Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We tend to use the solution as it's forced on us by corporate. Our company wants us to use it.

The solution is stable. We haven't had any issues in that sense.

The security of the hardware is excellent. Cisco is very serious in its approach to security.

We have a high level of trust in Cisco and its products.

The solution is excellent for enterprise-level networks.

The solution is difficult to use. There's more required than a typical firewall. It's different than, for example, Palo Alto and Fortinet, which we find are easier to set up. 

If the implementation was easier, it would be a lot better for us.

It would be such a great product for us if it was easier to manage.

I've been working with the solution for more than ten years. It's been a long time. It's been over a decade at this point.

The solution is quite stable. We have no problems with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

We've found the solution to be scalable. A company shouldn't have any issues with expanding it if it needs to.

We have about 300 users on the solution currently. We do plan to continue to use Cisco in the future.

We use third-party technical support that's offered and we're quite satisfied with the level of attention we receive.

I have knowledge of Palo Alto and Fortinet.

While those two are easier to set up and control, nothing compares to Cisco in terms of security. They're very strong in that regard. We also find Cisco to be more stable.

However, we only use Cisco firewalls in our organization. We don't use anything else.

The implementation is not so straightforward. It's rather complex and we have a lot of trouble with it.

The implementation took us about one month.

We plan to implement an updated version next month as well.

We need three to eight people to handle the setup.

I did not handle the implementation by myself. Rather, it's done by another team including the original support from Singapore and with license support from headquarters in Japan.

However, our team does handle the implementation in-house, and we can handle the setup for clients as well.

We do need to purchase licenses. Those come from headquarters in Japan. They handle the details in terms of pricing. I'm not sure of the overall costs.

We're both a customer of Cisco and a reseller.

This month we plan to upgrade from our existing hardware.

Overall, we've been happy with the results we've gotten. I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We primarily provide implementation and maintenance services to our clients.

The software itself is very simple.

The solution is easy to operate. It's not overly complex.

The command line is the same as it is on the Cisco iOS router.

The technical support is very helpful and responsive.

The solution needs to have better logging features.

Cisco needs to migrate its ASA Firewall to a management console or to a web console.

I've been working with the solution for six years at this point.

The solution is largely stable. Once we adopted Cisco services, we found that everything was pretty reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The scalability is a problem as the solution has a low throughput.

We've been in touch with technical support and I've always found them easy to reach. They're responsive and helpful. I find their service much better than, for example, Fortinet or Palo Alto. Overall, we're satisfied with Cisco with respect to their technical support.

We have some experience working with Palo Alto and Fortinet solutions as well.

While I don't have the exact pricing of the solution, it's my understanding that Cisco is rather costly. It's not the cheapest option on the market. It's expensive. It's more costly, for example than Palo Alto.

We have a gold partnership status with Cisco, however, we are also partners with companies such as Fortinet and Palo Alto.

For a next-generation firewall, I would likely recommend Palo Alto. However, if a company had the budget, I would recommend Fortinet. That said, for a VPN gateway, I would recommend Cisco ASA.

In general, I would rate Cisco's ASA Firewall at seven out of ten.

We use Cisco ASA for traffic control.

It's a flexible solution.

The configuration is an area that needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see the UI include or provide web access, and more integration.

I have been using Cisco ASA Firewall for five years.

We are not using the latest version, as it is not available.

It's a stable solution and we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 2,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue to use it.

Technical support provides us with good service.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy for us because we have experience.

It was already deployed when I arrived.

We have two or three guys for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product that I would recommend to others.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of ten.

The feature I have found most valuable is the IPS advanced threat detection for removing ransomware and malware.

An area of improvement for this solution is the console visualization.

I have been using this solution for two months.

The solution is stable.

The customer service/technical support is very good with this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took two weeks to deploy. Currently, 5000 employees use this solution in our company.

The solution was chosen because of its price compared to other similar solutions.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

We utilize the solution for our IT security. 

To be honest, all of the features that are provided, all the other vendor will also have. One feature we did find valuable was the CLI, it is more accurate. Additionally, I was happy with the customization, dashboards, access lists and interface.

We frequently use the Bottleneck feature we purchased specialized from Cisco.

It is hard to collaborate with our filtered environment. 

If Cisco could combine the Bottleneck feature of ASA, their platform called Umbrella, and the other team they have that has similar malware protection into one, this would be perfect. 

I have been using the solution for almost three years.

The solution is stable. However, It does have some bugs, but Cisco always fixes them really quickly. Sometimes we have to restart and it would be better if the bugs could be fixed without having to reload.

The scalability is not perfect.

The support has been great and responsive. Most of their engineers are very professional and knowledgeable.

The setup is easy to do if you are familiar with these type of installs, if not then it could be difficult.

We have a perpetual license for all of our firewalls. For some of the features, we purchase them on demand. The pricing is decent but it could always be cheaper, we would be happier.

We will probably change to a higher version in the near future or migrate to a next-generation firewall which would include IPI and some other new features. This makes sense because our current firewall ends the support in several years. 

Cisco FirePower, the next-generation firewall, is much better for stability.

I have used many versions of the software over the years, versions 8.6 to 9.1 and 9.9 to 9.12.

Keep in mind before purchasing the solution, if you do need to scale the solution then ASA is probably not right for you.

I rate Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of ten.

This is a product that is used at the infrastructure level to protect the network from outside traffic.

The most valuable feature is stability.

When using this product, our network is slower. The performance should be improved.

The installation could be made easier.

We have been working with Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for more than two years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Support from Cisco is good enough.

The installation can be easy, although it is slightly more difficult to install than Fortinet FortiGate. One day is enough for deployment but it takes a long time to configure.

I deployed Firepower with support from the team in India.

We have a team of three people for deployment and maintenance.

The price of Firepower is not bad compared to other products.

This is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco ASA Firewall to protect different sites at a protocol level. We also use it for antivirus and bot protection.

I think Cisco ASA Firewall is the most stable firewall solution.

The price can be better.

I've been using Cisco ASA Firewall for the last ten years.

I think they're all are stable. I've never seen a firewall that's unstable.

I'm satisfied with their technical support.

It's easy for me to configure one because I have firewall configuration certifications. I don't know what someone with nothing in terms of experience would be able to do. 

It normally takes me a week to implement and deploy. I normally need a week and three people to do maintenance.

I used to implement it several years ago, but now I ask our engineer to do it.

Cisco ASA Firewall should be cheaper.

I would recommend Cisco ASA Firewall to potential users. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ASA Firewall an eight.

We use the solution to monitor the connections as part of our parameter protection for our network. We restrict what kind of traffic comes in and out, we use it basically for traffic management.

Cisco used to be all command-line operations and now Firepower is in a way modelled from FortiGate. Firepower has integrated a UI into it now.

You do not have to do everything through a command line which makes it a lot easier to apply rules.

You are able to see the traffic of what sites users are visiting.

There are warnings if you are about to go to sites that could be malicious.

It also allows you to block within categories, such as, by URL.

The solution always had these capabilities, but it did not have a user interface that was user-friendly.

The solution could offer better control that would allow the ability to restrictions certain features from a website. For example, If we want to allow YouTube but not allow uploads or we want to allow Facebook but not allow the chat or to playing of videos. This ability to customize restrictions would be great.

We have been using the solution for three months now. We have always used Cisco but before we were using the ASA and now we use the new version with the threat defence.

The stability is good so far.  My opinion could change in another couple of months once we get more deeply involved with the solution.

We currently are protection approximately 220 users.

We just deployed it a couple of months ago, we have not used the tech support with the Firepower yet. We have not had an issue that we have had to raise with them. 

Generally, the tech support for Cisco takes too long to go through the different tiers of support agents to get to someone that can resolve the issue. You end up speaking to someone that is not qualified to solve the issue, then you have to be escalated upwards over and over. This system could be better.

I rate the tech support service generally from Cisco a seven out of ten.

The installation is not hard and not easy either, it falls in between.

The time of implementation took us two to three days. This was in part because we were migrating from another Cisco firewall. The config files were already there, we just had to bring them over. While having the config files we just had to set up the hardware to have us up and running. The install could have taken longer if this was not the case.

Currently, I would give this solution high marks because I have not had a problem. However, keeping in mind, my evaluation period has been short. I would not give the solution a ten, nothing is perfect.

I rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall a nine out of ten.