Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We started with the old ASA 5510 and migrated to Firepower, first using ASA as the basic operating system. Lately, we've been using FTD because it simplifies operations a lot. We are a very small networking team, and being able to push one policy to many firewalls eases our workload.

We are a global company, and we don't always have IT staff in all corners of the world. Therefore, having one place to do everything is very nice.

Cisco Secure Firewall has made it easier so that more than one person can handle things. We are able to have a bigger team that can handle simple tasks and have a smaller team focus on the deep-dive needs.

We have the same basic policies everywhere now, which makes it more flexible for us to manage.

I like the central management and IPS features. Having everything in one place is very valuable.

Cisco Secure Firewall is very good at detecting threats. We see a lot getting blocked by the IPS in our DMZ, that is, our internet-facing web service.

It helped free up IT staff time. Before, we would have to manually configure every single firewall. Every time we configure something on a firewall, it takes five to ten minutes, and we have more than 50 firewalls around the globe. We do changes every week, and the automated policy and upgrades saved us a lot of time.

In terms of the organization, we have been able to save time by getting things out faster. However, the only downside is that the policy push takes quite a while. Thus, a quick fix still takes at least 15 minutes, and troubleshooting can take time as well.

Some of our problems are related to software updates in remote sites where the internet connection is not stable. Sometimes, the image push just gets disrupted and fails.

The most annoying thing is having to replace the hardware so often. It's very difficult for us to do.

The integration between different tools could be improved. For example, with SecureX, I am yet to find out how to forward security events to different tools such as Microsoft Sentinel, which is what we use for log detection.

We've been using Cisco Secure Firewalls for a very long time.

We had to get in touch with technical support a few times, and our experience was good. I would give them a rating of nine out of ten. 

The initial deployment is easy, and I have not had any issues.

The solution is deployed on-premises. We have an on-premises FMC that connects everything.

The cost of the firewalls versus the ROI is okay.

We are quite Cisco-centric because of the performance we get for the price range. We have a lot of smaller sites, and we are not a very big organization. The price fits us perfectly.

Overall, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We use Cisco ASA and Firepower.

ASA is used for AnyConnect connections, that is, for users to connect to the office. It is very reliable and works fine.

We use Firepower in some sites as firewalls to control inbound/outbound access. We use it as a software protection layer. However, because most users are now working from home, few users need it in the office. As a result, in some places, we have switched to SD-WAN.

The network products help save time if they are well configured at the beginning. They help increase security and protect the company's data.

Firepower's user experience should be a little bit better.

I've been using Cisco Firepower for six months.

There are some hiccups here and there, but compared to the technical support from other vendors, I have had the best experience with Cisco's technical support. I would rate them at nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was somewhat easy because we had previous experience with implementation. We copied that strategy or tried to align it to that implementation, but there were some challenges.

We have a hybrid cloud deployment. We have our own data centers and a lot of branches. In the data centers, most Cisco technologies start with ACI. With firewalls for big branches, we find that it's easier to break out to the internet globally rather than to use data centers.

Cisco's prices are more or less comparable to those of other products.

Compared to other vendors' firewalls, Cisco's firewalls are a bit behind. Overall, however, I would rate Cisco Firewall at eight on a scale from one to ten.

The main use cases are firewalling, routing, site-to-site VPN, and remote access. We have some older 5585-X ASAs in place. We do have Firepower 2000 Series and 4000 Series. 

For most setups, we do have high availability in place. We've at least two devices in active-active or active-standby. If it's a highly secure setup, we sometimes have two firewalls.

Cisco has a huge variety of products and features. It's a benefit to have the knowledge of all those things and also put it in the firewalling products. The knowledge that comes from other products or solutions that Cisco is selling is finding a place in security as well, and that's one of the key benefits.

There are time savings when you have a good solution in place for stopping or preventing security risks. In general, it isn't saving me time on a daily basis, but there is peace of mind knowing that you are being protected.

Basic firewalling is obviously the most valuable. In addition to that, secure access and remote access are also very useful for us. When COVID came, a lot of people had to stay at home, and that was the basic use case for having remote access.

One con of Cisco Secure Firewalls is that Java is used a lot for the older generation of these firewalls. Java is used for the ASA and the ASDM tool for administration. It's an outdated way of administering, and it's also a security risk to use this kind of solution. This is a pro of Firepower or the newer generation of firewalls because they are using HTML for administration.

In general, they can make it easier to manage the solutions. They can make it easier in terms of administration and provide a single tool for different firewalling solutions. They have different tools to manage different firewalls, such as Firepower or ASA. Sometimes, both are on the same thing. You have ASA with Firepower modules, so you manage some of the things via HTML, and then you manage some of the things via another management tool. It's not seamless. It should be bundled together in one solution.

I have been using this solution for six to seven years.

They have been very stable. I did not have any cases where a network was down due to firewalling. Fortunately, I did not have any hacker attacks, but that's being lucky. It's not something I would point out to firewalling or configuration. It's just that sometimes you're lucky and sometimes you're not.

It's very scalable. Cisco is for mid to large businesses. For small businesses, there are solutions that are cheaper, but that's not the main focus. 

A large environment comprises several thousand users. We have small to large size environments, but we mostly have mid to large.

Cisco's tech support is good in general. It varies and depends on with whom you're speaking and how the knowledge on the other side is. That's basically the same for our company. I'd rate them an eight out of ten. A ten would be perfect, and no one is perfect. You can reach maybe a nine, but no one can reach a ten.

Positive

For more security, we sometimes have two firewalls. We have other vendors in place, such as FortiGate or Palo Alto. We have Cisco at the front or at the end, and another vendor on the other side so that there is more security, and if there is a security breach in one solution, we still have the other one. These firewalls differ mostly in administration and how you configure things but not so much in terms of features. They may differ in small things, but in the end, they are all doing the same things.

I deploy and manage them afterward. I'm not only in the designing and implementing; I'm also in the operational business. Its deployment is not more complicated than other solutions. It's fine. When it comes to documentation, in general, Cisco is very good.

We mostly try to do it ourselves. Our approach is to have knowledge or any certification of the topic we are trying to take.

I'm not a salesperson. I'm more from the technical perspective, and I don't know if there are any savings at the end, but I believe that all that was bought in the past was used the way we wanted it to use. So, the money was well spent.

Licensing is not only for Secure Firewalls, and it's too complicated.

To someone evaluating or considering Cisco Secure Firewall, I'd advise having a good greenfield approach regarding what component to use. If there is no greenfield, you should evaluate what solutions you need and what type of use case you have and then decide based on that.

I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten. Cisco is a big player in networking and security, and that's basically the pro on their side.

I'm a solution architect specializing in IT infrastructure designs. I create solutions for clients using Cisco and other products. I've developed solutions with various Cisco Firewall models. I may use an entry-level solution for smaller businesses, like the Cisco 555 Series or 5500. If it's a large enterprise, I may use the 4000 Series, or an ISR router integrated with a firewall for a branch office, and maybe an ISR router, which is integrated with the firewall.

I work with businesses of all sizes, but I see Cisco more often in medium-sized companies or large enterprises. Small businesses often pick Sophos or FortiGate because of the pricing. Large enterprises use Cisco and other products like Palo Alto or Check Point, especially for managing cloud architectures like GCP and AWS. 

If the customer only needs a plain firewall, Cisco ASA is sufficient. It can compete with FortiGate or Sophos. When I talk about a next-gen firewall, the basics include malware protection, instruction prevention, URL filtering, etc. Firepower is integrated to address these next-gen requirements. 

I may use the tabs for dynamic policy implementation in cloud environments depending on the clients' needs, but not typically VMware. I might get a false positive with the VMware operator and platform layer. If I stop some surveys, my production will stop. In such cases, I cannot just go by dynamic classification blindly. It would be better for the application layer, not the platform layer.

I don't have any metrics about how ASA has improved operations for my clients, but I can look at their market share relative to Check Point and other competitors. Cisco has a decent footprint today, and it reduced my customers' CapEx. I don't have the numbers. I'm just speaking relatively. Cisco can reduce operational expenditures by around 40 percent. I'm just giving a vague estimate, but I don't have any specific metrics.

Cisco offers two architectures. I can choose the Meraki track if I want an OpEx model or the traditional track, which is a CapEx model. Due to Cisco's tech acquisitions, I have various feature options within the same product. The DNA of Cisco combines the traditional Cisco architecture with the next-generation firewall.

Segmentation can be helpful for some clients. Let's use a financial organization as an example. We have traffic moving through the branch to the core banking. This is where we can employ segmentation. We can do security policy restrictions for branch employees to prevent them from accessing certain financial reporting systems. We can limit them to the branch level. 

I can enforce certain policies to prevent all branch traffic from reaching one layer of a particular segment by minimizing the overall traffic on the network. I can always control the traffic when I segment it. This set of capabilities is beneficial when a lot of financial algorithms are done.

ASA integrates with Firepower, IPS functionality, malware filtering, etc. This functionality wasn't there in the past. With its cloud architecture, Cisco can filter traffic at the engine layer. Evasive encryptions can be entered into the application, like BitTorrent or Skype. This wasn't possible to control through a traditional firewall. 

Deep Packet Inspection looks at the header information and inspects the contents of a particular packet. We can also look at traffic management. It can control end-user applications, and we can check device performance when we do this type of regression on our resources. This is what we look at with a DPI. It can help us reduce the overall OpEx and CapEx.

Traditionally, we needed multiple software and hardware tools. With these features, we can snoop into our network and understand each packet at a header level. That's called the service control engine.

Within Cisco's Service Control Engine Architecture, there's something called the Preferred Architecture, which has a supervisor engine. It's more of a network management tool. Cisco makes it more convenient to manage our resources. It has a nice UI, or we can go into the command-line level. 

Cisco's micro-segmentation features are helpful for access control layers and virtual LAN policy enforcement. That's how we segregate it. Micro-segmentation is focused on the application layer. When we design a policy that is more automated or granular, and we have a specific business requirement, we get into micro-segmentation. Otherwise, the majority of the implementation will be generic network segmentation.

Dynamic classification is also essential given the current security risks and the attacks. We cannot wait for it to tell us if it's a false positive or a real threat. In those cases, dynamic classification is essential, especially at a MAC level.
When using WiFi, we may have a suspicious guest, and we cannot wait for someone to stop it manually. The firewall needs to at least block the traffic and send an alert.

In cases like these, integration with Cisco ISE is handy. If the firewall alone doesn't help, you must redesign your architecture to include various associated products as you increase your requirements. For example, you may have to get into multiple servers, so you'll need an ISE for identity management. 

As you start scaling up your requirements, you go beyond a firewall. You start from an L1 layer and go to the L7 sitting at the organization's gateway. When you talk about dynamic policy implementation, that's where you start to get serious about your operations and can change things suddenly when an attack is happening.

With ISE integration, you get another dynamic classification if an endpoint connects immediately. ISE has a lot of authorization rules, so it applies a filter. The dynamic policy capabilities enable tighter integration at the application workload level. Snort 3 IPS enables you to run more rules without sacrificing performance, and IPS puts you one step ahead of any threats to the organization.

There are some limitations with SSL. Regarding the security assessment for the ISO 27000 standard, there are certain features that Cisco needs to scale up. Not all products support it, so we need to be slightly careful, especially on the site track. 

We face challenges with Cisco when implementing some security vulnerability assessments, including the algorithms and implementing SSL 3.0. I may change the entire product line because traditional product lines don't support that.

Integration isn't typically a problem because the network is compatible, but Cisco could upgrade the threat database. They could integrate the threat database of the on-premise firewall with the cloud. Check Point has cloud integration with a market database of all the vulnerabilities. Cisco could add this to its roadmap to make the product more effective.

I have been working with firewalls for about 20 to 25 years, but I've been using Cisco for around 12 to 15 years.

Cisco ASA Firewall is reliable, especially in the Indian context. For example, I had a couple of banks with around 5,000 branches and ATMs. It was easy to deploy remotely or send it to each branch. 

Cisco ASA Firewall is scalable to a certain extent.

Cisco support is okay, but not great. I rate Cisco support five out of ten. The response time is too long. We need an instant response to security issues. They follow some legacy processes.

In some cases, I think they're good, but they have hundreds of questions and steps to go through before the ticket is escalated. The local partner adds a lot of value in that case.

Neutral

The standard setup is straightforward and takes around four hours. You can also do more customization and adjustments to deploy it in a particular environment.
I design a custom implementation strategy for each customer. It depends on whether I'm migrating an existing environment or doing a fresh deployment. I try to understand the customer's security footprint and all the issues I need to address before installation. 

I think Cisco's price is in the right space now. They have discounts for customers at various levels. I think they're in the right spot. However, Cisco can be expensive when you factor in these additional features. 

If you add SecureX, Cisco's cost will definitely jump. We started with the standard ASA, then we added segmentation and micro-segmentation, and now we're talking about automation and unified architecture. SecureX is an integrated security portfolio. It gives a vertical and 360-degree algorithm with an open, integrated platform that can scale.

In most next-generation products, the UA itself will manage a lot of things, but it's easier to find people with expertise. If you put 10 firewall experts in the room, six will be talking about Cisco, but you can hardly find one or two people talking about Check Point or Palo Alto. Others would be more talking about Sophos, FortiGate, etc.

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall seven out of ten. If you're implementing a Cisco firewall, you must be crystal clear about your business requirements and how a Cisco ASA firewall will address your problem. You need to understand whether this product line contains all the features you need. 

Can it pass a security audit? Does it integrate with your network device? How scalable is it? Will this solution you're implementing today be adequate in the next three years? These are the questions that you should ask.

It's deployed in multiple ways, depending on the use case. Generally speaking, we have them as edge firewalls, but I have some customers who use them as data center firewalls, and some customers who use them as VPN firewalls. And in some places, they're the east-west firewalls, as they would be called in a core network. We do have some that are for cloud firewalling, that we're using in Azure and AWS. But generally speaking, they're deployed as edge firewalls and on-prem.

In some cases that I'm aware of, when moving from specific platforms like Check Point, Firepower has offered a much easier way of working with the platform and deploying changes. For the customer, it's a lot easier in the newer platform than it was in the previous one.

I've done network assessments, where we wanted to get visibility into all flows. I used Firepower boxes for some of those, where we tapped a line and let Firepower see all the traffic. It was incredibly helpful in picking up all of the flows of data. As a result, I was able to give information to the customer, saying, "This is what it's doing and this is what it's seeing in your network." I find it very helpful to get all that type of data. It's got a lot more information than NetFlow-type systems.

There have also been use cases where I'm doing east-west and north-south in the same firewall box. That is possible with SGTs and SD-Access and Firepower. That ability has been critical in some of the designs we've done. A scenario would be that we have an underlay, a corporate network, and a guest network VRF-routed zone; big macro security zones. We are doing micro-segmentation at the edge with SD-Access, but the macro-segmentation between the zones is handled by the firewall. Because we didn't want to split up our east-west and north-south, because there really wasn't a budget for it, they're on the same box. That box is able to do both flows that go towards the internet and flows that go between the different interfaces on the firewall. We're using SGTs in those policies and we're able to extend the logic from the SD-Access environment into the firewall environment, which creates a very unified approach to security.

We're also able to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments with 7.0. That's becoming more and more important every day. IPs are becoming less important; names and locations and where things live in the cloud mean things are becoming a lot more fluid in the world of security. It's very helpful to have objects and groups that can follow that fluidity along, as opposed to me trying to do it old school and static everything up. No one has time for that. Dynamic policy capabilities enable tight integration with Secure Workload at the application workload level. The IP is less relevant and the application or the VMware tag can be tied to a specific ruleset. It's very helpful to be able to have it be so dynamic now. We're using more and more of those dynamic group concepts.

When it comes to the solution’s tags for dynamic policy implementation in cloud environments, VMware is the primary one I'm seeing these days, but I expect Azure to pick up significantly. The use of these tags for dynamic policy implementation in cloud environments simplifies things. We don't have to have so much static stuff pinned up. We can just have a single rule that says, "If it's this tag, then do this," as opposed to, "If it's this IP and this IP and this other IP, then you're allowed to do this thing." By disconnecting it from the IP address, we've made it very flexible.

It may sound a bit strange, but one of the most valuable features of Firepower 7.0 is the "live log" type feature called Unified Event Viewer. That view has been really good in helping me get to data faster, decreasing the amount of time it takes to find information, and allowing me to fix problems faster. I've found that to be incredibly valuable because it's a lot easier to get to some points of data now.

Also, the new UI is always getting better from version to version. In the beginning, when it came to managing Cisco Secure Firewall, it wasn't always the easiest, but with 6.7 and 7.0, it's gotten easier and easier. It's a pretty easy system to manage. It's especially beneficial for people who are familiar with ASA logic because a lot of the Firepower logic is the same. For those people, they're just relearning where the buttons are, as opposed to having to figure out how to configure things.

I've used the backup VTI tunnel and that's a feature that lets me create some redundancy for my route-based stuff and it works pretty well. I haven't had any issues with it

Firepower 7.0 also has fantastic Dynamic Access Policies that allow me to replicate a lot of the configurations that were missing and that made it difficult to move off the old ASA platform for some customers. The addition of that capability has removed that limitation and has allowed me to move forward with implementing 7.0. 

Snort 3 is one of the biggest points on Firepower 7.0. I've been using Snort 3 for quite a while and, while I don't have a ton of customers on it, I do have some who are running on it and it's worked out pretty well. In their use cases, there wasn't a lot of risk, so that's why we started with it. Snort 3 has some huge advantages when it comes to performance and policy and how it's applying things and processing the flows.

Dynamic Objects have also been really critical. They're very valuable. Version to version, they're adding a lot more features onto Dynamic Objects, and I'm a big fan. 

I've also used the Upgrade Wizard quite a bit to upgrade the firmware. 

And on the management side, there are the health modules. They added a "metric ton" of them to the FMC [Firepower Management Center]. In version 6.7 they released this new health monitor which makes it a lot easier to see data and get to information faster. It's quite nice looking, as opposed to CLI. The new health modules really do stand out as a great way to get to some of that health data quickly—things like interface information, statistics, drops—that were harder to get to before. I can now see them over time, as opposed to at just a point in time. I've used that a lot and it has been very helpful.

In addition, there is the global search for policy and objects. I use that quite a bit in the search bar. It's a great way to get some information faster. Even if I have to pivot away from the screen I'm on, it's still great to be able to get to it very quickly there. 

In a lot of ways, they've addressed some of the biggest complaints, like the "housekeeping" stuff where you have to move around your management system or when it comes to making configuration changes. That has improved from version to version and 7.0 is different. They've added more and have made it easier to get from point A to point B and to consume a lot of that data quickly. That allows me to hop in and do some data validation much faster, without having to search and wait and search and wait. I can get to some of that data quicker to make changes and to fix things. It adds to the overall administrator experience. When operating this technology I'm able to get places faster, rather than it being a type of bottleneck.

There is also the visibility the solution gives you when doing deep packet inspection. It blows up the packet, it matches application types, and it matches web apps. If you're doing SSL decryption it can pinpoint it even further than that. It's able to pull encrypted apps apart and tell me a lot about them. There's a lot of information that 7.0 is bringing to the forefront about flows of data, what it is, and what it's doing. The deep packet inspection and the application visibility portion and Snort are really essential to managing a modern firewall. Firepower does a bang-up job of it, by bringing that data to the forefront.

It's a good box for visibility at the Layer 7 level. If you need Layer 7 visibility, Firepower is going to be able to do that for you. Between VLANs, it does a good job. It's able to look at that Layer 7 data and do some good filtering based on those types of rules.

I'd like to see Cisco continue its approach to making it easier to navigate the UI and FMC and make it easier to get from point A to point B. Generally, the room for improvement is going to be all UI-related. The platform, overall, is solid.

I'd also like them to continue to approach things from a policy-oriented perspective. They are moving more and more in that direction. 

Also, the change-deployment time can always be improved. Even at 50 seconds, it's longer than some of its competitors. I would challenge Cisco to continue to improve in that area. It's very reasonable at 50 seconds, it's not like it used to be in early versions of Firepower, where it was around seven minutes. Still, it could be quicker. The faster we can deploy changes, the faster we can roll back changes if we have messed something in the configuration. Low deploy times are really good to have. 

I would also like to see more features that will help us connect things to the cloud dynamically, and connect things to other sites dynamically. There should be more SD-WAN features in the boxes. If I can use one box to solve cloud connectivity problems, and not have to do stuff so statically, the way I have to do things today on them, that would be helpful.

I am a Cisco partner and reseller and I actually beta test for the Firepower team. I work on Firepower boxes and have done so since the beginning. I have customers on Firepower 7.0 and I have been using Firepower 7.0 since its release.

I haven't really had any major complaints or issues with Firepower 7.0 stability.

It scales, but it depends on the growth rate of the customer and the amount of bandwidth. It's usually a speed and feed problem: Is the firewall box big enough to handle the traffic? Snort 3 has made some improvements there and it's even given some life back to older boxes because of improvements in code and in how Snort processes data. But, overall, the box just has to be big enough for the amount of traffic you're trying to shove through it.

I've been doing this a long time and I don't usually need to call tech support. But when I do need to call TAC, after working with a lot of the other vendors out there, Cisco TAC is still one of the best technical resources in the market. I do like TAC. That's not to say that every TAC engineer is great, but comparatively, they're one of the best support organizations.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward, with the caveat that I've been doing this for a long time, so for me it is simple and makes sense. But it is pretty straightforward. You have overall policies that wrap up into your access policy, which is the base policy. You have DNS policies that will roll right up into it. Likewise, platform policies get attached to devices. Generally speaking, it's a lot of working through the logic of the rules: How do you want to block stuff, and how do you want to permit stuff? A lot of that is normal firewalling. When I say the setup is simple, it's because it involves normal firewalling issues. You have to deal with routing, NAT rules, ACLs, and VPNs. It's a matter of just kind of working through those same things that every firewall has to solve.

The deployment time depends on the customer and how many rules. If we're building out all their rule sets, it could range from 40 hours to hundreds of hours. It also depends on what we're coming from. We're not generally walking into environments that are green, meaning there's no box there today. It's almost always that there's something else there that we're replacing. We have to take what we're coming from, convert it, and then put it on Firepower. Small businesses might have a couple of rules, enterprises might have hundreds of rules.

Our implementation strategy is to go in, document the current state of the environment, and then work on a future state. We then work through all the in-between stuff. When we have the old firewall configuration, we determine what it will look like on the new firewall configuration. Does the firewall configuration need to be cleaned up? Are there things that we can optimize and improve or modify? A lot of it involves copying configuration from the old platform to the new one. We're usually not trying to change a ton in a firewall project because it increases the risk of problems arising. Usually, customers' networks are operating when we get into them. We prefer to do a cleanup project after implementation, but sometimes they coincide.

In our company, one person can usually do a firewall cutover. And maintenance of Firepower 7.0 usually requires one person. Maintenance will usually involve a firmware upgrade.

There is a lot of value with SecureX. Other customers struggle to bring all the data back to one place, the way you can with SecureX, across a product portfolio. The value of that capability is incredible. I don't know how to put a monetary value on it, but from an operational perspective, it's very helpful to have it all back in one place because you're not having to hop around to multiple UIs to find the data you're looking for.

With any vendor, prices are often a little bit negotiable. There are things like discounted rates. There's a list price and then, as a partner, we get a discounted rate based on how much product we're purchasing and our relationship with the vendor. 

But on the list-price side of things, there are three big licenses on an FTD [Firepower Threat Defense] box. There are the malware license, the threat license, and the URL filtering license. You can license them in one-year, three-year, and five-year increments. Each license will enable different features on the box. The malware license will enable AMP filtering or AMP detection. The threat detection enables use of the IPS solution, which is really Snort's bread and butter. And the URL filtering enables filtering based on URL categories.

Sometimes we use URL filtering and sometimes we don't. It depends on the customer and on whether they have a different URL filtering strategy, like Umbrella. The two big ones that we sell are malware and threat detection, with threat detection probably being the license we sell the most.

SMARTnet, the technical support component, covers the box. When you purchase the hardware, you buy it with SMARTnet. Licenses cover features, SMARTnet covers support.

We continue to support, integrate, and sell three out of the major four vendors: Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco. Every vendor has been a great partner with us, so I don't want to showcase one firewall platform over another.

Palo Alto is arguably the most mature out of the group when it comes to the firewall in general, but they've also been developing on the same platform for quite a long time.

FortiGate, on the other hand, is great in a lot of use cases.

Cisco's strength is how it integrates with the security portfolio at Cisco. When you have a lot of other security products or integrations, Firepower really stands out above the rest. Palo Alto and Fortinet, although they can integrate with SDA to some degree, they don't integrate to the same depths as Firepower. You really start to see the benefits of Firepower in your organization when you're looking at the Cisco security stack. That's what I would argue is one of the biggest benefits of Cisco in general, that stack of products.

With Cisco, it's not necessarily about a single piece, it's definitely about how they all can communicate and talk to each other, and how information is shared between the components, so that you can create a unified approach to security. Their SecureX product is an integration point. It brings together a lot of that information from different product lines in one place. That's really Cisco's game. Some of the other security vendors struggle to keep up with the breadth and depth of what Cisco is doing in all those different spaces.

In terms of ease of management, Firepower is an enterprise product. While FDM [Firepower Device Manager] is really easy to use, FMC has a lot more knobs to turn. Comparing FortiGate to FMC, a lot of the capabilities of FortiGate are still at the CLI level only. Palo Alto is 100 percent UI-based, not that you can't configure a Palo Alto from CLI, but I don't think anybody does that.

My advice is that you need to know your flows. If you're upgrading to Firepower, you should know what traffic matters and what traffic doesn't matter. If you really want to be successful, you should know all the flows of traffic, how they function, what they do. That way, when you get the box up and running, you know exactly how it should operate.

You can split Firepower users into two buckets: help desk and admin. Help desk will usually be read-only and admin will be read-write. If there's one engineer at a customer, he might have admin rights. If there's a help desk and one senior firewall guy, he might have admin rights where his help desk has read-only. It varies by the size of the customer. Most midsize organizations have one or two firewall guys. When you get into the big enterprises, the number goes up.

Regarding Firepower's Snort 3 IPS allowing you to maintain performance while running more rules, the "book answer" is yes, it's supposed to. We're not really running Snort 3 a ton on those yet because of some of the risk and because some of those customers haven't upgraded to 7.0 yet. Those that are on Snort 3 are just not running policy sets that are large enough that to notice any major or even minor improvements. I have seen an uptick in performance improvements with Snort 3, even on firewalls that are not 100,000-rule firewalls. We are seeing improvements with Snort 3. It's just that Snort 2 performance hasn't really affected the box overall, it just runs a little hotter.

When I mentioned the risk for Snort 3 for our larger clients, what I meant is that with new things come new risks. Snort 3 is one of those new things and we have to evaluate, when we upgrade a customer to it, whether the risk of the upgrade warrants doing it for the customer. In some cases, the answer is no, because of burn-in time. With some of our riskier locations or locations that require 24/7, it makes more sense to run Snort 2, which has been out there since forever on the Firepower platform. It's a lot more stable on Snort 2 and the problems are known problems, from a design perspective. We've mitigated those and worked around them. With Snort 3, there could be new bugs or problems, and in some environments, we want to mitigate that risk.

My expectation is that by 7.1 or 7.2 we will upgrade more generally to Snort 3. It's not that it's far away. It's just that with 7.0 being the first release of Snort 3, and 7.0 only having one or two patches under its belt, we thought it better to remove some risk and just use Snort 2.

Cisco Secure Firewall helps to reduce firewall operational costs, depending on the firewall vendor it's replacing. In some cases, customers are coming from old platforms where the security wasn't nearly at the same level as a next-gen firewall, so the advantage of moving to a next-gen firewall is the increase in security. But that comes with an operational burden no matter the firewall type. There is a lot more visibility and capability out of the NGFW platform, but it comes at a cost. There's more data to work through and more things to configure. Still, in most cases, Cisco Secure Firewall is going to decrease operational usage with the caveat that it has to be an "apples-to-apples" situation, which is very hard to come across these days. 

Our use for Cisco Secure is for the firewall. 

Network segmentation is the most valuable feature.

The dashboard can be improved. 

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for seven years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. A thousand-plus users are using the solution in my company. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Pricing is high.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution in my company for some internal testing purposes, so I don't use it in a real environment. I use it in my dummy lab environment.

The product's user interface is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the product's price needs to be lowered.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years. I am a customer of Cisco.

I have faced no issues with the stability of the product. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product offers good scalability.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with Sophos.

The product's initial setup phase is a little difficult.

The product's deployment phase is a good and easy process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The product is expensive.

I can't describe a particular scenario where the product has improved security, but I can say that the devices from Cisco are much more trustworthy and reliable compared to other devices in the market.

The most effective feature of the product for threat prevention stems from the granularity of the control that the devices from Cisco provide to its users.

The product offers great integration capabilities.

For our company's daily operations, the user interface provided by Sophos is much better and interactive compared to the one offered by Cisco.

You can choose Sophos if you want a low-budget or budget-friendly product. You can choose Cisco if you want a high-end and highly scalable tool with great integration capabilities, especially if budget is not an issue.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases lie mainly with high availability and the security features available doing Layer 3 routing that we would need on our internal network.

It has simplified the internal network, so we don't have to worry about one device failing and losing connectivity. High availability is always there.

Our top three features are the high-availability features, the VPN and the IPSec.

It has fantastic visibility. It's a 10 out of 10. 

Cisco Secure Firewall is fantastic at securing our infrastructure from end to end so we can detect and remediate threats. We have already caught things that have tried to get in. 

Cisco Secure Firewall has improved resilience by a huge margin. It has been a great help.

Cisco Secure Firewall has freed staff because we don't have IT staff worrying about a lot of the threats. We trust the device that we are going to catch the threat. We are going to get a notification and be able to act upon that. Cisco Secure Firewall has saved at least 25 hours a week

The newer versions have made it so that we do not have to worry about other appliances with feature sets that are already built into the Cisco firewall.

The solution has had a huge effect, especially from physical density when it comes to securing our infrastructure. A lot of people don't think about power availability and cooling aspects. You have a limit to how much power you can push, and every little bit helps. 

We chose Cisco because of its understanding, customer service, warranties, and the quality of the product

We would like to see dual power supplies for some Cisco Firewall products. Having to get an ATS in the Data Center application because there's an A+B power feed on such a vital device with high availability may be something that I want to put in there.

We have been using Cisco Firewall for the last 20 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable because Cisco keeps up with new technology, the security application, bandwidth, optics, and the kind of speed that one can use.

Customer support has been very responsive, whether it is a hardware failure or calling for any kind of technical support.

Positive

We have seen a return on investment in the total cost of ownership.

The pricing is fair compared to competitors. Cisco is the Cadillac in its field. You get what you pay for. 

Cisco is amazing at upgrading, so even if we did have to upgrade a device, it is plug-and-play because of that availability option.

Cisco is doing a great job with all the improvements that are coming; they are allowing for GUI setups where many people aren't so used to CLI. Many of the younger grads coming into our field are more used to APIs and automation, so having that GUI feel is a lot better than CLI.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We mostly use Cisco Secure Firewall as a VPN concentrator and for its firewall features.

Using Cisco Secure Firewall has helped grow our familiarity with people that know Cisco.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is its ease of configuration and that it's scalable for firewalls and VPNs.

Changes you make in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line and vice versa.

We have been using the solution since its inception, so, for many years now.

We did not have any stability issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

We did not see any limitations with Cisco Secure Firewall’s scalability.

We also use Aruba in our organization. We never have to factor in extra development time when we go to a new major version of Cisco. With Aruba, we have a pretty drawn-out development timeline for any upgrades or software improvements. Aruba and Cisco Secure Firewall are very different in their implementation and development.

The initial setup of the Cisco Secure Firewall is very straightforward. The average time it took to deploy the solution was very short. Deploying the VM and automating our configurations took a couple of minutes.

Cisco smart licensing is a hassle for a disconnected environment. However, I haven't licensed anything in a while. There have been many changes, making it easier to license disconnected devices connected to the internet.

ASAv uses the solution as a VPN concentrator and a firewall because it could be used for both. It can be used for landing AnyConnect clients on ASAv and as a firewall.

What sets Cisco Firewall apart from other products is that when we do an update, we know we're not going to break a lot of things, and there are not a lot of bugs. The integration on the Cisco side is pretty good.

Most of our team is familiar with Cisco, and everyone knows what to expect when they log in. So it's easy in that way.

I like the application visibility and control with Cisco Secure Firewall. My only complaint is that the changes made in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line.

I haven't had any problems with Cisco Secure Firewall. It's very straightforward and reliable. Also, it's trustworthy because it has the Cisco name.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped free up our IT staff for other projects. The product is quite heavy into automation. So with it being Cisco, it is very scalable in generating configs. The solution saves a week or two for implementation and integration.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience through the reliability aspect.

You know what you're getting when you use an ASAv from Cisco. Cisco Secure Firewall is a great product in terms of reliability and scalability.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall ten out of ten.

We use Cisco Secure Firewall for traditional firewall use cases, like VPN, segmenting of traffic, and creating PPSs.

We need reliable communication to do what we do, and that's very important. The solution does what we need to do and when we need to do it. It has a great reputation for the support that we need because if things don't work within the Department of Defense, people don't survive. Communication and keeping the adversary out are key components of our work. So we need a robust, reliable, and secure product, and that's what Cisco provides us.

Cisco Secure Firewall is robust and reliable.

The process of procuring modern-day technology within the DOD needs to improve.

I've spent quite a few years with Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a very stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a very scalable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall's technical support is great, reliable, and responsive.

Positive

We have seen a return on investment from using Cisco Secure Firewall. From the DOD's perspective, we need a reliable and robust solution that has to be reliable in real-time. Cisco Secure Firewall is a reliable solution that works when needed.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a great scalable, secure, and robust product.

There is a dedicated team designed to handle firewalls.

I have a good impression of Cisco Talos and its effects on our security operations. They have a great reputation for doing a lot of great things.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall nine out of ten.