Cisco IOS Security Reviews

IOS Security is a firewall, and every connection goes through it. We have around 12,000 people in the company.

In Pakistan, we only use Cisco because they have good local support infrastructure. Huawei and Fortinet don't offer direct support in Pakistan.

It takes too much time to deploy a policy to FMC. It takes around eight minutes. You can't afford any downtime when you're changing policies. 

The update process could also be smoother. They could improve the FirePOWER integration to reduce the time needed to update to the newer version. Sometimes, in the middle of the update, the process starts, but it doesn't find the new installation, so we have to force it to run that particular part. 

I have been using IOS Security for about six or seven years.

When we have FirePOWER integrated into the solution, there are some gaps, so it's not as stable as the legacy solutions like SFR and ASA. 

It depends on the size of the box. We don't have any issues regarding scalability with the appliance we have.

We don't directly connect with the principal. In Pakistan, we have vendors providing support indirectly to our principal. We have Smart Net support, but in the banking sector, management always prefers an indirect channel.

I also use FortiGate. IOS Security is more stable than competitors, and Cisco is more comprehensive in its approach. The company is trusted and has a greater presence. That is the main reason to use Cisco over other vendors. 

I rate Cisco IOS Security seven out of 10. To make it a 10, Cisco needs to speed up all the processes to reduce downtime to a minimum. For example, if a department comes to me to do a UAT, I might find out I have to make some changes. There's an additional 10 minutes. It's a lengthy process for me.

If you have the support for another firewall, I suggest researching your options. Go for the UAT environment and check as you're comparing them. I won't say that you should definitely go for Cisco.

The solution is the core of our network to implement, for example, Cisco Eyes, since we have Cisco Eyes on our network. At the core and access layers, we also use the solution for all our configurations concerning admission control into the network.

The solution is easy to use. It provides hotkeys that help you remember commands you've forgotten about.

I would like upgrading iOS to be a bit easier. If you want the old version to continue running, that should be a bit easier. People have made many apps to do that online, but if Cisco could have that at the click of a button to quickly download or upload it, after which everything starts to work, that would be good. Sometimes, setting up your TFTB is difficult even though there are tools now. There should be something that would make it much easier where I just have to download, upload it into the iOS, and start it up.

I've used the solution for about eight to ten years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. We have about 500 users on this solution.

The solution is easy to set up if you know what to do. You can copy all the content and slam it into the switch if you have a configuration. After five to ten minutes at most, the switch is ready.

The initial setup is not much of a problem if you have an existing configuration. You just need to copy and paste. But if you're designing things, you might need a consultant.

We mostly need technical people for the solution to support users. Most of the issues we have are the Mac and our Cisco Eye. Sometimes, the user's password will expire, and the user must be called to connect them back. Sometimes, Eye does not allow the users to work, and we need to clear the ports and things like that. That's a bit of the experience where we have one challenge after another, but we are finding our way around it. Regarding the number of technical staff, we need a password administrator who does the configuration and then support guys who ensure that all the endpoints have access to the network.

You might need some level of support depending on what you're doing. Because even if it is in a cloud environment, as long as you understand the setup of what you want, you're good to go.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. Before now, there were things that you could log in and get them to do for you. Because we have Smart Net for our devices, that's the way to go most of the time because you are sure that at the click of a button, Cisco will always be there to help.

We use Cisco IOS Security for firewalls and security purposes. Cisco has licenses that allow you to create registered ports.

The product's stability is good.

The weakness of Cisco's products is that it has higher prices for even its lowest configurations. Cisco has to come a little forward with its products. Cisco very slowly introduces and implements the products, unlike other brands.

I have 10 years of experience with Cisco IOS Security. 

It is a very good product stability-wise, even if it is an entry-level product.

We have our own digital team who deploys the solution, but the support team is fine.

It is not an easy product and doesn’t have a plug-in system. Only experienced people can integrate it with other functions. It has a different set of protocols that need to be followed during the deployment, as compared to Aruba. It requires experience to deploy and the team needs to have knowledge of all specifications. 

I have global customers who have applied this product. People who are buying this solution should know that they need and have the required solutions. I recommend Cisco IOS Security only for enterprises because it is expensive and involves complex implementation processes. It is not the easiest product available in the market and requires a strong infrastructure and an experienced workforce. Small and medium companies don’t have the required resources to apply this product and a lot of licensing is involved for each port. Given the price, stability, features, and other factors, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use Cisco IOS Security to segregate IT and OT environments.

Cisco IOS Security is very robust and works very well. Once set up and operational, very limited human interaction is required with the device to run it for years. We deployed the solution, activated certain features, and forgot about it. We didn't have the necessary tools to monitor and maintain the solution actively.

Cisco IOS Security's monitoring is rather rudimentary and could be improved.

I have been using Cisco IOS Security for around 15 years.

I rate Cisco IOS Security a ten out of ten for stability.

Less than fifty users were using Cisco IOS Security in my previous organization.

The initial setup for Cisco IOS Security is relatively straightforward compared to other firewalls. We had two people, including myself and a network specialist, for the deployment and maintenance of Cisco IOS Security.

We implemented the solution in-house.

Cisco IOS Security got the job done. The solution was secure and stable. So we got a decent return on investment.

I look at companies and what they specialize in, and Cisco never really specialized in security. Other companies have security as their core focus. I will not be deploying any Cisco security devices in the near future.

Overall, I rate Cisco IOS Security a seven out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is firewall protection.

The most valuable feature is endpoint protection.

The security of the solution has room for improvement.

The solution is complex and can be more user-friendly.

The stability and scalability can be improved.

I have been using the solution for over one year.

The solution is not stable.

The solution doesn't have the proper bandwidth source to be scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment takes about two hours.

I give the solution a six out of ten.

We have over 1,000 people using the solution in our organization.

We require around ten people for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

I do not recommend the solution because it is not secure and is complex.

Our company uses the solution as intrusion protection for customers. It fully integrates with the BMA and ISE. We manage all traffic in data centers to protect them from internal users and outside traffic.

The solution effectively integrates with Umbrella which has an intelligent background and is very helpful in tech analysis or discovery. 

The solution is not user friendly and it is hard to manage the GUI interface. This is an ongoing CISCO problem. 

The solution needs Active/Active firewalls to have good load balance with high availability. The firewalls should work simultaneously, not just as failovers. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution is very stable if configured properly. I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is very highly scalable and other products really don't compete with its scalability. The solution can easily be used for small companies or big enterprises with thousands of users. I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

Technical support does not have a broad knowledge base, so I rate them a six out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is better than before but still not easy or clear like Palo Alto. If you want to configure the solution, then you need to study how to do it. 

The setup is difficult so I rate it a six out of ten. 

We implement the solution for customers on our own unless we have an issue or bug. It takes one expert staff person for deployment. Depending on the customer's policies and the network's complexity, deployment might take from three to seven days. 

Our process includes verifying the license and setting up the firewall, hardware, FMC, and the failover when there is more than one firewall. We then define or set up the configurable interfaces and the IP addresses. Finally, we define the VLAN of the customer and policies for each VLAN. 

The solution does not require ongoing maintenance if it is configured properly. 

Our ROI is that the solution saves time because it reduces attacks and helps with ongoing protection. The subscription model is also very helpful for ROI. 

I rate ROI at 1800%. 

The pricing is average and includes all features with support. I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

Palo Alto has a better GUI interface for handling all features and is easier to configure. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten. 

My organization is an ISP using IOS Security to secure enterprise resources. We previously had it deployed on-premises, but we have switched to the cloud. We prefer AWS for latency purposes because it's based in South Africa. 

The VPN was valuable for us because more people are working from home. It has a lot of reporting and easy-to-use management tools.

The configuration and reporting interfaces need a lot of improvement. It needs to be more accessible forsolide without a strong technical background. If you had a simplified dashboard, the lower-level techs could manage the solution and provide services. Cisco IOS Security requires someone who is highly trained to operate it. 

There is central management, but reporting could be more centralized too. You can have a lab module. However, we need to see some es, and that will help you deploy without breaking the live system. There's no way for me to have a live system to test my new configuration. If it breaks, I have to deploy it and reverse it to the previous configuration. 

It would be nice if I could create an online lab on the fly to test for 10 minutes to an hour without messing anything up. That would be great, especially for things that we do on our live network appliance.

I've been using Cisco since the late 90s.

The stability is great. It takes a bit of time for them to introduce new features that I want. 

All Cisco products are scalable. The scalability is there, but the pricing model isn't straightforward. 

I rate Cisco support four out of 10. Dealing with Cisco support is complicated. First, there's a time difference because we are in the GMT+2 time zone. It sometimes takes a while for your ticket to be assigned. Today, I find that other cloud service providers respond much quicker than Cisco, even though they are smaller. They need to improve on response time.

Neutral

It was the first solution I've used, and I've stuck with it because I'm comfortable with it. I haven't used other products, but I'm evaluating some because Cisco is becoming more complicated in terms of licensing, features, and other stuff. 

I wouldn't say the deployment was complicated, but I wouldn't use the word "easy" either. It's straightforward if you know what you're doing. However, it can be complicated if you don't know what you're trying to do. You need a bit of training before touching it. By contrast, FortiGate is easier to get started, but Cisco solutions require training before you start messing with them. 

It wasn't much of a challenge for me because I've been working with Cisco for a while. Initially, there were some painful moments where you thought these things would break.

We were doing everything by ourselves at first, but we ended up using an integrator at some point.

In IT services, we don't calculate return on investment. It allows the business to grow, so we don't calculate the return. We just look at the IT cost. 

I rate IOS Security six out of 10 for pricing

I rate Cisco IOS Security six out of 10. For someone who wants something that works, they can be sure that Cisco will be there in the next five years. Cisco products have longevity because the company is secure, and you know the product will be supported for many years. 

There is longevity if you can afford it. At the same time, you'll need to invest in learning the product. The most vital aspect of Cisco is that it works, and the company is there for you. You are sure it'll be there tomorrow.

Cisco IOS Security helps us with splitting the DNS between a specific perimeter.

The product has valuable features for business intelligence. It enables intrusion detection for the network.

The product's technical support services need improvement.

We have been using Cisco IOS Security for more than ten years.

Cisco releases new patches and updates, whenever required. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten. We have three users for it in our organization. We might increase the usage depending on the business requirements.

Cisco has a lot of support partners. However, it takes a long time to replace some equipment.

Positive

I have used Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) before.

The initial setup requires specific training. I rate the process an eight out of ten. The deployment involves setting up a bot for Buffalo with the management IP address. After that, I deploy the data center and access it remotely to complete the process.

I rate Cisco IOS Security's pricing a ten out of ten.

We evaluated a few products. Later, we opted for Cisco as we already have experience working with it.

It is a good product. It is valuable in terms of availability. Once configured and installed, the equipment runs for years. I rate it a seven out of ten as its support cost is high.