Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

I have been using the Cisco ASA NGFW for about four months. Everything works fine right now. We have only been using this device for a very short period of time. 

• We have about 500 registered users and about 400-600 static users. 
• For 400 to 600 users with wireless devices, we use Cisco ASA NGFW to control device traffic. We're using the new web filters. 
• We use Cisco ASA NGFW as the bit application.

Thus far, we are using it as a web filter to filter the data against incoming traffic. We are an educational organization, so there is no gambling allowed. We don't want to allow students access to gambling sites or adult sites, etc. We use lots of web filters. That's the primary reason I installed the Cisco firewall. 

We are also happy with the Cisco ASA NGFW router firewall. It protects your small server infrastructure, but it's not complete. We purchased the Cisco ASA NGFW for the web filter. That's why we moved to the firewall.

Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization. 

We have an opportunity to grow now. The Cisco ASA NGFW firewall can be upgraded to another version, so it's better for us long term. It is much better because we can control the traffic that students are accessing and downloading. There are still a lot of improvements that can be done. 

For organization security, Cisco ASA NGFW has robust cyber-security features. We are planning to increase the number of firewalls installed, especially for wireless connections.

We installed a Cisco path a month ago. There was a new update for the Cisco firewall and there were security issues.

We like Cisco filtering as a firewall, but in the current market, Cisco's passive firewall is not unique. We don't have any warranty problems with Cisco. 

I asked our carrier several times to provide the exact gap code for me, but there is no Cisco dealer in our region. There is also no software accessibility with Cisco ASA NGFW. You can't always access the product that way. I also tried pfSense.

There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products. 

Cisco products are more supported by lots of companies who are producing technical services for cloud platforms. The certification is very easy in Georgia now. There are lots of people using Cisco in Georgia because their accessibility is better than the other products on the market. I also talked to several guys about the Barracuda firewall.

The Barracuda firewall is very expensive. You need to pay three or four thousand dollars every three months, so it's very expensive for us. We are not a big company.

For our users, there are rules for the students and staff have another RF for authorization. There are small file servers also within the domain controller. 

There is no special restriction for the students. They can print. They can visit outside websites online, but there is no gambling allowed at other sites.The students can access whatever they want over email or HTTP. Only the gambling and the betting sites, they cannot install the software. There are restrictions. 

The students can use their own mobile phones or wireless devices, whatever they want. They are using the shared public key authorization. Our institution doesn't have any restrictions about accessing legal data. Except in Georgia, we have a very big problem with gambling websites. There are a lot of gambling websites, so we are trying to restrict all of the gambling sites at our company. We have a contract for the next year. 

We are growing. In the next two years, we will have an additional 600 users, so we will double the capacity. We will see even more in the next three years. 

It will be like very tough. In about five-year cycles, you need to update the firewall and add other new Cisco devices for the next generation of innovation.

In five years, we will be ready for a complete upgrade cycle for everything. The stability and scalability of the Cisco ASA NGFW are good for when we need to grow. 

For the next five years, everything is fine. After that, we will see because there will be a lot of changes.

Technical support with Cisco is very good. We feel the company is very reliable and very competent. I have very good feelings about the future for project operations.

We had the old version of the Kerio firewall, but because in our country, there is no official dealer for Kerio, we moved to the Cisco ASA NGFW. This is the main reason why we moved to the Cisco firewall.

We announced the tender and bought this product with the installation plus setup included in the price. I was not involved in the installation or in the setup. 

The company just asked a consultant to do it. The whole process, after we announced the tender, took about one to two weeks. The consultant company installed the software. They also helped us to optimize other parts of the network such as the routers and switches.

The setup of the Cisco ASA NGFW was complex, not only for us as a firewall. We have now submitted another tender for a device router with two-node switchless support. We updated almost everything on the Cisco ASA NGFW with the core and distribution level software upgrades.

We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.

The Cisco license was not yearly. It was a yearly license for the firewall. For the router and switch, it was a lifetime license.

The other option we considered was Kerio. I tried to contact their office in Russia, but it is in the UK. I wanted to communicate with them because we cannot buy things without a warranty.

We considered buying Kerio products with the warranty, but they said we needed to send the device to them to repair it. This meant it would take too much time to replace it. In Georgia, we need a local distributor, i.e. a local representative here who we can work with, so that's the problem.

In Georgia, there is no problem using the Cisco firewall, because it's accessible. You cannot use other products, because they are not accessible. That's the whole problem.

I would rate Cisco ASA NGFW an 8 out of 10.

The primary use case for this solution is on the client side. PCS stands for
Perfect Computer Systems. We are an integration company, we specialize in solution integration, bringing together component subsystems into a whole and ensuring that those subsystems function together.

Cisco ASA NGFW has improved our organization by providing more internet protection. Also, for the end user, it provides easy access from outside for users accessing the site.

The feature that I found the most valuable is the overall stability of the product. 

The two areas that need improvement are the URL filtering and content filtering features.

These features are both very crucial to the end user environment. One of my main concerns and an area that could use some major improvement is the need to pay for licensing in order to enable necessary additional features. Included in the next release, I would like to see these features integrated into the products' functionality without having to pay for them on an individual basis.  

My impression of the stability of this solution is that it's great, excellent! 

As far as scalability, I haven't had any performance issues so far. There really isn't high utilization coming from the operations environment, so I don't need to upgrade the tier at the moment.

I don't have much experience with technical support since contacting tech support incurs additional costs. I have been relying on my technical knowledge and experience so far.

The initial setup was straightforward, though I find as we proceed we need an extra feature or two to enable all the functionalities and protection of the tool. It's an ongoing process. We have to be quick and agile to provide client support.

We implemented through an in-house team. 

The stability is the greatest ROI for this solution. 

My advice, since I have to pay for licensing each feature that I need to enable, like URL filtering, is to look at a pfSense. That is what we are doing because you have to pay for greater protection, a total solution can be very costly. We are looking at a pfSense, to bring down the total cost. The correct price point, in comparison to other platforms, is the main factor here.

During our initial decision-making process, we evaluated other options but the distinctions between all the options were quite minimal.

I am satisfied with the current facility and the management environment of the Cisco ASA, it's great for me.

I think that the cost would be the main factor when evaluating solutions since some of the companies or some of our clients ask about costs upfront. Once the client has made their initial request and inquired about any subsequent subsystem connectivity integration ideas, they always want to know how much everything will cost. The deciding factor is mainly based on the price point of the total user solution.

Overall, the criteria that we consider when constructing an integration decision depends largely on the client company we are working with. We evaluate clients based according to their size, industry function, and the total budget that would be recommended for an effective solution.

I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10!

We use Cisco ASA with Firepower. Currently, we have been implementing the solution for around four years. Our company has been around for a long time, more than ten years. We cover the solutions for Network Direct Turbo ATM at the moment, it's a lot of the security work.

Cisco ASA is best at the technical part of the business, related to our selling and management services. We have to improve the technical functionality of the product as part of making an efficient service for the customer. We need to improve the customer's technical experience with Cisco ASA & Firepower.

There are two main ways that using Cisco ASA & Firepower has improved our organization:

1. Technical features
2. Our Sales team

With Cisco ASA, we used the SMB of the model. The customers are usually satisfied, but I am going to recommend that all clients upgrade to Firepower management.

For Cisco ASA Firepower, I want Cisco to improve the feature called anti-spam. We use a Cisco only email solution, that's why we need the anti-spam on email facility.

The stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. The performance is good. Compared to Fortinet on the watchband firewall, it is indispensable. Because of our customer experience as an integration company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have good performance from Cisco ASA.

ASA is limited in terms of its scalability because of our customer environments. They are in the banking and microfinance sector. Our clients always want to move to the next generation firewall so they like FirePOWER. When we move clients to Firepower, they need to integrate with Sourcefire and move into more complicated management.

We have the staff perform the migrations to Firepower. We redirected traffic with Sourcefire and also require the use of FMC by our management center with Firepower.

I've been exploring the technical support for Cisco ASA. I haven't had any problems with it.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I always encourage our existing customers to move to the Cisco ASA Firepower version, i.e. the next generation Firepower like 2100, 4000, or 9300.

I would rate Cisco ASA an eight out of ten. An eight and not a ten because some of the features are limited and some are awful. We had to install other solutions for security and had to spend a lot on other hardware. Other vendors like Fortinet or Palo Alto Networks focus more on offering complete solutions.

I am a banker. I'm working in the bank and our equipment is mostly based on Cisco for the moment. We have some incoming projects to deploy from Fortigate to firewalls.

Cisco ASA is that something I used when I was preparing for my CCNP exams. I've been using it on the incoming project that we want to do right now. 

It is easy to deploy Cisco ISP solution in the bank I'm working in, i.e. Cisco Identity Services Engine. We're already used Cisco ISSO. 

I have three Cisco ASA modules:

1. Security for perimeters
2. Security for data centers
3. Data center recovery

I have been using Cisco ASA since I've been at the bank for more than two years now. The model is 5515X. I have two modules of 5515X and the third one is the old 55105. 

My primary use of Cisco ASA is to take advantage of all the features. I use it to enforce security policy and also to take advantage of the Firepower module.

I have a firewall module on my two instances of 5515X. On the Firepower side, I use all features on Firepower modules that are included in the AMP.

The biggest improvement has been in the internet features. We have been asked to prohibit internet access for all users except the bank services division and that is improved. 

For AMP features, we use Cisco ASA to track traffic in inbound and outbound patterns, so we can set expectations for network traffic. I also used the exception for encrypted traffic. 

One problem: Before installing encrypted traffic, I had to decrypt it first. Before setting it back, I encrypt it again. That's just the way Cisco ASA functions.

I would say the Firepower module is most valuable. I'm trying more to transition to this kind firewall. I had to study a little of the Palo Alto Networks equipment. There is a lot I have to learn about the difference. 

Based on my certification, I had to do a lot of lab work, a lot of projects, a lot of technical work with Cisco ASA. Now, I'm moving to other vendors, like Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet so that I can empower my level of technical experience.

• All my change requests are for Cisco ASA to work more on ease of management. 
• All of the features of Cisco ASA are used by all of the other vendors on the market. 
• The firewall solutions are all based on the same network equipment. 

The difference is why each business chooses to use it and how they implement the architecture for their solution using Cisco ASA and Firepower features.

The installation and integration of Cisco ASA with Firepower can be improved. I used Fortigate as well and I can say that Fortigate's features are more usable. 

The management with Fortigate is easier than Cisco ASA on Firepower. The management side of Cisco ASA can be improved so it can be more easily configured and used.

The stability of the Cisco ASA platform is okay. I know that Palo Alto is the first rated one, followed by Fortinet.

The scalability is based on module support. We have a stand-alone version. It is not 100% applicable to talk about scalability at this point. 

There is another Cisco ASA module available that is more scalable than ours. For the module I have, the stand-alone, the scalability is not as good as on the higher model. 

The 5585 model, allocated for data center security, can be facilitated into the switching spot or the working spot in our data center. We can recommend the scalability there. 

For the module I have, I'm using it as a stand-alone. I don't think it is scalable too much at this point. 

I'm using Cisco ASA in my organization to support about 150 staff. For maintenance, I do all of the work myself.

I do everything if you need a Cisco ASA solution to be deployed for an infrastructure requirement. We are just a team of three. There is just me and my colleagues. 

I'm in charge of all the infrastructure system, including the network and security infrastructure. On all tasks related to the system security and network infrastructure, I'm in charge of it.

I had to work with Cisco customer support two or three times, a long time ago. I had to work with them based on a problem with my call manager. We had a good ability to work together with Cisco customer support. It was normal. 

They asked about the information on the installation. I had to upload it to them. They took that and came back to my problem with the results. I had a good experience with them.

I didn't use a different solution in my bank, but on some other enterprise jobs, I used some unique firewall solutions. 

Since I have been at the bank, only Cisco ASA has been deployed. We just added two new modules. In the bank, we only use Cisco ASA solutions.

I will say Cisco ASA has a complex setup just based on the security policy we have to enforce (asked by the chief, the CIO). For me, it's not complex. 

Cisco ASA is not difficult because I am in it for a year so it's easy for me to understand. I have no problem on the technical side. I always manage to do what I'm asked to do on security-side enforcement. I have no problem with that. It's normal for me. 

It was 2 years ago that we were trying to deploy our facility equipment. We took advantage to deploy the Cisco ASA firewall (model 5515X). 

For now, it's the only one. Since then, we're using it in an upcoming project. I will have to deploy some Fortigate and Cisco ISL as well.

I don't have a technical problem implementing Cisco ASA. I am a double CCNNP and I'm preparing for my CCIE. On the technical side, I don't need help.

I had to work with external partners because they provide us with uptake equipment. They're available to follow up on the project with us. 

We just had to make some tests to deploy some labs. However, when it comes to configuring Cisco ASA for production, I was alone. 

On a security basis, we couldn't let the partner know the details of our address space. This is prohibited within our organization by security policies. 

I had to re-do everything from scratch. For this implementation of Cisco ASA & Firepowe, I was alone.

The licensing for Cisco ASA is on a yearly basis. We have to renew the Firepower module license. We are in the process of renewing this one. 

I just made the demand. They have the management who is charge asking about the price and payment terms on different offers. 

We are just a branch bank. The decision is not made here and the branches just have to follow the central policy.

Cisco ASA is a good solution. I never had a problem with. I will say that I mostly recommend Fortinet because of their ease of management and Palo Alto Networks because of their reputation for business efficiency.

I would rate Cisco ASA with an 8 out of 10 points.

Primarily, we are just using it as a firewall, mostly to protect our internal SQL network (our primary network). At the moment, we are not using Cisco Firepower for our services. We just use it as a firewall.

We have multiple secure internal networks linked with our plants. We are from a oil company, so we have multiple plant areas which need to have restricted network access. Therefore, we are using it for restricting access to the plant area, where they cannot directly connect onto the Internet.

It does not have a web access interface. We have to use Cisco ASDM and dial up network for console access, mostly. This needs a bit of improvement.

Most of the time, when I try to run Java, it is not compatible with ASA's current operating systems.

It should have multiple features available in single product, e.g., URL filtering and a replication firewall.

It is very stable. We have routers entirely from Cisco, which are still working after ten years of deployment. I would rate the stability as a nine out of ten.

We have two people maintaining it. It does not require intensive work. We have an expert in switching technology, and another person who is knowledgeable in routing and network security.

The scalability is good.

The technical support of Cisco is very good. Nowadays, you can get anything over the Internet. They provide help over the Internet. There is a very full forum, which is manually supported.

The initial setup was completely straightforward. 

However, we have to rely on Cisco ASDM to access the firewall interface. This needs improvement. Because we have a web-based interface, and it is a lot more user-friendly.

Deployment takes two or three days. We are continuously deploying the solution to our plants over time.

We do the deployment in-house.

ROI is part of the infrastructure costs. The product has saved us a lot of time, and once we deployed the solution, it worked.

The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.

I would rate the cost as a six or seven out of ten.

Nine or ten years ago, there were few options at the time.

Currently, we are using Barracuda for our more general Internet access. We use Cisco for our more protected environment.

I would recommend the product, but cost is a big factor. Some companies cannot afford expensive products, like Cisco and Palo Alto.

We use remote desktop services from our data center. We can clean the client and the remote desktop server and from there we can establish a VPN channel. 

We can create a profile and we can give them access depending on the access level they need to be on. All the way from level one to level 16. I just create the user and from the dropdown, I select what access level they need to be on and that's it. I don't need to go individually to each and every account and do the configuration.

I like the user interface because the navigation is very easy and straightforward. On the left side pane, you have all the sites that you need to browse. Unlike any other firewalls, it's pretty straightforward.

If I need to download AnyConnect in a rush, it will prompt me for my Cisco login account. Nobody wants to download a client to a firewall that they don't own. 

I would definitely love to have a much nicer web interface compared to the systems interface that it has now. I also would like to download utilities without having to login into the system. Nobody would want to download a client unless they're going to use it with a physical firewall. I don't understand the logic. If I was a hacker, I could get someone to download it for me and then I can use the client. There's no logic behind it.

I would rate their stability a nine out of ten. It's pretty stable. I never come across a situation where the firewall hangs and then I need to reboot it.

Cisco is expensive and when you want to grow, it means you're going to need to spend some money but you can justify it.

We have closer to 50 users on the firewall at the moment and do have plans to increase usage.

We were previously using Sophos firewall but it had a lot of issues. 

The initial setup is a little difficult compared to other firewalls but once you get it right, especially the assistant control list, it's fine. It's a little difficult compared to other firewalls. 

The deployment took us about three days because we did some testing and we also did certain attacks and checked some hackers which is why it took some time. We wanted to make sure that it was at least 99.99% protected.

We implemented through a UK company called Rackspace. 

Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions. Especially in other regions because people are very careful when it comes to spending on IT infrastructure. My suggestion is, first test it, once you see how good it is you will definitely want to renew it. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to just go for it. It's expensive but it's a robust solution. The only thing is that you have to convince your finance guy to go for it.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

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.