Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are segmentation and VPNs. My involvement is more at the remote sites, setting up those firewalls for VPN, and we have centralized management for handling all the policies.

I appreciate the uniformity of being able to push the policies out with Cisco Secure Firewall. That was one of the reasons we acquired it, so we could push the policies out everywhere.

Downtime due to bugs requiring code upgrades has been problematic. That's the reason why we are moving away from Cisco Secure Firewalls.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for approximately four years.

It has been problematic, primarily due to bugs in the code rather than crashes.

We're looking at Palo Alto, and we will probably be cutting over to Palo Alto, which will likely be a many-year project.

I appreciate Cisco's support and have been very happy with it. I imagine the support is the same for the firewall. I typically handle break-fix issues at the firewall level and turn them over to engineering, who then contact tech support. With switching, I call tech support directly. 

The support has improved significantly over the years, and the escalation process is very straightforward now. Even if the first engineer isn't highly knowledgeable, we get additional support and can escalate the issue.

Positive

We have been using a Meraki solution.

Licensing with Cisco Secure Firewall isn't too difficult. However, pricing seems high. We had been using a Meraki solution, and Cisco Secure Firewall seems more expensive than Meraki, even though Meraki is also cloud-based.

We're going to cut over to Palo Alto, which will probably be a many-year project, because the amount of downtime is substantial. While it doesn't affect the whole company, there is downtime in certain areas, usually due to bugs that require code upgrades to fix. That has been problematic. 

We had planned to deploy Meraki more extensively as our Cisco ASAs aged out. However, we're also deploying SDA fabric, and Meraki is currently not compatible with that solution. I recently spoke with an engineer about SDA, and his answer indicated they will be supported, but with some variance. That's why we're moving away from Meraki, but we're still not ready for Palo Alto since it has a big learning curve and is totally different. We still have deployment and upgrade needs, so we're continuing to get Cisco Firepower firewalls while implementing Palo Alto more internally. This could be a multi-year process, depending on how it progresses.

It's difficult to predict how other organizations will deploy Cisco Secure Firewall, but my advice is to ensure the code being installed is the code recommended by Cisco. My recommendation wouldn't be extremely high, as deciding to discard millions of dollars in investment makes a significant statement. I would have difficulty recommending it based on our management's decisions, especially considering we're willing to replace our core firewalls and perimeter firewalls. The Palo Alto transition entails substantial training and design work. If we're willing to get rid of Cisco Secure Firewall in favor of a different product, it says a lot.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall a seven out of ten. It performs necessary firewall functions, but there are issues related to bugs.

On-premises

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are to safeguard our network, including the IPS and all the traffic, and to control the traffic.

The visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall in managing encrypted traffic are very good. I can implement all my certificates, so I can open the traffic and see everything.

Cisco Secure Firewall’s ability to unify policies across our environment is at a high level. This unification of policies into one system is important for my company. We are able to consolidate all the policies instead of spreading them across many security systems.

What I appreciate the most about Cisco Secure Firewall is that it can be very elastic, as it can be configured with all the flexibility of my network needs and complexity. The service I receive from the Cisco engineer helps me implement all my needs. 

Cisco Secure Firewall allows me to safeguard Layer 7 or Layer 3 and manage the security rules with the business needs of my organization. The firewall has benefited my company overall because it safeguards and finds and stops all the malicious traffic.

Cisco Secure Firewall can be improved by simplifying the GUI, as it shouldn't be so complex.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for ten years.

It's very robust. We don't have any downtime or anything. We work with a cluster with high availability, so if something goes wrong, we have it functioning.

Cisco Secure Firewall helps with the growing needs of our company as it's scalable.

Customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall are very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It was a little bit difficult.

We needed a good integrator to help us, and we contacted Cisco for some help with technical issues.

We are able to safeguard our assets.

It's acceptable and comparable to other products.

We did consider other solutions before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall. We considered all the big vendors such as Palo Alto, Check Point, Fortinet, and others. Cisco won because it has the best IPS model on it, and that's the reason why we chose this firewall.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten. To make it a ten, the complexity of the configuration compared to other vendors needs to be addressed. Overall, we're very happy with the product.

On-premises

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is for enterprise customers. We primarily work on Cisco Meraki switching and wireless. We also engage with Cisco Secure Firewall for threat prevention and information security.

The Cisco Secure Firewall appliances are primarily ASIC-based, which makes them fast and purpose-built. They stand out because they are not Intel-based systems, and in terms of performance and stability, they are among the best. Scalability is another strong point, as I have not encountered any issues in terms of scalability. Everything is in a cluster and can operate in active standby, active-active, or active-passive mode. Additionally, Cisco's support is excellent, which adds further value to their solutions.

The configuration might be slightly difficult compared to other players in the market like Fortinet or WatchGuard. It can be challenging for someone who is not used to using an application to configure the firewall, but with experience, it becomes manageable.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for four, five, six years or more.

There have been no issues with deployment.

Cisco Secure Firewall offers exceptional performance and stability. They are among the best in terms of stability.

I have not come across any issues with scalability. Everything scales very well.

Customer service and support are excellent. I would rate their support 10 out of 10. I have been working with them on firewalls, wireless, switching, and routing, and the support is the best.

Positive

For someone like me who has been working on firewalls for quite some time, I do not see any problems with the initial setup. However, for someone trying to configure it for the first time with little experience, it may present a challenge.

Return on investment depends on the customer. While some may see it as an expense, others view it as an investment based on their understanding of Cisco.

The pricing is slightly more expensive than other products in the market. It's considered a premium, but people pay that price for Cisco.

I have been working with Palo Alto, Fortinet, SonicWALL, and WatchGuard.

I would definitely recommend Cisco Secure Firewall for its architecture, performance, stability, and exceptional support. When choosing a product, consider features delivery, stability, scalability, and customer support. On a scale of one to ten, I rate their firewalls eight to eight and a half.

On-premises

I am a system engineer, and I've been looking for some details and competitive information regarding the standards of this firewall and similar technologies.

There is a good relationship between real throughput, meaning the root performance, and the data sheet performance. When comparing it to other vendors, the data sheet performance is often more than expected and more than the real performance. It includes features like IPS, malware protection, and other security features.

The management usability and security of Cisco Firewall are based on Firepower Management Center, which is quite out of date compared to other vendors.

I have used this solution for more than ten years.

The SLA is great, and the escalation process is also great. For example, if I have a priority one case, I am able to call the manager to raise the severity, etc. So the SLA is very good.

Neutral

When compared with other competitors like Palo Alto or Fortinet, Cisco stands in a good position regarding the firewall environment. Compared to Fortinet, Cisco is a bit higher. When comparing with Palata and Juniper, Cisco has the same price level.

I am well prepared, and it is quite easy. Cisco has really great documentation, like a deployment guide and a quick start guide, etc.

If engineers are well prepared, it is good to note that Cisco has really great documentation. I have been working with AI features in the Cisco environment with Cisco Firewall, etc. I have been hearing and reading a lot about the integration of AI capabilities into Cisco devices, but I have not worked with that yet.

Overall, I would rate this an eight out of ten.

Regarding the use cases for the Cisco Secure Firewall, the Firepower is used in enterprise corporations, DMZ sites, perimeter security, and IPS applications.

The valuable features of the Cisco Secure Firewall include the unified console and compatibility with other solutions such as Duo Mobile with DAC and EDR. The single solution allows users to see one dashboard, and the compatibility solution provides better dashboard integration.

Areas that could be improved with the Cisco Secure Firewall include the ease of use with the product, and it needs to work better with NAC and integration.

Cisco could improve their firewall by providing better support when issues arise, such as during an attack, to help resolve problems more efficiently.

The stability of the Cisco Secure Firewall is excellent, and I find it very reliable at this moment.

Regarding the scalability of the Cisco Secure Firewall, it depends on the situation because in some cases, equipment changes are necessary when the size is very small.

Equipment changes become necessary when companies upgrade with more devices and people, as the firewall becomes insufficient for different security requirements.

The score for their support is eight.

Positive

I work only with Firepower and Palo Alto security solutions.

The initial setup for the Cisco Secure Firewall is very easy, particularly during the initial start of the equipment.

On a scale of one to ten, I would score the setup as eight.

I have experience with Cisco Secure Firewall, specifically the ASA and Firepower solutions. I work in the education and retail industry, where Palo Alto firewall is commonly used in my country. For B2B business, I use the Firepower solution as a Cisco partner.

We use Network Access Control with NAC, and we use Duo for solutions with easy integration. We also implement attack protection.

I would rate this solution as ten out of ten.

Until a couple of years ago, everything was fine regarding my main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall. I didn't have any problems with the equipment, quality, or support. However, in the last couple of years, they started making our lives difficult. Trying to renew the partnership with them became challenging as they were requesting numerous things on our side, and since we are a very small business, it wasn't possible to get through that verification.

Until a couple of years ago, everything was fine regarding my main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall.

They are definitely reliable, and regarding positive features, once you get through with the purchasing of this equipment they offer their special support schemes, SmartNet support schemes, which are quite useful.

They offer their own software, and regarding integration capabilities, it's not wise to have only one vendor. One might get Cisco Secure Firewall for the outside drone and then get some other software from other companies such as ESET or Panda for the PCs and the servers, and that's how it's typically done.

Regarding policies about partnership, they are losing, not us. There are other equipment options out there that don't require such strict requirements.

With the new systems that Cisco Secure Firewall is deploying right now, I don't have experience with downtimes. With older systems, it happened once with a big customer that they went through the repair and they actually hacked the whole thing. It wasn't actually the equipment's fault. It was a customer's fault because we were begging them to implement two-factor authentication mechanisms, and they never did it, and in the end something happened. That's understandable. You can't blame the equipment for that.

The technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall once you have the SmartNet is very good. The people are always willing to help, they can even log on remotely on the devices and check things. They're very good with that.

Positive

It depends on the customer, and regarding the deployment time of Cisco Secure Firewall, it depends on what you want to implement. To set it up just for getting out to the internet may take a couple of hours. However, to prepare a skilled network with site to site VPNs, it's going to take days.

There are other equipment options out there that don't require such strict requirements.

They say that their new software for Cisco Secure Firewall is AI compliant, whatever that means. They have some kind of databases on the cloud, the system communicates with them in order to monitor the traffic getting through and clearing things and stopping attacks or whatever. Everybody does this, but at what level they do it, nobody really knows.

The security policies that an organization has are also upon the IT people and the management to properly identify and implement. If they don't do these things, and they don't update the software of the servers, they leave all the usernames and passwords vulnerabilities there and they don't do something about that, you can't blame the equipment. It's the perimeter kind of firewalling you have with the equipment. But after that you have to do something on your own to help yourself.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Secure Firewall an eight.

I've deployed them in a number of different use cases. I've deployed them at the internet edge. I've used those VPN concentrators, and I've deployed them at the data center core, segmenting VLANs.

We've seen a lot of improvements in terms of cybersecurity resilience and securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats. The visibility with FMC is excellent. Being able to have, for instance, a data center core firewall, an internet edge firewall, and a VPN concentrator device managed by the same FMC and being able to take all of that information and see it in one place is very beneficial from the security posture standpoint. It's a time saver because it makes things easy. I can log in and very easily see what my detected threats are, what's been happening over the last 24 hours, or if there's anything I need to be concerned about. Being able to see who's logging into the VPN, but also what traffic are they sending, what are they bringing back, and being able to have all that in one place is really nice. The integration between the FMC and endpoints is a nice feature and a big time saver in terms of remediating threats and remediating malware and other malicious software.

FMC is very good in terms of giving a lot of visibility into what the firewall is seeing, what it's stopping, and what it's letting through. It lets the administrator have a little bit of knowledge of what's coming in or out of the device. It's excellent.

The policies module in FMC specifically isn't the most user-friendly. Coming from Cisco ASA, Cisco ASA is a little bit easier to use. When you get into particularly complex deployments where you have a lot of different interfaces and all that kind of stuff, it's a little bit tricky. Some usability improvements there would be nice. 

For scalability, they could support a little bit more diverse deployments around clustering and high availability. Currently, it's very active standby, and being able to do a three firewall cluster or four or five firewall cluster would suit some of my deployments a little bit better. It would also help to keep the cost down for the customer because you're buying smaller devices and clustering them versus larger devices.

I've been using Cisco firewalls for fifteen years at least. I've been using them in some form or another, such as from ASAs and now FTDs and Firepower.

Its stability is excellent. In the last six months, I've probably deployed about 14 Cisco Secure Firewall devices, and I am yet to get a callback. I deploy them, and then the customer takes ownership of the device, and they're off to the races and ready to go. They've been stable, which is good. I don't like devices that break the week after I install them and make me look bad.

I've implemented them anywhere from a 500 MB throughput device up to a 20 GB throughput device. Particularly around scalability, some improvements in terms of clustering would be good.

I've called Cisco TAC many times throughout my career, and I never hesitate to do it. They've always been fantastic for me. I'd rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I've used a number of other competitive devices. I've customers running SonicWall, I've customers running Palo Alto, and I've customers running Fortinet. Cisco Secure Firewalls are excellent.

Cisco is at a really good place, especially with a lot of the recent updates that have happened. Compared to Palo Alto and Fortinet specifically, I find FMC is way easier to use. Specifically in the realm of cybersecurity resilience, it's for sure a much more effective tool than Palo Alto. Having come from Palo Alto, the way FMC surfaces threats and enables response to set threats is vastly easier for me and my team to work with, so we're seeing a lot more resiliency. We're seeing a lot quicker response to threats. We're seeing a lot quicker identification of threats. From that perspective, it's far and away better.

Cisco Secure Firewall is the best in the market right now. Palo Alto is okay, but Cisco is better. In terms of resiliency and providing actionable intelligence to a security team, I find Cisco products to be way better. Fortinet is also fairly easy to use. They have a lot of the same strengths. However, Fortinet's technical support is terrible. Cisco has a nice package of devices. It's easy to use. It's easy to integrate for the security team. It gives you a lot of actionable intelligence in your network. Having that kind of company and technical support to be able to back that up and be able to support the customers is very useful.

I've deployed them countless times, and I find it very easy. I did a high availability pair of internet edge firewalls for a 2,000 users organization migrating from Palo Alto, and I moved them over with AnyConnect, Umbrella, and Duo from Palo Alto in a week and a half with no downtime. I do a lot on-prem just because of my verticals. I work a lot in law enforcement. I work a lot in government, and those end up being very on-prem heavy. 

It's pretty competitive. If they could make it cheaper, it would be great. You always want cheaper, but relative to the performance capabilities of the firewall and relative to what you get, it's fair.

It's not the cheapest in the world, but you get an excellent product for that price. The onus is on us as a customer to look at what we're buying and establish not just the price but the value. You need to look at what you're getting for your dollars there. Cisco has a very good proposition there.

Its licensing is pretty good. It's not very complex. There are not a million different SKUs. I had a Palo Alto deployment where the customer had asked for a license for integration with their Cortex XDR, and they didn't include it. It was eight more SKUs and eighty thousand dollars more. It was a real disaster, and it can put a customer off from using Palo Alto. Cisco's licensing model is easy to understand whether it's apps or VPN. The way that they handle the subscriptions is very easy to understand. It's very fair.

To someone researching this solution who wants to improve cybersecurity in their organization, I'd say that the main thing to look for is usability. Find something that you can understand and that provides you with actionable intelligence because a security device that's not administered and monitored properly isn't going to do much for you. It's not going to be very effective. So, you want a device that's easy to use and that gives you a lot of that visibility and makes your job as a security administrator easy. It should make identifying and responding to threats as seamless as humanly possible because the quicker you can respond, the more security you're able to keep in your organization.

Cisco Talos is an excellent product. I've been using Cisco Talos since Cisco introduced it. In fact, I was a Sourcefire customer before Cisco acquired them, so I'm very familiar with the roots of that team and where it's from. I've been all in on them since day one.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement, especially in security because the security world is changing on a daily basis. We're always looking for what can we do better and how can we improve, but what Cisco has done since the Sourcefire acquisition and where they've taken it, I'm very excited for the future.

On-premises

We are a Cisco partner and we are currently using Cisco Firepower for our internet edge, intrusion prevention systems, and filtering.

We use virtual appliances in the cloud and hardware appliances on-premises.

Cisco Secure Firewall has improved usability in our environment.

The application visibility and control are great. Cisco Secure Firewall provides us with visibility into the users and the applications that are being used.

We are capable of securing our infrastructure from end to end, enabling us to detect and address threats. We have excellent visibility into the traffic flows, including those within the DMZs.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped save our IT staff a couple of hours per month of their time because it is much easier to use the GUI instead of attempting to manage things through the CLI, which we have to access from the CRM.

We have several clients who had larger security stacks that they were able to consolidate because they were using separate products for IPS or URL filtering. With Firepower, we were able to consolidate all of those into a single solution.

The ability of Cisco Secure Firewalls to consolidate tools or applications has had a significant impact on our security infrastructure by enabling us to eliminate all the additional tools and utilize a single product.

Cisco Talos helps us keep on top of our security operations.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization enhance its cybersecurity resilience. We can generate periodic reports that are shared with the security teams to keep them informed.

The ASA has seen significant improvement due to the IPS. 

The ability to troubleshoot more easily through the gate is valuable.

The integration with all the necessary products needs improvement. Managing various product integrations, such as Umbrella, is challenging.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for four years. My organization has been using Cisco Secure Firewall for a much longer period of time. 

We experienced stability issues when transitioning to version 7.2, particularly related to operating Snort from Snort Two to Snort Three. In some cases, the firewalls necessitated a reboot, but we ultimately reverted back to using Snort Two.

The technical support is responsive. In most cases where I've opened a ticket, they have promptly worked on figuring out the actual problem and assisting me in resolving it.

Positive

We have had clients who switched to Cisco Secure Firewall from Check Point, Palo Alto, and WatchGuard due to the features and support that Cisco offers.

The initial setup is straightforward. Since we were transitioning from ASA to Firepower, a significant portion of our work involved transferring the access control lists to the power values in the GUI. After that, we began adding additional features, such as IPS.

The pricing and licensing structure of the firewall is fair and reasonable.

The closest competitor that matches Cisco Firepower is Palo Alto, and the feature sets are quite comparable for both of them. One issue I have noticed with Cisco's product is the SSL decryption when used by clients connecting from inside to outside the Internet. 

Cisco lacks the ability to check CRLs or OCSP certificate status unless we manually upload them, which is impractical for a large number of items like emails. On the other hand, Palo Alto lacks the ability to inspect the traffic within the firewall tunnel, which is a useful feature to have. 

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall eight out of ten.

I recommend taking advantage of the trial by downloading virtual next-gen firewalls provided by OBA, deploying them in a virtual environment, and testing their performance to evaluate their effectiveness. This is a crucial step.

Hybrid Cloud