Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

The VPN and monitoring are the most valuable features.

I tried to buy licenses, but I had trouble. Their licensing is too expensive.

If they can get the reporting to go into deeper detail, it would really be helpful because in order to get the reports in Cisco you have to go to look at the information that you don't necessarily need. 

Also, the pricing is quite high. 

The stability is good. Very simple. Upgrades are great. But when we upgrade it, things break. You have to upgrade about three things before you get something stable.

I haven't had to scale, so I can't speak to this aspect of the solution.

I haven't had to deal with technical support, so I don't have much to say.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I did the setup myself. The budget I had didn't allow me to get support. I would use Google a lot. The first implementation took me about three weeks because I did not know what I was doing. So it took me a while. It took me about three weeks, but everything else took about two days, maybe three days and I was done. 

We did look at Barracuda.

They really need support for deployment.

I would rate this solution nine out of 10 because I think if you have the budget and you plan it properly I think you won't have the initial deployment problems I faced.

Our primary use for the solution is for checking on and verifying the security of our customer data.

Our organization has been improved by the solution because we can be assured that the firewall is secure. It gives us more flexibility to monitor other things. Because we have safe firewalls, we don't have to worry about that and can direct resources elsewhere. If our internet goes down in one location we can bring it back up pretty easily.

The thing we've found most valuable is the efficiency. The firewalls are easy to configure and deploy. Overall it is an easy system to manage.

Another valuable feature is just how granular we can get with it so we can keep users seeing what they are supposed to and don't compromise security.

One way the product could be improved is if you could monitor more than one rule at a time. We only have the option to have one monitor window up at a time if you're trying to troubleshoot something you end up switching back-and-forth and don't get the bigger picture all at once.

It's reliable and it does its job. It gives you the freedom to do other things while you get indications of any issues. The multi-monitor would be a huge improvement.

I'd definitely recommend the product. Even when you set it up for the first night, it definitely will tell you the status of the network. The important part in the setup is following the instructions to get it going.

The solution itself is good as far as stability.

The technical support is good and the response time quick. We had some firewalls down and gave them a call. They helped resolve the issue and it was all positive.

Previous to this we had just a normal firewall that I didn't like. It didn't provide enough.

The setup was straightforward, even without initially having all the information we needed. It was very intuitive. When I went in to get help, help was there.

We got the product from a reseller and we did the installation ourselves.

We certainly have seen a return on investment at the very least from being able to reallocate human resources.

Before selecting this as a solution we really didn't evaluate other options at all.

As far as rating this product, I would give it a nine out of ten. The only real drawbacks are the lack of multi-monitoring and not really having clear instructions prior to jumping in and implementing it.

We use this solution to join our private network to the customer's network.

In our business, we don't have to be on the customer's network, so a lot of people will install cheap equipment. We're trying to push it to where we can standardize the equipment, although the cost of Cisco products would have to come down a little bit in order for us to be more competitive.

Firewalls are difficult, and this solution gives us outside access to connect with the customer's network and service them better. It makes us more efficient.

This solution is easy to use if you know how to set it up.

The most valuable features are on the routing side, with the control between the two networks and the rules that are in there.

The inclusion of an autofill feature would improve the ease of commands.

This solution would benefit from being more cost-effective.

This solution is very stable, and I haven't seen any issues with it.

Scalability doesn't really apply to us, as it is just a firewall client.

Technical support for this solution is really good. We had an issue with a firewall and it was a good turnaround that was quick.

Our implementation of this solution was driven by the customer.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty straightforward. We did have some rules that somebody had put on it that didn't match up, but we got it all worked out.

We implemented this solution in-house.

With respect to the routers and switches, or the core stacks that we get, they seem to be pretty comparable so I don't have any issues with the licensing.

Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment.

While we have a partnership with Cisco, there are other products that have been used within the company. After evaluating other products such as those by Barracuda, it just happened that this solution worked out better for us. I like the Cisco reputation.

With this solution, we have everything that we need. I don't know about other people's use cases, but ours is pretty straightforward.

My advice to anybody researching this type of solution is to stick with Cisco products, no matter which one it is. We've had pretty good luck with everything from Cisco.

I don't have any issues with this solution, so I would rate it a ten out of ten.

The feature I find most valuable is the Cisco VPN Interconnection.

The file features are useful as well. They're good at packet tracing. They are very straightforward. I would say that the Cisco ASA ASDM makes it very easy to manage the firewall.

I would say the pricing could be improved. It's quite expensive, especially for the economy.

I'd like to see them more integration so that I don't need other parties for protecting my network. If I could just have ASA firewalls for perimeter protection and LAN protection, then I'm good. I don't need so many devices.

I would like to see improvements for client protection.

My impression is it's a stable solution. I could sound biased, but if you have a device working for four years and it's still working and people are using it, then it's stable.

Scalability depends on which device you have.

It's quite scalable if you have either the ASA, even if you had the new ASA firewall services, even if you had the one with the capacity of about 500 MDP. It isn't scalable for three hundred people connecting to it. I would say it is good for medium branch offices.

I'm not sure if we have plans to extend the service.

Technical support is good. The only thing is that Cisco cannot support you unless you have a contract with them. You have to go through the reseller in Africa. I don't see why Cisco cannot communicate directly with the customer, especially when I can prove that I have the device. They should allow customers to talk to them directly instead of having to go through the reseller.

I previously used SonicWall. I'm not the one who decided to switch, I just know that previously we used SonicWall.

The initial setup was straightforward. Within in an hour you're done, including with your basic training. For implementation, you need one to two people. You should have one senior network administrator. Two people can maintain it if they have the skill.

I did the implementation by myself. If you decide to do it by yourself, you need basic knowledge. If you don't have that you would need a contractor.

This solution might be expensive, but it is economical in the long run.

The functionality is fine.

When they prove to me they cannot be hacked then I can give them a ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

One of the important aspect when deploying Ciso ASA firewall, it’s oblige you at the beginning to define your security level, which will make it easier when making your security policy ( traffic allow From Source to Destination)

A security level will define how trusted is an interface in relation to another interface on the Cisco ASA.

The Higher is the security level, is the more trusted is the interface.

The highest security level is , “ Security Level 100” .

Nowadays other Firewall manufacturer try to adopt the same deployment principle as the Cisco ASA with security level, however the Cisco ASA do have other interesting features which I think are very useful:

- Firepower services

- Security context

- Firepower management

Normally in terms of design, the user prefers to use Cisco ASAv as a border router or a border firewall, because you have two different kinds of firewalls. You have a firewall when the data communication enters the network, and then you have a firewall, for when you've been inside the network. So, for the inside network firewall, Check Point is better because it can make a better notation of your network infrastructure. But, for the incoming data, or border firewall, ASAv is better. In terms of improving the interface, if you compared to the Check Point file, then I think that ASAv should be better. They should improve the interface so that it's similar to the Check Point firewall.

The Cisco ASAv is really stable, especially if you compare it to Check Point. Not long ago Check Point did release one virtual firewall, and the virtual firewall of Check Point is not stable.

The hardware version of the firewall is more stable than the virtual one. In terms of the data center, many companies have a virtual data center in a group environment. Many companies want to have a virtual firewall, but the one from Check Point, in comparison to Cisco, is not stable at the moment. 

The solution is really scalable.

I haven't dealt with technical support. We just check online, and if we have to contact Cisco about major issues, it's an internal department dealing with that. I don't know how technical support is, because our technical support team is located in Sofia, and I am in the Netherlands, so I don't have any view on that.

The setup is always different. If you have a small company, the setup is quite easy, but if you have a bigger company the setups are quite complex. Cisco is pretty good in routing. So in bigger situations, configuring the ASAv file is pretty straightforward.

The deployment also depends on the customer's site. So, the time changes because most of the time we have to do a migration. For example, some customers have an old firewall, and you have to migrate things to a new one. And sometimes, it's just copy/paste, but in some situations, we cannot migrate all firewall configurations to a new one.

In terms of how many people you need for deployment and maintenance, again, it's dependent on the company strategy around the help desk. You should have a maintenance engineer who should be part of a team. The deployment will be done in a team. You can have one person to do the deployment but usually, you always have a backup, so it would be two. And then, for the maintenance, it can be one person or two. The maintenance can be done on the site desk, operating after office hours, so it depends.

It's difficult to give specific advice on the solution because it always depends on the design solution and the strategy. So what I would recommend is to use different firewalls and to use Cisco ASAv as a border firewall.

I would rate this solution as 7.5 out of 10. I wish the Cisco interface was not so granular. Check Point was easier to create specific rules than on ASAv, so that's why I say this. If you want to make things easier for an engineer, you always have to work on the interface. But the product, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with it.

I worked for a Telecom provider, and we gave this solution to our customers.

The most important feature is its categorization because on the site and social media you are unified in the way they are there.

I see room for improvement when it comes to integrating all the devices into a central management system. Cisco doesn't provide this, but there are some good products in the market that can provide it.

Apart from the cost, I think Cisco is quite well-positioned in the market. Also, in terms of site capabilities, other companies are still in the lead. 

The price, integration, and licensing models are quite odd.

We didn't have any problem with its stability.

Scalability depends on the requirements of the license. The licensing scheme is complicated and not straightforward. I think there were around 200 users, sometimes more.

We used to use Fortinet, but we switched because of the lack of integration.

The initial setup was of a medium complexity. This was especially true when it came to integration of the data servers.

We used a consultant. They were very helpful. The documentation was quite easy to find for configuring the devices. We thought the boxes would be more parceled or more completely behind, but it was not a problem. The data was there.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

We are using both Cisco ASAv and FTD (Firepower Threat Defense). FTD has a better interface, but we have both of them running.

We are using Cisco ASAv for the FirePower service. We use a custom interface for our firewall.

Cisco ASAv is part of our central solution. You can use the ASA family or go on the portal for normal ASAv. We use FirePower at the edge of the network. 

If you are working with cloud services, it's better to use the ASAv family or other Cisco solutions.

We are using the Cisco AnyConnect for our end-user VPN with the ASA. 

If a user wants to connect to our network, they access it via the Cisco intranet and connect to the firewall at the edge.

I don't have any experience with the price, but ASA is a comprehensive solution.

In the next update of the Cisco ASAv, I would like to see them release a patch for ASAv, i.e. to put the FirePower solution into the cross-platform integration.

Normally, in ASA, we have good stability.

The scalability of ASAv we can easily manage. We can have good scalability in different times but we don't have HA in ASAv. Some features are removed in ASAv. 

If it's a normal ASA, i.e. a physical device, you have many more ways to scalability.

For technical support, I have little experience with Cisco, unless they patch some issues. I raised a ticket and got the response immediately. They are very supportive.

For me, ASA is easy. The deployment of ASAv is done in 20 minutes.

We used both an integrator and reseller for the deployment. For the initialization, it was me for our company. If we have an issue, we can raise a ticket or call for a Cisco patch. 

For the Cisco ASAv installation, I did it myself.

The pricing for Cisco ASAv depends on your license. With AnyConnect, it depends on your license. It depends on the number of concurrent users you want to connect.

Our license is for one year only, renewable at variable pricing.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at nine. Cisco ASAv is good in many advanced networking features.

I'm working with Cisco. They have competition with many vendors.

I primarily use it for my small company to protect 5-10 users.

The web interface was easy for me. The configuration is logical, so it's easy to use and easy to understand how to protect, how to open a port, how to manage and how to route a device. That's why I prefer Cisco. It's robust and I never have issues with the hardware. That's why I choose Cisco and not another vendor.

The service could use a little more web filtering. If I compare it to Cyberoam, Cyberoam has more the web filtering, so if you want to block a website, it's easier in other solutions than in Cisco. I think in Cisco it's more complicated to do that, in my opinion. 

It could also use a better web interface because sometimes it's complicated. The interface sometimes is not easy to understand, so maybe a better interface and better documentation.

My impression of the stability of the solution is that it's very good.

I don't have a sense of the scalability. I never extend the processes or usage.

My experience with customer service is very good in general. When I have a good person on the phone, or on the email, it's in general very fast and the reply is good. It's a good solution in general.

I previously used Juniper before Cisco, but only for one year. I switched because my company only used Cisco.

The initial setup was not complex, it's just difficult to find out how to do it. The FAQ is not clear. In terms of deployment, it depends on the client, but deployment takes about an average of six hours.

In general, I implement the solution myself.

I would advise that If you want something robust, a good hardware solution, I think it's competitive and you have a good warranty, you have to choose Cisco. 

I would rate the solution 8 out of 10.