Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

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. 

I have deployed Cisco ASA as a terminator firewall. Normally, I would have preferred to have a sandwich configuration for firewalls: One possible firewall that would make an internal firewall and another for an external firewall. 

Cisco ASA is best suited for our external firewall protection.

• Its VPN and ASN features are very stable. 
• It is easy to configure. 

In terms of next-generation capabilities, Cisco is a little behind. It is way behind leaders like Palo Alto, Check Point and Fortinet. While Cisco is headed in the right direction, it will take several years for it to get there.

When I need support, Cisco has provided quality support. I like working with them because of their support system.

The setup was straightforward. I was happy with the configuration and deployment of the solution, as it was quick.

Whatever you have that’s potentially public-facing, you need to protect it. As our technology moves to the cloud, so our need for security transfers from physical appliances to virtual ones. This is the classic Cisco ASA device, virtualised.

Ease of spinning one up: The hourly charge has made demos and testing better because it’s a truer representation of a real-life situation.

It has allowed us to reduce costs and to make sure we provide rounded, secure products to customers.

Top features:

• Easy to deploy for staff to use VPNs
• Ease of setup
• Integrated threat defence
• Great flow-based inspection device
• Easy ACLs
• Failover support
• Each virtual appliance is separate so you get great granular control
• Has own memory allocation
• Multiple types of devices: 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, 2 Gbps
• License control
• SSH or RESTful API

We didn’t find any huge issues. Obviously, there are always vulnerabilities that come up and there was one in early 2018 but this was patched with software updates.

Admin rights need to be given out carefully as they give overarching control to all devices - but that’s the same for everything.

We went with this solution via the AWS Marketplace because it’s been made so easy to use an ASAv on AWS with simple drop downs to set it up. Our demo machines were also in AWS so we wanted a one-stop shop where we could spin them up or down as needed and configure the ASAv before it was launched.

Almost all IT staff have used, or can easily learn how to use, the Cisco ASA appliance because it’s been around for years and is so popular (with good reason). For us, we stuck with what we know. It was an easy sell to get it signed off by higher-ups as they’d also heard of the ASA device from their time in IT.

This solution gets an eight out of ten because it is easy, has the features we need, keeps costs low, and provides granular control using appliances that are already familiar to the team.

It is our firewall solution. We connect to other locations, as well as use programs in-house.

The most valuable feature is the security that it provides our company and users.

Furthermore, our company uses it for making rules for the bank to connect to our server in the DMZ, which is a security challenge.

It needs improvement as a "Next-Generation" firewall solution. In addition, it needs to be more user-friendly. 

There is no downtime, and it is working great. 

It is scalable. We have had no issues. 

The initial setup was complex. But, after that, to maintain and keep creating rules it was easy.

We evalutated Cisco ASA vs Fortinet FortiGate VM.

Our primary use case is security.

From a security perspective, we are getting assurance with the respect to the the infrastructure which is getting built or the threats which are emanating from the Internet. With these, we can obtain the visibility that we need to know where we need to improve.

The transparency of the single UI to ensure security. A product has to be simple so that an administrator can use it.

The artificial intelligence and machine learning (behavioral based threat detection), which I can this will be coming out in another year, these are what we need now.

The stability is alright.

Scalability is not an issue.

Its technical support is the main reason why we selected the product.

The integration and configuration are transparent and easy.

We are partners with Cisco. They are always one call away, which is good. They know how to keep their customers happy.

We evaluated VMware Virtual Networking and Check Point.

We chose Cisco because of the support and their roadmap for the changing technology landscape is good. Therefore, it is always better to be partnered with them.

When you are going to select a product, don't look at the cost, but at the functionality. Also, look at the stability. These days, the startups will show a new function or functionality, but when looking for a partner, make sure the company is sustainability for the new four years? Do they have the funding?

We have a large ecosystem system: Symantec, McAfee, Splunk, Check Point firewalls, Cisco firewalls and IPS IDS from Cisco. They integrate and work well together. Cisco has been security leader for the last 20 years, so the products are quite stable working in sync.

We are using every version of the product: On-premise, Azure, and AWS, which is a new offering.

It's our firewall for our AWS VPC on the internal side that connects our VPC to headquarters.

I have been using the product for two years, but it has been installed in my company for four years.

Even on a smaller scale, people are finding you need HA pairs, and there's no way that the ASA can do that, at least in the virtual version. We needed the ability to failover to one of the others to do maintenance, and this is a glaring issue. However, it is one of their cheaper products, so its understandable. It is just that we would hope by now, because it has been in use in a lot of different environments, for even moderately sized companies, the ability to have HA pairs would be extremely useful.

It has been relatively stable, in the sense that it stays up. It doesn't die on us.

Scalability has been a pain point for us. 

It's great for what it does. Just make sure you know whatever environment you are using it in is not going to have to scale. Just use it for sandbox. As long as they stay competitive, use the ASA, but make sure you have a plan to grow out of it.

We have definitely made some calls to Cisco regarding issues. While it is time consuming, they are thorough. Sometimes depending on the urgency, if there is a real P1 problem going on, it would be more helpful to go straight to the chase than to have to go through troubleshooting steps that are mandated. A lot of times, it is understandable why they're there, but I wish they had a different, expedited process, especially when they're dealing with our senior network engineer who has already ruled out some things. Cisco tends to make you go through the steps, which is part of any normal troubleshooting. However, when you're dealing with an outage, it can be very frustrating.

The integration and configuration were pretty straightforward.

We purchased the product through the AWS Marketplace. While I wasn't part of the buying process for Cisco ASA, I have used it to purchase AMIs.

The AWS Marketplace been great, but it could be a bit more user-friendly from an aesthetic perspective. It is fully functional and easy to figure out once you are in it. However, the layout of the AMIs has a lot missing, e.g., you have to side click to find the area for community AMIs. It would be awesome if AWS Marketplace would put up a wider range of AMIs.

With the Cisco ASA, you do get what you pay for. What would really be awesome is to see Cisco blow out a real cheap version where you can use the sandbox, but leave it step-wise and go to another product relatively easily, like getting you hooked on candy. The problem is that we already paid for the ASAs, and we grew quickly. Now, we have found ourselves in a situation where we have to wait for next year's budget and everyone is using it. We've gone from a sandbox model to full production. If Cisco was a bit more on the ball with this type of thing, such as pay a smaller lump sum, then scale as a pay by use or have an option to switch models. This would be good because then we could actually leverage this type of model.

Right now, we want to go to the rocket stuff, and our people who make the decisions financially will just have a heart attack. They will choke on it. However, if we can roll it into our AWS bill, and slowly creep it in, it is usually more palatable. As crazy as that sounds, even if its more expensive to do it this way.

Our network guy looked at alternatives and settled on Cisco ASA. It was the cheapest available option, virtualized, and he was familiar with Cisco, like many people are because it's a great company. It made the most sense at the time, because our VPC was a sandbox at first. Now, it has grown, which is where the pain point is: the scalability of the ASA. We have sort of wedged ourselves into a corner.

We are now looking into Cisco Meraki, the CSR stuff, and the SD-WAN technology.

For the AWS version, Cisco is our primary use. We have our own appliances and products, which are indicated as Cisco ASA. So, we test these product against Cisco ASA using different types of rules for new cases. During the test process, we make sure the integration works. 

We have been using the solution for two years.

Right now, it serves a purpose and has everything that we need. Performance-wise, it is top-notch.

It is a comprehensive suite and complete package. We have the following with the product:

• Interest point detection
• Firewall stuff
• VPN
• It's configurable.
• It guards with its own threat intelligence. 

We find that virtual instances are helpful because they are easy to use on AWS Marketplace, as they are On Demand. We have a lot of traffic on AWS. Therefore, to monitor the traffic rather than using on-premise, we use virtual instances of Cisco ASA. This is pretty easy to use and we receive value off of it.

Cisco ASA should be easier to use. It is a bit tough to navigate and see what is going on. While I like the UI and dashboards of Cisco ASA, if you compare them to Palo Alto or Fortinet, they have much richer UIs. An analyst (or anyone) can see them, and say, "I have got all these important pointers on my dashboard." However, with Cisco ASA, we need to dig into many things and go to many views to see what is actually there.

It is stable. We put a good amount of stress on it.

Especially for the AWS version, we can spin up multiple instances and do load-balancing. 

We have 15 to 20 Cisco ASA switches with a couple of physical appliances and twelve machines. Our team is using four to five machines.

It is all self-guided, and we were already using the physical appliances. Therefore, we knew how to use the product.

Our individual release cycle has been quicker because the entire development and testing environment has been automated because of these virtual instances. It has aligned our development workflow. This is where we have seen the ROI increase. 

For example, if you are working with a physical appliance, then you need to have a dedicated lab administrator to work with it, even to test a simple use case. This takes time because we would need to frequently reset that appliance and load all the data. It is no longer like that.

Purchasing from the AWS Marketplace was easy. It was just point and click.

It is pay-as-you-go, so it much cheaper than buying in the plants.

We also checked Fortinet and Palo Alto, their AWS versions. 

When compared products, Cisco ASA is easy on AWS. We received a trial version. It is easy to setup and evaluate.

We also already had Cisco products. This provided a tighter integration with what we already had. Since most of our traffic stays in AWS, it made sense to use AWS Cisco ASAv.

Once you deploy a virtual database or virtual machine for any product, like Cisco. The first thing to do with your data is test it. So, you need to be prepared with the test that you want to test before you deploy the instances. Because after deploying instances, you wait and see what the data come back with, how to configure it, and review what doesn't work. Therefore, you need to do some background homework before starting, such as what type of data you need to put into it, how to test it, and will the system process it.

We have used both the on-premise and AWS version. We started using AWS in the past six to seven months. Prior to that, we used the on-premise version. The AWS version is better as it is quick to spin up and configure. Also, with AWS, everything is preset, and it is more flexible.

We have it integrated with many other products, like threat intelligence and analytics. For example, all our logs go into Splunk, then we receive our analytics from there. We also have Splunk on AWS. Thus, all the data stays on the cloud, so there is no latency, etc.