Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

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 It's an outdated way of administering, and it's also a security risk to use this kind of solution.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.

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.

It is primarily our VPN solution. Initially, it was used in our firewalling. Then, we transitioned it into just our standalone VPN service for the company.

It is on-prem. We have it in two different data centers: our main data center and our backup data center.

With what is going on in the world, e.g., hybrid work and work from home, and everything that happened, VPN was everything to us. Without it, we wouldn't have been able to operate.

Typically, before COVID hit, we were a very much work-in-the-office type of environment with five to 10 people on our VPN solution. We quickly ramped up to 500 people when COVID happened, which is the majority of our full-time users. Onboarding our entire company onto this solution was pretty cool.

It is very good at what it does. It is a very dependable, long-standing product that you can trust. You know exactly how it works. It has been in the market for a lot longer than I have. So, it is great at its core functionality.

We are still running the original ASAs. The software that you are running for the ASDM software and Java application has never been a lot of fun to operate. It would have been nice to see that change update be redesigned with modern systems, which don't play nicely with Java sometimes. Cybersecurity doesn't seem to love how that operates. For us, a fresher application, taking advantage of the hardware, would have been a better approach.

I have been with the company for seven years, and we have had it the entire time. Cisco Advanced Services came in in 2013, which was two years before I joined. They did a deployment and installed it then.

There is your regular day-to-day maintenance, e.g., the patches and updates. Because it sits at the edge, it is exposed to the world. With threats always being of concern, you often have to patch and update. However, it is nothing more than regular maintenance

We have never had to ramp up more than a small- to medium-business use case. For that, it has been great. Limitation-wise, we would run into challenges if we ever hit 2,000 to 2,500 users. We would then have to move onto hardware. Its scalability is only limited by the size of the appliance. So, if you ever have to exceed that, then you just have to buy a new box.

ASA has always been great because it has been such a longstanding product. There is a lot of knowledge in-house with Cisco. I always know if we call to get help, it is great. I do wonder in the future, as the product gets close to the end of its life, if those people will move onto other things and it gets lost a bit. However, it has always been easy enough to find that help.

For the ASA specifically, probably nine.

Positive

We were just looking for a different feature set. We found that ASA was rock-solid as a VPN piece. We wanted to separate the VPN from our firewall policy management, so we just moved it over to VPN as a solution.

We had a partnership with Cisco. They came in and redid the entire environment. Before that, there was no Cisco environment whatsoever. So, they came in with the Nexus switching and Catalyst Wireless solution, then the VPN came with that as well as the ASA.

I have never found it hard to deploy. We didn't have a BCP solution set up as our secondary when COVID hit, which was something that we had to scramble to put together. However, it was something like a couple of days' work. It wasn't really a big deal or really complicated. It was a fairly straightforward system to separate and manage.

It brings us the ability to work from anywhere and has allowed us to work remotely without having to incur a lot of other costs. If we didn't have this type of solution, since we have so many on-prem services that are required, we would have likely lost money and been unable to deliver. We have a video services team who helped build the content for our sporting events. When you are watching a Leaf game and those swipes come by as well as the clips and things, those are all generated in-house. Without the ability to access our on-premise resources, we would have been dead in the water. So, the return on that is pretty impressive.

We integrate it with our ISE solution, TACACS+, etc. We have a Windows NPS server for MFA through Azure. We don't have any challenges with it. It has always worked well. I can't think of a time when we have ever had problems with either of those things. It has worked just fine.

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10.

We are an insurance company. The core of what we do is service. We manage people and security. We have all the implementation for security. 

We have one ERP running on-prem and another one is running on the GCP cloud. We have a cloud service that runs that ERP on GCP. Our other service is running with Microsoft 365. So, we have an in-house AD that syncs with the cloud AD, but it is the firewall that is managing the communication process in between. The on-prem AD sync with the cloud AD is managed by the firewall. It is like a gateway. 

A vendor implemented this system for us to use and manage the process. We have an integration with the GCP. We've integrated this system with our network in such a way that you cannot access the GCP applications or infrastructure if you are not on-premises. This integration with the GCP and our virtual network online has been done locally.

In general, the management of our infrastructure is now easy. I can manage remotely. I can manage on-prem. I can always log in. I have a couple of users who work remotely via VPN because of the license. Not everybody works remotely in my organization. For people who work remotely, we have licenses for them to log in remotely from where they are and use the service. So, managing people, resources, and devices is easy. It has been a good experience. I don't intend to change it because it's giving me the service I need.

In terms of money, it has saved a lot of money. A lot of other organizations that don't have this kind of easy-to-manage layer of security are going through different kinds of attacks. We have a culture of being careful, even though you cannot be a hundred percent careful. When I hear that people have some security issues, I come and check my devices, and I notice that my firewall has actually blocked a lot of things. It gives me rest and peace. So, it saves a lot when you consider the cost of the organization's operations going down, even for one, two, or three hours. We would lose a lot if that happens. It probably saves us over a million dollars a year. The investment is totally worth it.

Our network is a little bit flat. We have a load balancer before getting into our network. We have configured the load balancer on the device itself. We have two major service providers. We have a core business application, and there are some people who use the core business application. We also have some light users. We have set up criteria to give priority to the people who use the core business application. I have a provider that gives me 300 MB to 500 MB, and I have another provider that gives me 20 MB to 25 MB as a backup. I have set priority based on the usage. If you're using the core business application, it pushes you to the fast network. Otherwise, it sends you to the other network. All that has been done on the firewall. It has been very good for this. I have no complaints.

It enables us to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments, which is important for us. We can control the network based on different kinds of users. We can quickly and easily define the policies. We can set priorities based on different applications, systems, and users on our network.

Its security and filtering are most valuable. Every layer of data that comes into the organization goes through it. After setting up the criteria, it automatically filters the traffic. We don't have to check it often. Sometimes, when users complain that they are not able to see a particular thing, we log in to check the scan and see what it has scanned and filtered. It is usually something it has filtered out. It works perfectly.

It is easy to use. There is a GUI, and there is a backend that is being managed by our consultant. When we log in to the GUI, we are able to do anything we want to do. Its user interface is good, but it could be better. Currently, you have to know what to do before you can manage a device. If you don't know what to do, you can mess things up. There are some devices that are easier, such as FortiGate. The user interface of FortiGate is more intuitive. It is very easy to log in and configure things. With Cisco, there is also a lower limit on virtual accounts. In FortiGate, they could be in thousands. Cisco is also more expensive. 

I have been using this solution for about three to four years.

It is very stable. I've not had any thought of reconfiguring it. I have just applied my criteria, and I'm good.

Scalability is not a problem because I still have a span of five to seven more years. After that, I might have to go for a bigger device. For now, I have no issues. I can scale up or down. I'm good with that.

Their support is very good. We had an issue where the OS got corrupted. We got Cisco to log in. They did the reset on it, reformatted it, and sent it back to us. Because of the subscription we have with Cisco, we got a copy back in no time. We're now good. We've not been calling their tech support very often. We only call them when we have a very serious issue. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It wasn't simple. Its implementation doesn't take much time, but we had to get a consultant in. Implementing a Cisco solution from scratch is harder than implementing FortiGate. With FortiGate, I can do my implementation and put all the criteria easily, but with Cisco, I need to do a lot more research, and I need to get someone to help me, but after implementation, it just works.

We had a consultant from a local vendor here called Incognito. Our experience with him was good. I can refer him to anybody.

When we have issues and we need improvement, he comes in. There was a time we noticed that we had lag on our network. We were trying to figure out the cause for it. We were using two service providers but the same backbone. We called him to make the required modifications.

It is more expensive than the other solutions. 

I'm the CIO here. When I came here, I did an audit of the IT infrastructure to see what was there. I looked at what was existing and thought of improvement. I got in all the vendors and had a meeting with them. I also got in a Cisco vendor and sat down with him and told him about the implementation I wanted. Because of the cost, I didn't change any equipment. So, he did the implementation. At any other place, I would look at the users and implement what is easy for them to manage. For a big enterprise with a whole crew, I would definitely consider Cisco. For any other place, I would go for Fortinet. Cisco is harder to implement and manage, but its stability is good. It is also more expensive. There are other cheaper solutions I would have gone for, but I had to focus on what was existing and improve. I had to make sure I worked with what was existing. We also have Cisco switches.

What it's been configured to do, it does it well. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mainly use it for ICS security.

We definitely feel more secure. We have more control over things going in and out of our network.

Cybersecurity has been our top priority because of the last few attacks on our peers in the oil and gas industry.

The IPS solution helps us to not only navigate north-south traffic, but also east-west traffic.

Third-party integrations could be improved.

Not everything works out-of-the-box. Sometimes, you have to customize it to your needs. 

I have been using it for two years.

It is stable for the most part.

There is maintenance needed for software, firmware, and updates. Three or four people keep up with the updates, etc. 

It is pretty scalable. We can add as many devices as we want.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We previously had a different platform. We wanted to converge multiple platforms into one.

I switched companies. So, I have more experience with Palo Alto.

We saw immediate benefits after deployment from having more control and visibility.

Pretty much everything is included in the price for what we are using.

We looked at Check Point, Palo Alto, Fortinet, and a bunch of others. The management and support for the CIsco product is better.

Listen to your customers and see what their needs are.

The whole stack provided by Cisco is a holistic solution for cybersecurity experts, like myself, and companies who are looking to secure their network.

You should partner up with a good team to view all products available, which cater and are customized to your needs.

We haven't found any gaps where it is lacking.

I would rate this product as eight or nine out of 10.

We were looking to consolidate some of our equipment and technology. When we switched over, ASA was a little bit more versatile as firewalls or VPN concentrators. So, we were able to use the same technology to solve multiple use cases.

We have data centers across the United States as well as AWS and Azure. 

We use it at multiple locations. We have sites in Dallas and Nashville. So, we have them at all our locations as either a VPN concentrator or an actual firewall.

Cybersecurity resilience is very much important for our organization. We are in the healthcare insurance industry, so we have a lot of customer data that goes through our data center for multiple government contracts. Making sure that data is secure is good for the company and beneficial to the customer.

It provides the overall management of my entire enterprise with an ease of transitioning. We have always been a Cisco environment. So, it was easy to transition from what we had to the latest version without a lot of new training.

• Speed
• Its capabilities
• Versatility

When we first got it, we were doing individual configuring. Now, there is a way to manage from one location. We can control all our policies and upgrades with a push instead of having to touch every single piece.

We have been using ASAs for quite a number of years now. 

We have other things around it going down, but we really don't have an issue with our ASAs going down. They are excellent for what we have.

There is rarely maintenance. We have our pushes for updates and vulnerabilities, but we have never really had an issue. 

It is very scalable with the ability to virtualize, which is really easy. We do it during our maintenance window. Now, if we plan it, we know what we are doing. We can spin up another virtual machine and keep moving. 

The technical support is excellent. I would rate it as 10 out of 10. When there has been an issue, we have had a good response from them.

Positive

We were previously using a Cisco product. We replaced them awhile back when I first started, and we have been working with ASAs ever since.

We did have Junipers in our environment, then we transitioned. We still have a mix because some of our contracts have to be split between vendors and different tiers. Now, we mostly have Apollos and ASAs in our environment.

I was involved with the upgrades. Our main firewall was a Cisco module, so we integrated from that because of ASA limitations. This gave us a better benefit.

The deployment was a little complex at first because we were so used to the one-to-one. Being able to consolidate into a single piece of hardware was a little difficult at first, but once we got past the first part, we were good.

We have seen ROI. When I first started, everything was physical and one-to-one. Now, with virtualization, we are able to leverage a piece of hardware and use it in multiple environments. That was definitely a return on investment right out of the gate.

The licensing has definitely improved and got a lot easier. It is customizable depending on what the customer needs, which is a good benefit, instead of just a broad license that everybody has to pay.

It is a good product. I would rate it as 10 out of 10.

Resilience is a definite must. You need to have it because, as we say, "The bad guys are getting worse every day. They are attacking, and they don't care." Therefore, we need to make sure that our customers' data and our data is secure.

It depends on what you need. If there is not a need for multiple vendors or pieces of equipment per contract, you should definitely look at what ASAs could be used for. If you are splitting, you can consolidate using this product.

We are using it for security on everything from small customers to big data centers.

It is stable. We saw benefit from this in just a few days.

Cisco AnyConnect is my favorite. It is awesome. It also exists on Firepower and newer things.

Cisco ASA is starting to get old and Firepower is taking over. All the good things happening are with Firepower. Everything that I could wish for is in Firepower. We will probably not be doing too many new installations of ASAs since Firepower is mostly taking over.

I have been using it for 15 to 20 years.

It is stable and secure. There are a few bugs, etc. Overall, we are very happy with it. We have never looked at anything else because it works so well. I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10. It is very good.

There is maintenance. We have to keep an eye out for software upgrades and forced changes to the configuration. We have a network operations team of 15 people who take care of these things from day to day.

The solution's scalability is very good.

We use it on customers who have two employees up to customers with 5,000 employees. It is also used for customers who have one site or several sites. It is all over the place

Cisco tech is always good and helpful. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

I didn't use another solution previously.

All our deployments have been different. Some have been really easy and others have been really complex. It could go either way: some are complex and some are easy. The complex solutions could take days or a couple of weeks to deploy. Easy solutions take a day.

If it was a big project, there would be a pre-project identifying what we were going to do and making a plan for it, then we would realize that plan. If it was a smaller thing, we would just jump into it.

It was deployed in-house. Depending on the solution and its complexity, it could take a single person to a team of 20 people to deploy it.

Our return on investment is having a network that we don't need to think too much about. It works, and that is it.

Cisco is always expensive, but you get what you pay for. It is expensive for a reason. It is a good solution, and good solutions cost money.

AnyConnect is an extra license. If you want the IDS/IPS things, those are usually extra too.

I evaluated Check Point, Palo Alto, and Fortinet, but Cisco won the race. Since we were already running most of our other networking with Cisco, it felt natural to land on Cisco.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

We use it to control the traffic between our inside and outside networks. 

We use the same firewall for the vendor by creating an IPv6 HyperSec VPN between the company and the vendor. 

It is a security solution. We needed to protect our traffic from the outside to inside. That is why we are using this firewall.

Cisco ASA is pretty good. We use it for Layer 3 and as our main firewall, protecting the entire organization. All our Internet traffic goes through it.

Their CLI is pretty good. 

In order to do an upgrade, we need to upload the software to the firewall, then upgrade the secondary and do a failover. Uploading this software into the firewall is old technology. For example, if you look at the Cisco Meraki firewall, you can schedule the software upgrade. Whereas, here we can't.

Recently, we have been having an issue with the ASA firewall. We haven't found the root cause yet and are still working on it. We failed over the firewall from active to passive and suddenly that resolved the issue. We are now working to find the root cause.

I have been using the Cisco ASA firewall for the last four years.

It is pretty stable. I haven't seen many issues during the past four years.

It has the scalability to replace the firewall with a higher model number.

The scalability meets our needs and future needs.

The technical support is really good. If we open up a case, they are pretty good. As soon as we open up a case, they assign a case manager. Also, they have an engineer on call. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

They had this firewall when I joined the company.

We also have Palo Alto that we use as a firewall for Layer 2.

I haven't really used the GUI features that much.

We have not integrated with any other Cisco solutions yet, but we have been thinking about integrating with Cisco Umbrella.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We mainly use it for site-to-site VPNs, connecting to other businesses. I work in manufacturing and hospitals.

We connect to remote networks: manufacturing-to-businesses and hospital-to-hospital.

It was deployed in our data center across multiple sites. At the hospital where I last worked, it was deployed at 18 sites, then we did VPNs between our hospital and clinics.

We don't have to worry about when something goes down. Instead of saying, "Oh my gosh, this went down and now we have a gap here," it has automatic failovers and built-in redundancy. So, it says, "I don't have a gap anymore." This is one less thing to worry about, which was a big benefit for me. If our security group comes back, and says, "Hey, this is down." Then, it is like, "Yeah, we got it covered."

Our security groups are always very adamant that things stay up. If something went down, they say, "Why did it go down? How do we prevent it?" Since resiliency is already built-in on its initial design, we don't have to go back in every time, and say, "Here, this is what we did. This is why it was done like this." Instead, it is just, "Yes, they blessed it, and it's approved," and we don't have to go back and keep reinventing the wheel every time.

I like the ASDM for the firewall because it is visual. With the command line, it is harder to visualize what is going on. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Sometimes, it is not easy to troubleshoot. You need to know where to go. It took me quite awhile. It's like, "Okay, if it doesn't go smoothly here, then go find the documentation." Once you do it, it is not so bad. However, it is sometimes a steep learning curve on the troubleshooting part of it.

I have been using this solution for more than 20 years.

I have never had any problems with stability. In the 20-plus years that I have used them, I don't think I have ever had a failure on them. They have always been rock-solid.

We haven't done much with scalability. We have always just done active standby. However, it scales once you figure out how to do it. If there are site-to-site VPNs within your own location, it is easier because there is a template, where it is, "Here, change this IP address. Change this IP address. There, it's done." 

Third-parties weren't bad. Once my side was done, then we could easily cut and paste it, and say, "Okay, here's what my side's configured for. If you have something that is not working, then you can tell me what it is and I will help you." However, we never really had anything that we couldn't fix. It was also possible to scale on the other side.

I haven't called tech support very often. When I did call them, they could tell me what the problem was. That is where I started learning, "Here are the commands that you should be using to debug this." They have been very helpful. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

I have used Palo Alto and Fortinet. We switched mainly because we were trying to unify all our products. Instead of using multiple systems, everything with the Cisco solution is end-to-end with different views of security. Some of them wanted to be diverse, keeping things separate. For others, it was easier if everything was just with one vendor. Also, if you are Cisco-centric, it is also easier.

Since I have been using this solution, I have seen it grow. When they first started doing it, it was more like, "Here's the command line. Here's what you got to do." Now, it's easier for a new engineer to come on, and say, "Okay. Here, you are going to start supporting this, and here is how you do it," which has made life easier. Since it is a repeatable thing, no matter which company you go to, it is the same. If you get somebody who is doing it on the other side of the VPN, it is a lot easier. So, I like the Cisco product. I have used several different ones, and it's like, "Well, this is the easiest one." It might be just the easiest one because I have used it long enough, but it is also a good product. It just helps us be consistent.

We did a lot of site-to-site VPNs. We also did a third-party, which is Palo Alto or something. Though, some of them were SonicWall. It is like, "Okay, I don't know how the site is configured, then I spend hours trying to troubleshoot a VPN." The more you use it, the easier it gets. It used to take days to do it. Whereas, the last one that I built took about 30 minutes. The more we use it, the better the outcome is and the faster we can do it. Now, I am not spending days building a VPN, which should only take 10 to 15 minutes.

There is ROI when you use it more.

Once you know what the product is, it is not that bad. Yes, it is expensive. When you try to get a license, it is like, "Well, I don't know which one of these I need. And, if I don't buy it now, then I will probably be back later. Now, I have to justify the money." Typically, you end up just buying everything that you don't use most of the time. It is one of those solutions where you get what you pay for. If you don't know what you need, just buy everything. We have additional licenses that we don't use.

Take your time with it. Actually, read the documentation. Don't just assume you know what stuff means since that will sometimes come back and bite you. I have done that too many times. If you go from version to version, it changes a little bit, and so it is like, "Well I don't know why it doesn't work." Then, you go read the notes, "Oh, yeah. This changed and it is done over here now."

Building more resiliency should be a priority, and it's going to take money to do that. So, you need to actually believe and invest in it. Otherwise, it's an idea. It's great, because we all want redundancy, but nobody typically wants to spend the money to do it. Or, they want to do it as cheaply as possible. It's like, "Okay, I can do that," but you're going to have more gaps. Then, it is not really worth it. Therefore, invest the money the first time and do it right.

I would rate it as nine out of 10.