Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are mainly user access to the internet and blocking firewall sites.

With the centralized management of Cisco Secure Firewall, it's good in unifying policies across my environment. The simplicity and supportability are important to my organization as it's much easier if everything's the same as much as possible.

I appreciate that the central management of Cisco Secure Firewall is from one location, which saves a lot of time. 

The IPS protection is good for us for security reasons. 

The central management feature of Cisco Secure Firewall saves one location instead of having to log on to multiple locations, which speeds up deployment of any changes or requirements for monitoring.

The upgrading process of Cisco Secure Firewall is a long process on a per-firewall basis, and it would be nice if that could be improved. One firewall can take two to two and a half hours to upgrade, so we end up having to watch it. It becomes a problem; in the old firewall days, it would be about a ten-minute job. I know it's more complicated with the newer firewalls. It's just a long-winded process even if they have sorted it out a little bit with automation.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for probably about eight years.

I have not had one Cisco Secure Firewall fail so far, which shows it is stable and reliable. Right now, I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall scales with the growing needs of my organization, as we have different models and sizes, and our central boxes are powerful enough to cover whatever we want whenever we want.

My evaluation of customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall is that I have generally hardly ever had to use them. We did two weeks ago, and it was a very quick response that identified exactly where the issue in our configuration was. 

Two weeks ago, I received a very quick response from customer service, which identified exactly where the issue on our configuration was, and it went very smoothly, so out of ten, I would give it a nine.

Positive

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Firewall, I was also using previous Cisco firewalls, and before that, we had Fortinet and Juniper.

The factors that led me to consider the change to Cisco Secure Firewall were actually price, as Cisco's was a very competitive price, and we received a very good deal.

My experience with the deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall has been generally okay.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall since we run them for a long time. 

Our current Cisco Secure Firewall units have been in place for probably over three years now, and at the moment, we're not looking to replace them, indicating a good return on investment since they last and are supported quite a long time after they're released.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall shows it can be expensive, especially the bigger boxes, since they do a lot more and handle a lot more, with a big jump from the smaller firewalls to the big firewalls.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall include Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. We're generally a Cisco house and have been for quite a few times with the old Cisco firewalls, so it was a natural progression. 

We did not purchase the product on AWS Marketplace.

We actually don't do that much encrypted inspecting traffic at the moment with Cisco Secure Firewall, which is something we want to look at. We just want to make sure we don't max out the CPU with the many jobs it does. Cisco Secure Firewall will be a building block part of our zero-trust security model, however, there will be a few other parts needed, such as Cisco Secure Access. 

I have not really expanded the usage of Cisco Secure Firewall. My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Firewall is that it does what it says on the tin; it works, it's reliable, and I have never had one fail, so I think it's good. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine.

My main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is only as a VPN concentrator.

The only feature I find most valuable in Cisco Secure Firewall is the VPN concentrator because we use it.

The only real benefit I realize from using Cisco Secure Firewall in this use case is that it's a different vendor, so a different attack vector.

A significant drawback for Cisco Secure Firewall is the ASA software, as I have not used the Firepower software yet. The ASA software has a GUI that is extremely ugly and appears to be made in the 1980s. At 28 years old, I am not accustomed to working with something that primitive.

The update procedures do not work, and the VPN creation wizard does not work. The GUI is useless for me and frustrates me to a very high degree, which led me to switch to the CLI for configuration.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years.

I assess the stability and reliability of this firewall as both very good. I have had no issues with stability, as once they run, they run.

Since I am not using Cisco Secure Firewall for very heavy operations such as IPS or other intensive features, it scales quite well. We have two Firepower 1150s, and we are far under the limit of what our organization needs, so it scales well with our needs.

I have used Cisco support extensively, and I used it for this product once because during the setup there was an issue with the licensing, and I needed Cisco support to help me with the licensing for the ASA.

I am always satisfied with the level of support that I received. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is a 10 because they are reactive and effective. That is all we ask for in support.

Positive

We could accomplish this with another vendor such as Palo Alto, where we would not have to pay for licensing.

When I use the CLI, everything works quite well. I attempted to do everything with the GUI at the beginning, but nothing works. I managed to set up the HA pair with no issues once I used the CLI.

We are using quite a few other vendors for firewalls, and I do not think I can disclose which firewall we use where, but we use other major vendors such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. We have a bit of everything in our portfolio.

If it was my choice, I would have put another firewall there with something easier to configure, more straightforward, and a cleaner interface to maintain it.

My honest advice for someone who is evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall based on my experience would be that if you can get something else, go for something else. If you are going to use it, then use the CLI because the GUI is not usable. If I had the choice, I would not be using Cisco Firepower or ASA on top of it because in my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues and my management, it is not the best device for the role it is playing.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Firewall is 5 out of 10.

I have been working on Cisco Secure Firewall since the ASA hardware, not the new FTDs with ASA operating system. For the FTDs, I have been working on them for approximately 10 years.

All of our deployments of Cisco Secure Firewall are currently on-premise.

The stability of the firewall and the way our customers feel about their services and service continuity are critical for our banking customers, as services are very crucial for this type of business.

Cisco Secure Firewall excels on the perimeter; however, the biggest area where you can see the difference between Cisco and other vendors is actually in the data center.

One of the main features I appreciate is the cloud management, which we have had for approximately one year. In version 7.6, we now have the AI assistant, which helps with configuration by automatically reviewing and analyzing what policies are being used and which are not. Additionally, Cisco continues to improve their firewalls with capabilities such as throughput that are becoming increasingly impressive. The same small firewall in size now comes with much greater capabilities, and the configuration deployment and changes are becoming smoother and smoother.

Cisco has something special when comparing it to other firewalls. It has a large portfolio of products that provide extensive integration capabilities and visibility. Meanwhile, other companies may have a vast portfolio, but the stability of the firewalls and how much a customer can rely on them is where Cisco stands out. Mixing these two aspects is what I consider a significant advantage.

Cisco Secure Firewall is very scalable, and I have options in deployment, especially for clustering, where I think in the latest hardware, I can deploy a cluster of six or more. Additionally, they have many sizes available, such as the 200, 3000, 4000, and 6000 series.

Two years ago, I could mention feature X as something I valued, but in every major release, Cisco always surprises me with new features. In every major release, I am surprised and receive nice new features.

Right now, I do not have anything specific in mind that I would say needs improvement, but it is actually improving constantly.

AI is indeed moving very fast. Cisco has already started to integrate and focus on AI, not just in the firewalls but in everything. However, this will need more improvement because AI is advancing quickly.

I have been in networking since 2012, which is approximately 14 years ago.

The stability and service continuity are the most important return on investment that any company or organization can get from Cisco Secure Firewall solution because losing services translates to losing money.

I can say it is just a few times we have cases on the FTDs, but I do not think that there is another vendor that can provide this reliability for the data center.

In the early days of Firepower, we had some issues; however, this has improved significantly over a couple of years. The hardware and software have become more reliable, faster, and user-friendly.

My experience with Cisco's customer service and technical support has been excellent. Since my beginning in networking, Cisco is number one in support, especially in after-sales. Even as an integrator, this advantage is significant for us as Cisco partners, and we often discuss how great Cisco support is.

Negative

I have worked on other firewalls, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall was harder in the early days, but today it has become very easy. Cisco can support me with the necessary tools to migrate, making the process easier now.

For me, working for an integrator, it is mostly about reputation. The stability of the product gives the vendor, Cisco, and their partners a good reputation. The customer feels that this product is good, this vendor is good, and this partner is good, which extends to the technical engineer as well.

The stability and service continuity are the most important return on investment that any company or organization can get from Cisco Secure Firewall solution because losing services translates to losing money.

Taking a general look at the main competitors of Cisco, the pricing is not high and not low. It is approximately in the middle.

I have worked on other firewalls, such as Palo Alto and Fortinet.

My advice to other companies considering Cisco Secure Firewall is to give it a try. Some companies stick with a vendor, but as an integrator with some experience with Cisco insiders, I recommend giving it a try. Cisco always offers demos, including virtual firewalls. Give it a try, and you will appreciate it. I would rate my overall experience with this product as a 10.

In terms of security, Cisco Secure Firewall is very reliable, especially when clients are up to date and run their security updates regularly. It is one of the greatest solutions for security in terms of networking. It is very easy to use, aside from being somewhat costly compared to other firewalling solutions. Cisco has been in existence for a while compared to other firewalling devices, which makes it more expensive. It is very easy to use, especially when you have hands-on experience with any of Cisco's devices before. You do not even need to probably take higher professional courses before you can manage it, especially if you can learn easily. For me, I learn quickly and I approach anything with the understanding that nothing is impossible, though it might take some time.

Because we have a centralized solution that manages all of our Cisco Secure Firewall and Cisco devices within the network, and IHS spreads across more than 10 countries, all of which communicate together using the same devices, we can push policies centrally from the central management system to all the Cisco Secure Firewall devices and the policies take effect immediately.

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall since 2015, which is when I joined IHS. Currently, I cannot remember the exact name because it has been a while since I logged into that environment, and I have already resigned from IHS to work as a consultant. We are using Cisco AnyConnect for our VPN, to be precise. We majorly use the VPN because all of our clients are on VPN, so whenever they want to connect to any of the resources from outside the network, they connect through the VPN.

The major improvement so far is that everything has moved from a black screen interface to a GUI that you can easily use. It is not necessary to do everything on a black screen. Aside from the price constraint, I do not really see much in terms of the disadvantages of this product. Although everything has advantages and disadvantages, the major disadvantage is the cost, which is why many people in the industry are moving to products like Check Point or Sophos because they are cheaper compared to Cisco Secure Firewall.

The major improvement needed is the GUI interface. Most of the new generation firewalls actually come with a GUI where you can do whatever you want to do without running a command, and they give that privilege. I believe Cisco Secure Firewall has already probably introduced that, as from the Cisco centralized application, you can manage many things, push many configurations, and do many things. However, they need to do more so that it is not necessary to give access to the black screen as in the core device to your users before they can do certain things. From the GUI interface, they should be able to do certain things. It creates a kind of restriction, and it is only when it is necessary that you probably launch the GUI or SSH to that device that users do whatever they need to do.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall since 2015, which is when I joined IHS.

Reliability is superb because we usually have monthly maintenance on all of our devices. Because all of our devices are on HA, we test the high availability and run any patches that need to be run. So far so good, it is reliable because there has never been a time when we have had a failover test that we ran into a problem.

Cisco Secure Firewall is scalable.

Technically, Cisco covers a lot.

Positive

Currently, I do not use any other firewalling solutions. I think the other HP product I probably worked with is not used anymore.

I might not say because I cannot compare my own experience with other people's experiences. For people like me and probably the majority of my team, we do not find it difficult to implement or deploy. However, for some new generation people that are just coming to the industry, they might find other firewalls very easy and straightforward in terms of deployment because they cannot be compared to Cisco Secure Firewall devices. For me, probably based on my years of experience, I do not find any challenges in terms of deployment.

The implementation team was effective.

Of course, what we are getting from Cisco Secure Firewall is worth it. There is always a return on investment because you find you invest heavily, but your environment is secure and then you are at rest; you do not need to panic. Even if attackers are coming, you know you will be rest assured that you are covered. Although other firewalls are okay, they cannot be compared to Cisco Secure Firewall.

The setup cost is somewhat high compared to other firewalling solutions.

I have a different job title now as I am doing more consulting work.

For instance, we have some resources on Azure, and when it comes to security posture on Azure, I take about more than 50% of it because I am in charge. When it comes to cloud security, we do not really have full control 100%, unlike when you have your firewall on-premises where you are the alpha and omega of the solution and these devices. You can do whatever you want to do. However, cloud security gives a kind of platform whereby you have some limitations because you do not have physical intervention to that device.

Aside from that, it is very easy to use, especially when you have hands-on experience with any of Cisco's devices before. You do not even need to take higher professional courses before you can manage it, especially if you can learn easily. For me, I learn quickly and I approach anything with the understanding that nothing is impossible, though it might take some time. My overall rating for Cisco Secure Firewall is 9 out of 10.

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include firewall, IPS, and URL filtering.

The feature of Cisco Secure Firewall that I prefer the most is IPS. I appreciate the IPS feature because it's built in and I can control it using the FMC and push out the policy company-wide, making it centrally managed. The IPS benefits my company because that's one of the requirements; we used to have separate IPS. Now it's all integrated, providing ease of use for us. Cisco Secure Firewall has helped my company achieve its goals because it's a next-generation firewall. That's what we need to maintain certain compliance from the security side. Having IPS built in, firewall, URL filtering, everything is centrally managed, so we have more visibility and management.

Compared to the previous generation, the ASA, firewall rules appear differently in the ASDM and the previous generation firewall versus FTD, which I don't prefer as much. The ASA makes it easier to view those policies. There could be some improvement in the way FMC displays the policy.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall in my company for the last two years.

I haven't seen any breakdown or instability; the platform has been stable, and we haven't had any issues.

Cisco Secure Firewall scales with the growing needs of my company as we're going to implement clustering. I've used clustering in my past experience; it's very easy and straightforward. We had some minor issues with the clustering. I appreciate the clustering capability, though I haven't implemented it in my current job.

The customer service and technical support have been great; they've always been great.

Positive

I considered other solutions such as Palo Alto before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall. We were using Palo Alto, but we decided to go with Cisco because of its ease of use. We were a Cisco shop, and there's a micro facility where you can migrate all the ASA to the firewall.

The deployment process of Cisco Secure Firewall is simple enough. Out of the box, you perform the initial management configuration, specify the FMC location, join FMC, and then you can manage it from FMC. The process is straightforward and simple.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is the single pane of glass, which is a huge plus for us. Having that visibility, managing all the alerts, IPS alerts, vulnerability management - everything is a huge plus.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that it's consistent. I don't have much visibility on the licensing side, but I assume it remains the same.

There are differences between Palo Alto and Cisco, particularly on the cloud side. Palo Alto has Prisma Cloud and additional tools. I would say Cisco has room for improvement in that area for the future. We're not heavily in the cloud, so for us, it's not a significant concern.

We haven't used any new features or functionalities in Cisco Secure Firewall recently, but we plan to try file scanning, focusing more on the malware side, AMP and everything. That's something we want to try next.

My impression of the visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall in managing encrypted traffic is limited as we haven't tried SSL encryption yet. That's something we might explore in the future.

Regarding Cisco Secure Firewall's ability to unify policies across my environment, managing via FMC ensures accuracy. Unifying policies is essential for my company because it provides one pane of glass. Software pushes, policy implementation, traffic monitoring, and having all alerts in one place are crucial.

The impact of the cloud-delivered firewall on my company's security posture is significant. Having the same FTD running in the cloud, managed by FMC, is our future direction. We currently implement this with Azure.

Regarding zero trust security model implementation, we are exploring options with SD-WAN, both on-premises and in the cloud with firepower. I'm meeting with a Cisco engineer next week to discuss implementation strategies.

I don't see anything that needs improvement in Cisco Secure Firewall; we've been very satisfied with it. I've been using FTD for almost five to seven years now, including with a previous company, and heavily worked on migration from ASA to FTD.

From one to ten, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall a ten.

One of the companies I'm working with is in the medical sector and medical vertical.

Some of the most valuable features of the Cisco Secure Firewall are that they are easy to deploy, which is a very important thing to highlight. Everybody says that about cloud, and I agree with that. If you have an account on AWS, for example, you can quickly deploy one of those devices. There are many benefits to that, and they don't require a lot of resources. They won't overwhelm your cloud, and they work very efficiently. I'm impressed with how they work on the cloud. They work as a real firewall. I don't see much difference.

The Cisco Secure Firewall product in general has room for improvement. I had a problem this weekend working with one of them, and I think it's very specific, though I'm going to be more general with my answer. Cisco has the FMC as a centralized tool, but sometimes they have too many dependencies. I faced a problem this weekend because while trying to solve an issue with one of the company's firewall management centers, I couldn't update or install an update on the platform due to a remote site being down. The device got stuck in my queue. I had to cancel my maintenance because of that.

Everyone was expecting me to fix many bugs, but because of one device, I had to cancel everything. Sometimes the ID is nice around Cisco, but another area they need to improve is the capability to manage multiple devices. The FMC manages many devices, but if I put too many, around 300 devices, it becomes very slow, and the system becomes heavy. When you compare that with solutions such as Palo Alto, Palo Alto can manage many more devices on the same type of platform.

Cisco is better at managing things such as RMAs. They do that exceptionally, even with the support. However, when we're talking about the FMC itself, sometimes they have some small issues; the platform is very slow and has too many bugs in the versions. We constantly need to update the platform to maintain stability.

I have at least 3 years of experience with the Cisco Secure Firewall.

If you have a problem and need to delete and re-add the device, it can cause an outage since it deletes all the configurations. There's no file generated for configurations, meaning you must screenshot everything and manually reconfigure that. I mention this because I do this often.

If I were to rate stability on a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a 6.

As for scalability, I would rate it a 7. It's not that bad, but it could be better. My customer has many Cisco devices on the FMC. Cisco has various versions, from FMC 600 and 1600 to 4600s, but even with the highest one, the 4600, we still face issues, particularly when transitioning between screens; it becomes very slow, and it has difficulties managing all the logs and events.

I reach out to support frequently, and I think their support is good. The engineers are very well-trained, and I would give it an 8.

Cisco is always more expensive; it's actually more expensive than other brands. When you compare it to others such as Palo Alto or Fortinet, it's slightly more expensive.

Positive

Regarding the initial setup of the Cisco Secure Firewall, if we're discussing setting it up from scratch, it's not difficult. I think it's acceptable.

On a scale of 1 to 10 for ease of deploying FMC from scratch, I would rate it a 7. There's a wizard for the initial setup; you input the management IP, and that part is easy. Adding it to the FMC is also easy, but then you have to configure extensively from the graphical interface, and that's not very straightforward. You need to manually configure many items. They could allow more setup options in the wizard when connecting to the FMC. You can do things through APIs to facilitate, but if you're doing it manually, it can be challenging.

I would recommend the Cisco Secure Firewall to other businesses, but I suggest comparing it to other platforms. While I've been a Cisco specialist for a long time, experimenting with other platforms is valuable. Consider looking at Palo Alto or Fortinet, and make comparisons and benchmarks. If you have a full Cisco environment, it may be wise to go with Cisco due to benefits from enterprise agreements. But if you're starting anew, check out organizations such as Checkpoint or Palo Alto.

If that's not a blocker or a big deal, I would provide that advice. I rate the Cisco Secure Firewall a seven out of ten.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include firewall protection and managing the ingress and egress of a fabric and cloud, involving private cloud tasks, inter-domain, and inter-tenant processes, as well as handling whatever comes in and exits the fabric.

The features from the Firewall have benefited my organization by providing more integration with the Firewall Management Center and other Cisco tools such as ACI, APEX, ISE, and several others such as PXGrid, helping to create an ecosystem of Cisco solutions.

The feature I appreciate the most about Cisco Secure Firewall is its speed, especially for a 40-gig network. 

Improving Cisco Secure Firewall could involve adding more functionality on the box without needing an FMC, as some features become less effective without it. I find it hard to think of anything else to add since there are so many features now that it's challenging to use and understand them all.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall since it came out, which was just a year or two ago.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Firewall, the only issues I encounter are with the Secure Firewalls we have in HA. Sometimes, if they are reloaded improperly, junior staff may fail to see the HA pair, requiring physical resetting of the ports to link them together. Beyond that, I have never had a problem with a Cisco Firewall, FMC, or any of their next-generation firewalls, which speaks for itself.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall as excellent, as my Cisco team for the Army has been exceptional. I don't know how you can get better, and I don't have any complaints after ten years with the same team from Cisco.

Positive

I haven't really seen ROI on Cisco Secure Firewall yet, as we are not in a business that focuses on that. We just need the security functionality.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall is pretty good. There are a lot of in-place contracts for us that provide the benefit of discounts.

Before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall, I considered other solutions such as Palo Alto. That was about it. I was mainly looking at layer seven firewalls. 

When comparing Cisco Secure Firewall to Palo Alto, what stood out positively was the FMC, which you can buy as either a physical or virtual appliance, allowing for the tying of all your firewalls to it, whereas Palo Alto lacks such functionality or the availability to do deeper analysis such as snort, making it clear that Cisco Secure Firewall wasn't really a competition.

My advice for organizations considering Cisco Secure Firewall is to take advantage of Cisco's C-Pot program, where you can actually use their equipment in a practical setting. This allows for firsthand comparisons with other vendors, giving you clear insights into how everything works, making it worthwhile to get demo gear from our Cisco team to test before making any purchases.

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine out of ten. 

It's not perfect, as nothing truly is, however, I don't know of anything that compares to it, with Palo Alto being the closest option, though their layer seven firewalls are not as effective as those of Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall provides intelligent devices that can manage security issues between IT and OT environments. IT is an information technology environment consisting of servers and data centers, while OT environment is operational technology related to PLC cabinets and machines. When integrating both to work in business processes, security issues between IT and OT must be managed, and Cisco provides excellent devices for managing this challenge.

I primarily use Cisco Secure Firewall in manufacturing fields rather than applications. In a small area, I integrated Cisco with RADIUS for authentication purposes and TACACS, applying security rules to external access for suppliers from Europe and the USA to our environments.

I use cloud-delivered firewall in parts of our business because we have multiple locations distributed across Egypt and Germany. I needed to use a firewall in the cloud to publish security policies remotely and manage separate locations with the same vendor like Cisco.

The biggest benefit of Cisco Secure Firewall and the features that stand out to me are its excellent integration with PLC and manufacturing devices. This option cannot be found on other devices such as Sophos or FortiGate.

The unification of policies is very important to me because without unified communication between devices with the same rule and security policy, managing everything with separate technology and separate vendors would be very difficult. Cisco excels at this.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall was completed in-house.

Regarding implementing a zero-trust security model, I did not pursue this option because zero-trust is new technology with significant human impact on business operations. I use multi-factor authentication instead, with devices such as YubiKey, which is a USB device for trusting device authentication with hardware, but I have not implemented zero-trust at this time.

I do see some drawbacks with the authentication portions of Cisco, which are very legacy and have not been improved for a long time, such as using 802.1X switches. These aspects must be improved.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for ten years.

For some period of time, we were a partner with Cisco, and after that, we began working as a customer.

I see some ROI through savings, including time and money savings. When evaluating Cisco over a longer period, I save money because the service renewal costs are substantial compared to alternatives. If I consider FortiGate, each module costs money and each renewal costs money. When comparing Cisco with other vendors, I believe Cisco's licensing is better.

Some differences from a technical standpoint are that Cisco is more professional in creating and applying rules on devices and integrating with other infrastructure, particularly routers. If I wanted to integrate access points and switches with Sophos or FortiGate, I would have to purchase the same brand name from those vendors and not integrate with others. This is a significant limitation. With Cisco, I do not have to purchase everything from a single partner and can mix between providers to take advantage of each product's benefits.

We are currently using Cisco Secure Firewall ASA and are planning to use Cisco Vision. Cisco provides many tools to have visibility of packets moving on the network and enables capturing certain packets for analysis, which others cannot do.

Cisco Secure Firewall is very fair according to the benefits it provides. When comparing Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco in terms of benefits and stability, Cisco is excellent.

Cisco Secure Firewall has a degree of complexity, but I believe it is more professional in deployment because it operates at the data link layer and network layer rather than only at the application and web levels. I rate this review as a nine out of ten.