Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

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.

This solution is running behind the infrastructure and behind the hypervisor itself. We have two firewalls and two nodes in the cluster environment.

This solution is suitable for both cloud and hybrid-cloud deployments. I have implemented a cloud project, and one hybrid as well. The hybrid was between a public and a local cloud.

The Cisco security rules are very strict and very strong.

I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall.

When comparing this solution to other products, the Fortinet UTM bundle has some better features in their most receive product. For example, there are better configuration features, the Sandbox is better, and so is the web censoring. These are currently in the Cisco solution, but they are better in Fortinet. The Sandbox and the Web Censoring in this solution need to be improved.

This solution has to be more secure from the cloud. The current trend is moving towards private cloud and hybrid cloud, so it is very important to consider the cloud security aspects when the solution is installed. This includes things such as IoT and the existence of user connectivity on the cloud.

The stability of this solution is great. The Cisco name and hardware are enough. The product is used in tier four data centers, so it is very trusted and very dependable. If you compare Cisco to others, the high industry and high workload have gone to Cisco. Stability is very, very high.

This is a scalable solution.

In terms of the number of users, it depends on the customer. A small customer may have less than twenty users. A larger customer can be complicated by having different branches with different users and different security rules. This means that you can reach up to the hundreds. 

Technical support for this solution is good. Most of the technicians are technical people that have certifications such as CCNA, CCNP, CCIE, and CCISP. I think that they are well knowledged and well educated about the Cisco culture, industry, and products.

The Cisco distributors are everywhere, even if I'm speaking about the Middle East. I can find distributors everywhere in Dubai. Here in Dubai, the support is great, including for firmware updates, and even replacing the hardware when the firewalls crash.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

The deployment does not take much time. It is just a matter of installing the firewall and configuring the basic system to get it up and running. That's it.

There are, of course, different models of deployment, like deploying customers, that have to be considered. However, for the most part, deployment time is not an issue at all.

The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology. If we compare Huawei or FortiGate or others then the prices are lower, but the higher Cisco price is acceptable because of the stability, trust, and reliability.

This is my first recommendation for firewalls, and my second recommendation is Fortinet FortiGate.

This is the number one firewall product that I recommend.

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.

A lot of companies have a lot of vulnerabilities and lots of exploitations that are going inside their network that the IT staff are not aware of. You actually need a security device like a next-generation firewall to protect your network.

Once we installed the Firepower system, we started looking at the evidence, and we found a lot of exploitations and a lot of bad things that are in the network. These things were invisible to IT, they were unaware of any of them.

The Firepower Management Center is an easy way to manage the devices centrally. I guess this is something that all vendors provide so it's nothing special. I like the way Firepower presents the data. It gives you two classifications for the evidence, something based on the priority of the evidence and another classification based on the impact of the evidence in your environment. This makes it very easy to spot the evidence that is most impactful to my environment. Instead of having to go through all the evidence based on that priority, I can focus on the evidence that has the most impact on my environment.

Sometimes you might have a high priority event but it has nothing to do with your environment. You have a vulnerability. You don't have to treat a vulnerability as an attack. Since you're not vulnerable, it's not impactful to your environment so you don't have to focus on it. This is something that other products don't provide. 

It is very flexible. You can have the next generation firewall work as a physical connection or as a Layer 2 device. You can have a combination of Layer 2 and Layer 3, which is really good. 

There are quite a few things that can be improved. Firepower is an acquisition from another company, Cisco's trying to put it together. Their previous ASA code with the source file code that they have acquired a few years ago still has some features that are not fully supported.

Also, they have a Firepower source file that I can work on the ASA device and on Firepower devices. A problem here lies in the way that you manage these devices. Some devices do not support the FMC, and some devices have to be managed through ASDM, and others have to be managed through FMC.

Most of the high-end devices do not support Onboard management. The Onboard management is only supported on the 2100 IP at the 1050 Firepower and on select ASA devices that bear the Firepower image.

It would be very nice if the Onboard management integrated with all the devices. Log key loading for the evidence at the logs, because clearly you only have loading on the remote on the FMP, you cannot store the logs located on the device.

We have several thousand employees at the company.

Their technical support is good. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The pricing is overrated. Prices for Cisco equipment are always a little bit higher than other vendors. Customers are always complaining about the high prices of Cisco equipment, so it would be very good if these prices can be lowered down, but that's how it is. Cisco equipment usually has higher prices than its competitors.

I would recommend this solution to someone considering it. I would recommend to study and know what the requirements are exactly. One of the things that might be a problem, or might be a complex thing to do is to go through Cisco Firepower, because Firepower is a software that's complex to explain to somebody. There is the previous ASA code that Cisco had and there is the source file that they acquired. Cisco started to send it as ASA Firepower services. Then they combined the two codes together and they started to send a new code called the Firepower Threat Defense, FTD.

Any customer who wants to buy it needs to understand all of these options and what the limitations of each option are, the pros and cons. Any customer who wants to deploy Firepower needs to understand what Cisco has to offer so he can choose correctly.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use case is to protect our network from external threats. We need to keep our portal safe. 

We use the public cloud model of this solution. 

The most valuable feature is that it has the ability to divide the network into three parts; internal, external, and DMZ. 

I would like for the user interface to be easier for the admin and network admin. I would also like to be able to access everything from the GUI interface. The way it is now, it needs somebody experience in iOS to be able to operate it. I would like to have a GUI interface. 

It should have integrated licenses with our other products. There should be a license bundle, like for firewalls and iOS. It would be better if it was a bundled license. 

It's very stable.

The scalability is good. We have around 1,500 users. The users are regular end-users, network admins, technicians, etc. 

We require three admins for this solution. We require five staff members for the deployment and maintenance. 

It is used weekly. We do plan to increase the users.

Their technical support is good. We have a maintenance contract with them for two years and we plan to renew the contract. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It took around two to three days to implement. 

We used a Cisco partner for the implementation. They were knowledgable and did a good job. 

There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees. 

We don't evaluate different solutions because our infrastructure is Cisco-based. We wanted it to be homogeneous with our infrastructure. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to have a technical support or maintenance contract with the vendor or a third-party to help maintain the product. Without help with maintenance, there is no value to the product.

You should have a good technician and admin support for all this product in order to maximize the value and benefits. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use for the solution is as a firewall. We implemented it as an IT tech solution for our accesses through Sourcefire. It provides security.

The main product in our company is dependent on Cisco as a security solution. Cisco has a great reputation in the market. We are using Cisco as our main firewall in the company because it provides the best security.

The most valuable feature is for IT security management. It is extremely valuable to protection so that is the most valuable feature.

I'm not really sure that much has to be improved. Compared to other firewall solutions probably the thing that could be improved is the interface — the GUI. Other than that I don't think there is anything else that could be better. I think it is a great product.

I believe that Cisco is one of the most stable firewall solutions. Compared to other solutions, Cisco has a better stability record than others. That's why we like it a lot.

I don't know that we have plans to scale the business on this site. But Cisco products are expandable. If we want to expand the functionality with new feature sets we can add modules. So in that way, it is a flexible and scalable solution. 

We currently have 200 to 500 users who are using this solution at any time.

We have used technical support quite a bit and always contact them if we have an issue. They will always respond as soon as possible. So I think the support is great. We don't have any issue with them being unresponsive or providing bad solutions. I like to check with them on solutions sometimes and they respond as soon as possible. It saves time and helps me to be sure I am doing the right thing before I go in the wrong direction.

I don't know the exact product they were using before but I think it was just proxy. When I came to the company, the Cisco solution had already been installed, so I don't know the exact product from before.

I think the main reason why they would have switched is the stability and possibilities are better than just proxy. Cisco is very different and more powerful than the other simple products. It's very stable.

I wasn't part of the company at the time of the initial setup, and I am just performing additional tasks. We have a staff of a maximum of three or four persons so once the deployment is live it doesn't need much effort.

I'm not sure if the company has plans to increase usage and grow our responsibilities. It's not not for me to decide. I think the company is growing and traffic is increasing. But my superior is the person responsible for determining when it is time to scale.

We used a consultant for the implementation. They actually continue to help a lot when we need them for something.

I don't know if the company evaluated other solutions before choosing Cisco. When I came to the company, it was already there. Cisco is a very popular enterprise solution so they may have just chosen it without other evaluations.

On a scale of one to ten with one being worst and ten being best, I would rate Cisco SourceFire Firewall as a nine. It could easily be a ten if it had a better GUI interface.

As far as making recommendations to other people about the product, I recommend they buy it if they need an enterprise solution. Also, I would recommend other Cisco solutions like Cisco AMP (Advanced Malware Protection). 

I think most large companies that require strong security should always use Cisco because it's stable, scalable, and has many features. Enterprise organizations will benefit from Cisco because their business requirement will be more complicated and require a better solution and more flexibility. I think all the companies should use Cisco because it's number one the market and has the best security, better stability, and better scalability.

We use this solution as a firewall and for the segregation of our servers from the rest of the environment.

Instead of using multiple firewalls, we only need to rely on this solution. It has a small footprint.

The most valuable features are the flexibility and level of security that this solution provides. 

There was an error in the configuration, related to our uplink switches, that caused us to contact technical support, and it took a very long time to resolve the issue.

Some of the features should be baked-in by default.

Stability has been pretty good, so far.

This solution is very scalable.

We have contacted technical support about an issue that we were having, and it took a very long time for them to figure it out. We were on the phone for six or seven hours with them.

We previously used an ASA 5500, and it was simply time to upgrade it. We used this solution as a direct replacement.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty straightforward.

We are not restricted to any one vendor, but this solution worked well as a direct replacement for our previous one. We considered both Juniper and FortiGate.

This is a very straightforward firewall. There is a management platform with its own operating system. Just make sure that everything is set up properly for your uplink switches because that is an issue that we ran into.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.