Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We use Cisco Secure Firewall in our own company for site-to-site VPN to access our customers and provide remote support.

We sell the solution to our customers as well. They use the ASA or FMC for dedicated networking, for example, the process network. That is, they dedicate the process network or ASA to the user network.

As a Cisco Secure reseller, I add value with my professional background, for example, in Cisco TAC, to my customers. We choose to sell Cisco Secure Firewall because of our partner status with Cisco.

The most valuable feature for the customers is that they can control what communication is allowed and what is not allowed. That is, they can allow or deny client traffic.

It also secures the internal network to allow specific client traffic or machine traffic.

Cisco Secure Firewall helped reduce our clients' meantime to repair by 40%. This is because they can easily segment the network. It's easy to troubleshoot because of micro-segmentation.

Cisco Secure Firewall should be easier to handle. It uses ASDM, which is not easy to understand. It would be better if there was direct access via HTTPS.

I have used this solution for around five years, but my company has been using it for 30 years.

Cisco's technical support for security is good. The support staff are professional and know what to do. I would give them an eight out of ten.

The deployment of the firewall is more difficult if you want to use all of the features. However, if you're using it only as a VPN, then it's a little bit easier to deploy.

Compared to Cisco Secure Firewall, other firewall solutions are easier to handle because they do not use ASDM. They have direct access via web browsers.

If you're considering Cisco Secure Firewall, take a look at what you want to use the firewall for and what kind of handling you prefer. If you prefer easy handling via browsers, then you may need to use another solution because ASDM is no longer the state of the art.

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

The I add as a reseller is the professional background.

Our customers for the most part use this solution in data centers. 

The feature my customers find the most valuable is the exportability. They also appreciate that the IPS features are easily migrated from Cisco SA to FTDs. 

We have seen some bugs come up with Cisco Secure Firewall in terms of high availability. The solution should be improved to avoid these bugs. 

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for almost a decade. 

Cisco's support is much better than other vendors' support. In my opinion, this is a big advantage for Cisco. The support Cisco offers is upper-level. 

Positive

We previously sold Fortinet devices. However, many of our clients switched over to Cisco because of the price as they are quite cheap. 

We are in the middle of a migration plan to Cisco right now in our company. I am not directly involved. We are working with a Cisco partner but I have been communicating our needs to them. However, I believe the migration process will be smooth for our company. It is crucial to have a solid migration plan in place because we are a core data center, so we have to be careful. 

We are deploying with the help of a partner. 

We do see a lot of ROI from Cisco Secure Firewall. We are in the process of migrating a lot of end-of-support devices with some new ones and the return on investment is there.

Price is a big selling point for Cisco Secure Firewall. They are quite affordable and many clients chose them precisely for this reason. 

This solution helped my clients save money and time. My clients save 50% on time thanks to automation and processing brought on by this solution. 

I have only good things to say about Cisco Talos. It has been quite helpful to our customers.

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is protection in our OT network. We have our OT network behind the commercial network and we do dual firewalls. The Cisco Secure Firewall is on the commercial network side and a different vendor and management group are on the OT network side.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not necessarily improved our organization as much as it has protected it against the impact of cyber threats. Our organization runs manufacturing plants that have hazardous material and we don't want that manufacturing process to be impacted by break-in exposure and cyber threats.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a good solution. In some ways, it is a reactive solution and we have it sitting in a whitelist mode rather than a blacklist mode. It seems to work fairly well for us.

It would be better if we could manage all of our firewalls as a set rather than individually. I would like to see a single pane of glass type of option. We also use another vendor's firewalls and they have a centralized management infrastructure that we have implemented. This infrastructure is a bit easier to manage.

We have used Cisco Secure Firewall for probably 10 years.

Cisco Secure Firewall has been a very stable solution for us. In general, if you keep it up to date and do sensible management on it, it will be a very stable solution.

Cisco Secure Firewall has met our scalability requirements as far as traffic and management goes.

We have an excellent account team and they go to bat for us inside of Cisco. We have access to TAC and Smart Net and that all seems to be working out very well. Cisco has a good team in place.

We did not previously use a different solution for this particular use case. 

I was not involved in the initial deployment of the solution. 

In this specific use case, the biggest return on investment is that we do not have incidents. This ultimately – in some of our factories – ends up being a health and human-safety use case.

We have all smart licensing and that works well. 

We ultimately chose Cisco Secure Firewall because it came with a strong recommendation from one of our strong partners.

My advice to those evaluating the solution right now is this: understand what you're trying to protect and what you're trying to protect it from. Also, understand how the solution is managed.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not necessarily freed up our staff's time as much as it has secured the infrastructure and the OT network behind it. Cisco Secure Firewall was not built as a time-saver. It is not a cost solution. It is a solution meant to isolate and control access to and from a specific set of infrastructure.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not helped us consolidate tools and applications. It allows us to get access. What we're seeing more and more of is business systems like SAP looking to get access to OT systems and this is how our systems get that way.

Cisco Secure Firewall requires the sort of maintenance that any software product would: updates, asset management, etc. Worldwide, we probably have 30 to 40 people managing the solution on the OT side on the various sites and then probably 10 to 15 people on our account team with our outside partner.

This is an SSL that can decrypt and encrypt SSL traffic. 

The ability to encrypt and decrypt is great.

The dashboards are excellent.

We really like the reporting aspect of the product. 

It is stable. 

We found the initial setup to be easy.

Maybe the dashboard could be a bit better. There are some reports where we don't get it. We need a deep dive into a particular URL, however, it provides the URL and the IP address, and there is no more information that can show more details. Basically, the report models can be improved.

With their console, we have to build a separate VM. In some of the products, the management console comes along with the box itself. It'll be one solution to take the backup and keep it. Even if you want to build a DR, it'll be easy. However, the challenge we had is if that VM is down, my team may not able to access the Firepower remotely. Therefore, the management console itself should be built within the Firepower box itself, rather than expecting it to be built in a separate VM.

I've been using the solution for more than four years. 

We have not, as of now (touch wood) faced any issues. It's stable, and we don't face any performance issues as well. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

At this moment, we have not thought through scaling. The model which we use is less than 60%. What I heard from them is you can cascade it to another box, and scaling can be done.

We have between 400 to 450 concurrent users on a daily basis accessing this box. Overall, we have 2,000 devices that could be easily communicated via Firepower.

Technical support is good. We've found it to be quite good in general. 

Positive

The initial setup is great. It's very easy and quite straightforward. If you understand the process, it is very easy. I'd rate it a 4.5 out of five in terms of ease of implementation. 

I don't manage licensing. I can't speak to the actual cost of the product. 

We're a customer and end-user.

I'd recommend the solution to organizations that have around 1,500 people that need to access the solution. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I typically deploy firewalls to set up VPNs for remote users, and, in general, for security. I have a number of use cases.

With theUI basedpandemic, the customer really didn't have a VPN solution for their remote users, so we had to go in and deploy a high-availability cluster with Firepower. And I set up single sign-on with SAML authentication and multi-factor authentication.

We deploy for other organizations. I don't work on our own corporate firewalls, but I do believe we have some. But it definitely improved things. It enabled my clients to have remote users, thousands of them, and they're able to connect seamlessly. They don't have to come into the office. They can go home, connect to the VPN, log on, and do what they need to do.

I like that you can get really granular, as far as your access lists and access control go. 

You can also put everything into a nice, neat, little package, as far as configuration goes. I was formerly a command-line guy with the ASA, and I was a little nervous about dealing with a GUI interface versus a command line, but after I did my first deployment, I got a lot more comfortable with doing it GUI-based.

I'm not a big fan of the FDM (Firepower Device Manager) that comes with Firepower. I found out that you need to use the Firepower Management Center, the FMC, to manage the firewalls a lot better. You can get a lot more granular with the configuration in the FMC, versus the FDM that comes out-of-the-box with it.

FDM is like Firepower for dummies. I found myself to be limited in what I can do configuration-wise, versus what I can do in the FMC. FMC is more when you have 100 firewalls to manage. They need to come out with something better to manage the firewall, versus the FDM that comes out-of-the-box with it, because that set me back about two weeks fooling around with it.

I have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for two or three years now.

It's good. It's stable. I haven't heard anything [from my customer]. No news is good news.

It scales because you can deploy a cluster. You could have up to 16 Firepowers in a cluster, from the class I [was learning] in yesterday. I only had two in that particular cluster. It scales up to 16. If you have a multi-tenant situation, or if you're offering SaaS, or cloud-based firewall services, it's great that it can scale up to 16.

They're always great to me. They're responsive, they're very knowledgeable. They offer suggestions, tell you what you need to do going forward, [and give you] a lot of helpful hints. It was good because I had to work with them a lot on this past deployment. 

Now I can probably do it by myself, without TAC's help.

Positive

The deployment was complex because that was my first time doing a Firepower. I did ASAs prior, no problem. I had to get used to the GUI and the different order of deploying things. I had to reset it to factory defaults several times because I messed something up. And then I had to get with Cisco TAC, for them to help me, and they said, "Okay, you need to default it and start over again".

But now, going forward, I know I need to deploy the FMC first, and then you deploy the Firepowers, and tell them where the FMC is, and then they connect, and then you can go in and configure it. I had it backward and it was a big thing. I had to keep resetting it. It was a good learning experience, though, and thankfully, I had a patient customer.

[In terms of maintenance] I've not heard anything back from my customer, so I'm assuming once it's in, it's in. It's not going to break. It's an HA pair. My customer doesn't really know too much about it. I don't know that they would know if one of them went down, because it fails over to the other one. I demonstrated to them, "Look, this is how it fails over. If I turn one off, it fails over." VPN doesn't disconnect, everything's good. Users don't know that the firewall failed over unless they're actually sitting there looking at AnyConnect. I don't think they know. So, I'll wait for them to call me and see if they know if something's broken or not.

As far as return on investment [goes], I would imagine there is some. For the users, as far as saving on commuting costs, they don't have to come into the office. They can stay home and work, and connect to the enterprise from anywhere in the world, essentially.

I've done a Palo Alto before, and a Juniper once, but mostly ASAs and Firepowers.

Naturally, I prefer Cisco stuff. [For the Palo Alto deployment] they just said, "Oh, you know, firewalls", and that's why the customer wanted Palos, so that's what I had to do. I had to figure it out. I learned something new, but my preference is Cisco firewalls.

I just like the granularity of the configuration [with Cisco]. I've never had any customers complain after I put it in, "Hey, we got hacked," or "There are some holes in the firewall," or any type of security vulnerabilities, malware, ransomware, or anything like that. You can tighten up the enterprise really well, security-wise.

Everything is GUI-based now, so to me, that's not really a difference. The Palos and the Junipers, I don't know what improvements they have made because [I worked on] those over five or six years ago. I can't even really speak to that.

Because I don't like the management tool that comes out-of-the-box with it, the FDM, I'll give the Firepower an eight out of 10. That was a real pain dealing with, until they said, "Okay, let's get him an FMC." That was TAC's suggestion, actually. They said, "You really need FMC. The FDM is really trash."

With [my company], NIL, it's cross-domain. It's just not ASA, but in particular we work with customers where we talk about the physical boxes or even the virtual appliances that we're deploying. The use cases can be multiple, but mostly what we have seen is perimeter security, looking at blocking [and] allowing of traffic before accessing the internet.

The majority of the challenges that we see across customers and partners is looking at the data, the integrity, security, [and] looking at various areas where they need to put in boxes or solutions which could secure their environments. It's not just about the data, but even looking at the endpoints, be it physical or virtual. That, in itself, makes the use case for putting in a box like ASA. 

And, of course, with the integrations nowadays that we have from a firewall, looking at multiple identity solutions or logging solutions you could integrate with, that in itself becomes a use case of expanding the genres of integrated security.

The best features would obviously be the ones that are most used: the perimeter security, allowing/blocking of traffic, NAT-ing, and routing, or making it easy as compared to a router. If you were to do the similar features on a router, it would be way more extensive and difficult as compared to a firewall. These are the majority of the features that anyone would begin with.

But of course, they expanded to other features like IPS or cyber security or looking at vulnerabilities or scanning, port scans. Those are the advanced things.

[In terms of overall performance] in the last decade or so, especially in the last three or four years, the scale of where the architecture has been—all the numbers, the stats, everything—has gone up exponentially. It's all because of the innovations that are always happening, and not just at the hardware level, but particularly at the software level. Of course, we can always look at the data sheets and talk about the numbers, but all I can say, in my experience, is that the numbers have really gone up, and the speed at which the numbers have gone up in the last couple of years or so, is really progressive. That's really good to see.

We're reaching [the point] where we want it to be. If you go 10 years back, we did miss the bus on bringing in the virtual versus the physical appliance, but now that we have had it, the ASAv, for a few years, I think we are doing the right things at the right place. 

The only improvement that we could make is maybe [regarding] the roadmap, to have better visibility as to what we are targeting ahead in the next few quarters. That is where we, as partners, can also leverage our repos with our customers and making them aware that there might be some major changes that we may have to introduce in their networks in the near future.

I started back in the days with ASA when I was [with] Cisco. I was [with] Cisco for 12 years. I started as a TAC engineer, and one of the teams I was leading was the ASA team, firewall, and across VPN, AAA. it became like a cross-border team or cross-architecture, and it's been long enough. I've been working with ASAs for about 12 or more years now.

From the stability standpoint, it's way better. Is there a scope for improvement? Of course. There always is. But I can just speak from my experience. What it was and what it is today, it is way better.

We look at scalability for any product of Cisco. I cannot be confined to the ASAs. We have physical, virtual, and cloud deployments. Everything is possible, so scalability is no issue.

Support, when you look at any product from Cisco, has been top-notch. I was a TAC guy myself for 10 years and I can vouch for it like anyone would do from TAC.

Support has always been extensive. There is great detail in root cause analysis. Going back into my Cisco TAC experience, it's always the story that if you know the product well, you know the things that you need to collect for TAC or for any other junior SME to work with you collectively, to get down to the solutions sooner. Otherwise, they have to let you know what you need to collect. It's better to know the product, get the right knowledge transfer, work towards those goals, and then, collectively, we can work as a great team.

I have mostly been involved in the pre-sales stage, and then eventually the post-sales as well. But we do the groundwork of making sure that we have set the stage for the customer to get the initial onboarding. And at times, I do it with other engineers or other colleagues who take it over from there. In my experience, it has been pretty straightforward.

It's not just the implementation, but [it's] also managing or maintaining [the ASA]. It would depend on how complex a configuration is, a one-box versus cluster versus clusters at different sites. Depending on the amount of configuration complexity and the amount of nodes that you have, you would need to look at staff from there. It's hard to put a number [on it and] just say you need a couple of guys. It could be different for different use cases and environments.

[In terms of maintenance] it's about a journey: the journey from having the right knowledge transfer, knowing how to configure a product, knowing how to deploy it, and then how to manage it. Now, of course, from the manageability standpoint, there are some basic checks that you have to do, like firmware upgrades, or backup restores, or looking at the sizing—how much your customer needs: a single node versus multiple nodes, physical versus virtual, cloud versus on-prem. But once you are done with that, it also depends on how much the engineers or SMEs know about configuring the product, because if they know about configuring the product, that's when they would know if something has been configured incorrectly. That also comes in [regarding] maintenance [of] or troubleshooting the product. Knowledge transfer is the key, and making sure that you're up to date and you have your basic checks done. Then, [the] manageability is like any other product, it's going to be easy.

The return on investment is not going to be restricted to just the box, because nowadays, if you look at the integrated security that Cisco has been heavily investing into, it's not just about ASA doing the firewalling functions. Now, these genres have been expanded to cyber, to third-party integrations, having integrated logging, having integrated micro and macro segmentations. The scope has been widened, so the ROI, eventually, has multiplied.

Being a partner, we work with customers who already have different vendor solutions as well. At times, there are a mix of small SMB sites, which could be, let's say, a grocery. There are smaller stores and there are bigger stores, and at times, they do local DIAs or local internet breakouts. [That's where] you do see some cloud-based or very small firewalls as well, but when you look at the headquarters or bigger enterprises, that is where we would probably position Cisco.

[My advice] would depend [on] if they are comfortable with a particular product, if they've been working with a particular vendor. If it's a Cisco shop, or if they've been working on Cisco, or the customers are quite comfortable with Cisco, I would say this is the way to go. Unless they have a mixed environment. It will still depend on the SME's expertise, how comfortable they are, and then looking at the use cases and which products would nullify or solve them. That is where we should position it.

My lessons are endless with ASA, but my lessons are mostly toward product knowledge. When you look at the deployment side of things, or for me, personally, when I was TAC, to know how things work internally within ASA—like an A to Z story, and there are 100 gaps between and you need to know those gaps—and then, eventually, you will get to the problem and solve it in minutes rather than hours.

We primarily use this firewall for IPS, IAM, threat defense, and NAT.

I am from the networking department.

We are using the Firepower Management Center (FMS) and the management capabilities are okay. I would not say that they are good. The current version is okay but the earlier versions had many issues. The deployment also takes a long time. It takes us hours and in some cases, it took us days. The latest version 6.6.1, is okay and the deployment was quick.

I have tried to compare application visibility and control against Fortinet FortiGate, but so far, I don't see much difference. As I try to determine what is good and what is bad, I am seeking third-party opinions.

The most valuable feature is the threat defense. This product works well for threat defense but for everything else, we use Cisco ASA.

This product has a lot of issues with it. We are using it in a limited capacity, where it protects our DR site only. It is not used in full production.

The main problem we have is that things work okay until we upgrade the firmware, at which point, everything changes, and the net stops working. As a financial company, we have a lot of transactions and when the net suddenly stops working, it means that we lose transactions and it results in a huge loss.

We cannot research or test changes in advance because we don't have a spare firewall. If we had a spare then we would install the new firmware and test to see if it works, or not. The bottom line is that we shouldn't have to lose the network. If we upgrade the firmware then it should work but if you do upgrade it, some of the networks stop working. 

We have been using the Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for three years.

Cisco's technical support is the best and that's why everybody implements their products. But, when it comes to Firepower, we have had many delays with their support. For all of the other Cisco products, things are solved immediately.

Nowadays, they're doing well for Firepower also, but initially, there was no answer for some time and they used to tell us that things would be fixed in the next version. That said, when comparing with other vendors, the support from Cisco is good.

We use a variety of tools in the organization. There is a separate department for corporate security and they use tools such as RedSeal.

In the networking department, we use tools to analyze and report the details of the network. We also create dashboards that display things such as the UP/DOWN status.

We have also worked with Cisco ASA, and it is much better. Firepower has a lot of issues with it but ASA is a rock-solid platform. The reason we switched was that we needed to move to a next-generation firewall.

The initial setup was not easy and we were struggling with it.

In 2017, we bought the Firepower 2100 Series firewalls, but for a year, there was nothing that we could do with them. In 2018, we were able to deploy something and we had a lot of difficulties with it.

Finally, we converted to Cisco ASA. When we loaded ASA, there was a great difference and we put it into production. At the time, we left Firepower in the testing phase. In December 2018, we were able to deploy Firepower Threat Defense in production, and it was used only in our DR site.

We do our own maintenance and there are three or four of us that are responsible for it. I am one of the network administrators. We can also call Cisco if we need support.

From the perspective of return on investment, implementing the Firepower 2100 series is a bad decision.

Firepower has a very high cost and you have to pay for the standby as well, meaning that the cost is doubled. When you compare Fortinet, it is a single cost only, so Fortinet is cheaper.

Prior to Firepower, we were Cisco customers and did not look to other vendors.

Given the problems that we have had with Cisco, we are moving away from them. We are now trying to implement FortiGate and have started working with it. One thing that we have found is that the Fortinet technical support is very bad.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Our use cases include inbound access, outbound access, as well as VPN solutions, both site-to-site and for an incoming client. We wanted something that would do all those things at one time, as opposed to having separate boxes.

Our deployment is on-premises. We're looking at going into cloud-based with some of it. Meraki is the cloud-based version of the ASAs.

If we have a power failure at one building, traffic can be routed to our other building. We also have backup data stores. I live in the Northeast, so in the event of ice storms that cause power outages, it really enables us to keep functioning as a company rather than going dark for the amount of time it takes to get the power back.

The GUI makes configuring it much simpler than the command line.

They should work on making it a little more intuitive for users and not quite as complex. Still, it's a good product.

I've been using Cisco ASA Firewalls for 15 years.

It's very stable. We've had no hardware issues at all and only very infrequent software configuration issues.

It's very scalable. You can go to different models of the ASAs and they scale up to as big as you want to go.

The technical support is very good. Whenever we call up Cisco, we get a rapid response. They help us in troubleshooting issues we have and we implement the solutions and go on.

Positive

For me, there wasn't a previous solution here. I inherited the solution when I came in.

From a security standpoint, the return on investment is hard to quantify. You've stopped something that was going to cost you money, but how do you quantify that? How many times did it stop something from coming in that would have cost you a bunch of money? You don't know.

We've compared it to other solutions, like WatchGuard and other types of firewalls in that same realm. Cisco ASAs are fairly priced and very competitive with them.

Some of the solutions we looked at had different GUI interfaces that might be a little bit easier to get around in, but they might not have had as many features. Cisco had the feature edge.

Look at the features and consider what your migration path may be. Some other vendors offer firewalls with great bells and whistles, but when you look beneath the surface, they don't do exactly what they say. Do your due diligence and make sure you see everything.

In terms of resilience, in general, if we have any box failure, being able to fail over to another box or to fail over to another site helps measurably. Cyber security resilience is important for all organizations. The number of attacks going on just increases every day. There's a cost-benefit to building cyber security resilience. You have to get past that and build as much resiliency as you can. If you worry more about cost than you do about your product or your productivity, something else is going to fail.

Maintenance of the ASA is just the security updates that we watch for and updating the client software.