to block as much like we had to in the old days.

They should develop a web interface that is actually useful. Currently, we still have an issue where you have to go in and do manual configuring by the command line if you want certain functions in it. This means that we need to find people at a higher technical level to be able to do changes in those things. It would be much easier if you had a more friendly user interface basis where you don't have to go in and do the command line off.

They should be a little bit faster sometimes in updating their threat protection. Cisco should redo their website so it's actually usable in a faster way.

Stability is fantastic. 

We are a rather small firm so we don't have much growth leads but there is a wide range of firewalls that I can expand onto. We can also set up cluster solutions. It's rather indefinite in its expandable possibilities.

I've only had to use their technical support once. Otherwise, I haven't had to use them.

We were using SonicWall before.

The initial setup is very complex but once it's done, it's fantastic. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. Not a ten because of the horrible initial setup and because you can't handle all operations from one interface. You have to go back into the command line to even be able to type program language, even though you have a graphic user interface for it but it doesn't work properly.

It helps the firewall in our network and the VPN (Virtual Private Network). It creates a secure tunnel for our network.

The IPS (In-plane switching) is the most valuable feature. This enables visibility to our networks and to outside attacks. It is a solution to maintain the visibility.

At times the product is sluggish and slow.  Sometimes when deploying a new configuration or role, it is painstakingly slow. It should be a little faster than it is. 

It is a very stable solution. 

It is a scalable product. We have a lot of demand.  But, it supports any additional network that we add. It expands easily. 

Normally the Cisco tech support team are good. But, we have had some problems with tech support with this product. Some of the tech support team are really not familiar with how the IPS works. And, there is some disconnect between the tech support. Maybe they're not trained well. They're helpful, but not knowledgeable.

We use it on several layers of our network like in the border, internet edge, DMZ, some extranet parts of our network, and in the data center.

It's a reliable solution and a stable firewall. It helps us to manage the security policies in different areas of our network. 

We use ASA as a simple, scalable firewall. Its main advantages are the stability. We use it as an active standby and as a failover solution. We depend on this solution, we've used it for several years.

• Interaction with the equipment
• Different interface with the product 
• A more simple procedure in delivering policies to the equipment  
• Simplified upgrade procedure
  
• Tracking flows
• Monitoring and logs should be easier.

It's quite stable. In the past though, colleagues have had issues during the upgrade process. The failover didn't work and production was down. 

It's not so scalable.

I haven't had any major problems so I haven't had to open a ticket with technical support. 

The initial setup was not so complex. Most of it was straightforward. We just needed to discuss different scenarios that we had to consider regarding the deployment scenario, what could go wrong and what could happen in the future. 

We used Telekom Romania for the deployment. We did most of the job internally but they helped us to clarify some aspects regarding the architecture design.

We also considered Check Point. We chose Cisco because of its capabilities. We didn't need something so complex for this solution, just a straightforward firewall. It met our requirements. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case is for security. We are a bank in India and the data is very important for us. We use ASA for our security and protection.

Data protection is a big benefit we see from this solution. It protects our customers, our customer's accounts, and money, as we are one of the biggest banks in Egypt and the Middle East.

Its ability to discover attacks is a valuable feature. All of the other features that have to do with security are good.

Some of the features, like the stability, need to be improved. 

The scalability is good. 

Their support is good and helpful but sometimes it takes them a while to respond. We have been stuck in critical situations so we opened a critical ticket but it took them a while to respond. 

The initial setup is easy. If we have an issue we contact their support. 

We implemented ourselves. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. I would recommend this solution to a colleague. No product will give you 100% of what you're looking for but this solution is close. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for firewalling. 

We have been using Cisco for a long time, and we use Firepower to replace other systems. It hasn't really been an improvement, but there are many features we want to use in the future. We haven't seen much improvement because we only installed it a short while ago. 

It has many features but not all of them work. The features aren't stable enough for us to use them. The most valuable features are the firewalling and the deep inspection. 

The stability and the product features have to really be worked on.

The stability is getting better but we had some firmware issues. 

The scalability is good. We have scaled it but at a normal gross so it's not very high. We have designed it for our use case and we have the option to scale but we don't use it at the moment.

We chose Cisco because it had the full package that we were looking for. 

The initial setup was of normal complexity. It's not straightforward, and because we started so early, the migration tools were not so good at the beginning.

We implemented through our partner and had a good experience with them. 

Customers should take note that the migrations steps are not easy. The tools cannot solve all configurations and handle all configurations directly so you will have to do some coding by yourself. The solution is not complete at the moment but it will get better.

We mainly use this solution for our firewall and it's one layer of our security. From the time that we've used it, the organization as a whole got a sense of security because Cisco is a known product. When we do need support locally or online, we get it instantaneously. We use this solution for a couple of things: for security, for their technical support, and in terms of the knowledge and skills of the team here that gave us a good grip and confidence in the use of the product.

It gives the organization a higher vote of confidence. When I joined the organization more than six years ago, we were using the old Cisco, and some of the products already reached their end of life. Some of the products were not in its latest state, in terms of security or license. We've learned a very good lesson there. Since then, when we upgraded we made sure that all the licenses and all the security facets are in place. It gives the organization a higher vote of confidence. There may have been one or two incidences of malicious threats, but it did not really bring down the organization to a level that we would all be sorry for. The greatest benefit for the organization is the confidence that we are secured.

Cisco is known as a popular and trusted product. Because of its constant RND, we're assured that all updates, all patches, all fixes are done instantaneously. As far as the feature is concerned, it gives us a certain layer of protection. As a CIO, my vote of confidence is in the product itself. After making sure that we always have all the updates on the licenses we're assured that we're getting all the necessary security protection.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. Not a ten because I'm reserving the one point for whatever new surprises they are going to provide.

My primary use case for this solution is for Internet access for the enterprise or for users, publishing, email, and to protect our network.

Before Firepower, we didn't have any visibility about what attack was happening or what's going on from the inside to outside or the outside to inside. After Firepower and the reporting that Firepower generates, I can see what's going on: which user visits the malicious website, or which user uploaded or downloaded malicious code, and what the name of the code is and from which country. This is very useful and helpful for me to detect what's going on. It enables me to solve any problem.

They give me more visibility of what's going on when traffic comes in and goes out from the company or comes in from the outside. I can see what's going on with this traffic, which is a nice feature. I also like the malware inspection and management of the dashboard features. The management of the dashboard is different from the old Cisco Firewall. This management brings everything together into one management platform. 

I would like for them to develop better integration with other security platforms. I would also like for them to make the Cloud configuration easier. 

One to three years.

Stability is perfect. I haven't had any problems. 

Scalability is great. We have around 1,500 users. 

Their technical support is good. I opened a ticket when we did the installation. We didn't have any issues with them.

We were previously using Cisco ASA without Firepower. We switched to Cisco Firepower because Firepower has more features, like malware inspection, and more possibilities with identity management.

The initial setup was a little complex. We required three staff members for deployment and maintenance.

We implemented ourselves. Deployment took around six months. 

It's more expensive than Fortinet and Juniper. The price is high compared to other vendors. In general, for the license, it's not that expensive.

We also evaluated Fortinet and Juniper.

I would advise someone considering this solution to subscribe to the URL filtering and to use malware inspection.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Its security is the most valuable feature. 

The phishing emails could be improved. 

It is stable. 

The scalability is good. I'm happy with the service. We are around twenty users. Some are in finance, some are in a mid-user roles, and some are in other official roles.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Implementation took two days. We needed two people for the deployment. 

Pricing is high, but it is corporate's decision.

We didn't look at any other solutions. All of our campuses use Cisco products. This is why we chose this solution. 

This solution has good security and it's a good product. You can trust Cisco, and there's support as well, which is really good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We are currently using version 6.3. Our primary use case of this solution is to put Firepower inside of the data center and at the Edge network.

This solution has improved my organization. I'm a solution provider and so I deploy in many different companies that are my customers right now. Before Firepower, we had some problems with the architecture of the firewall. Firepower can support two types of intelligence identity: it can support the application visibility and control, and it has a great deep inspection in the packet. Before this solution, we had some problems with malware detection. Right now, we can easily detect and filter all the applications. Before this solution, we never had any file trajectory, but right now we do, according to the file trajectory of Firepower that we have after attack solutions. 

We never had any solution or any workaround for after an attack. We never had any clue what the source of an attack was or how the attack could affect the company. Right now, because of the file trajectory and the great monitoring that FMC does, we know what's happened so we can analyze it after an attack.

The architecture of FTD is great because it has an in-depth coverage and because it uses the AVC, (Application, Visibility, and Control) and also rate limits. Also, the architecture of fast paths is great.

I would like to see real-time log systems because it's very helpful when you want to troubleshoot.

Stability really depends on the software that you use. If you use the suggested software that Cisco suggests, you will see a highly robust and highly stable system. A crash or block will never happen to you. It really depends on the version that you are using. Definitely check the release notes before installation.

I've worked with the 2000 series, the 4000, and the 9000. The 9000 series is really impressive because it's absolutely scalable for large deployments.

I haven't had to contact their technical support. 

We previously used ASA, which is a regular firewall. We switched to Firepower because it has a lot of features. It is one of the best firewalls in the world so we shifted to Firepower.

The time it takes to implement depends on the policy of the customer. Practically speaking, it takes around three to four hours to deploy, but it can depend because the Firepower solutions have two parts. One part is the hardware, it is an actual firewall and actual device but the monitoring system and the control system is a software called FMC. Most of the customers deploy it over VMware. The time of deployment really depends on your resources, but on average will take three to four hours.

At least two to three people with professional knowledge, around three years of experience, are needed for the deployment and maintenance, not only for Firepower but in every security solution. The device is doing something, but the most important part is analyzing it. The device can give you logs, but the engineer should analyze the log and do something.

Deployment without inspection can require only one person but if you want to analyze the IPS, at least two people will be needed.

Based on the services that you will get, especially the AMP license, the price is very reasonable. The license system is also good but it's not very impressive. It's a very regular licensing system. They call it a smart license which means that your device will connect to the internet. This is a little bit of a headache for some customers. It doesn't make the customer happy because most of the customers prefer not to connect their firewall or system to the internet.

I would advise someone considering this solution to just read the release notes before doing anything. You should know what the exact architecture is and what the exact details of the software are before trying to deploy it.

I would rate this solution a ten.