Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

Typically, we use them on the internet edge for protecting customer networks from the internet. It's a delimiter between the local area network and the wider internet. Other use cases include securing data centers or protecting certain areas within a network. It's not particularly internet-based, but it gives you that added layer of security between networks or between VLANs and your network, rather than using a Layer 3 switch.

Ultimately, it's about securing data. Data is like your crown jewels and you need to be able to secure it from different user groups. Obviously, you need to protect your data from the internet and that's why we generally deploy Cisco ASAs.

The usability, with the GUI front end, certainly helps and it means you don't have to be a command-line person. We have to get away from that now because if you put the typical IT admin in front of a CLI they might struggle. Having something graphical, where they can click in logs to see what's going through the firewall— what's been denied, what's being allowed—very quickly, helps to get to a diagnosis or know something has been blocked. And when it comes to making changes within the environment, that can be done very quickly as well. I've seen something be blocked within a couple of minutes, and any IT admin can make a change through the GUI.

One of the most valuable features is the GUI front end, which is very easy to use. But I'm also a command-line guy, and being able to access the device via command-line for advanced troubleshooting is quite important.

One area that could be improved is its logging functionality. Your logs are usually displayed on the screen, but if you want to go back one or two days, then you need another solution in place because those logs are overwritten within minutes. 

To have that kind of feature, it's more than likely there would need to be some kind of storage on the device, but those boxes were designed a number of years ago now. They weren't really designed to have that built-in. Having said that, if you do reflash into the FTD image, and you've got the Firepower Management Center to control those devices, then all that logging is kept within the Firepower Management Center.

I've been using Cisco ASA Firewalls since they came out. Before ASA, I used Cisco PIX Firewalls. I've been using them since about 1999 or 2000.

I'm involved in the presale events as well as the implementation and post-sale support. We do everything. That is probably different from a lot of organizations. We are quite a small company, so we have to be involved at all levels. I see it from all angles.

One of the reasons I've stuck with Cisco all these years is that you always get excellent support. If a network goes down due to major issues, I know I can raise a case with TAC and get through to subject matter experts very quickly.

Obviously, you need a SMARTnet contract. That means if a device has completely failed, you can get a box replaced according to the SLAs of that contract. That's very important for customers because if you have an internet edge failure and you just have a single device, you want to know that the replacement box is going to be onsite within four hours.

When a network goes down, you're going to know about it. You want to be safe in the knowledge that someone is going to be there for you and have your back. Cisco do have your back on those kinds of things.

Cisco support is a major selling point.

Positive

In terms of deployment, a lot of organizations are moving to the cloud. People are looking at the ASAv image for deploying into the public cloud on Azure or AWS. But there are still a lot of organizations that use ASAs as their internet edge.

The on-prem and the cloud-based deployments are very similar. When you're designing a solution, you need to look at the customer's business requirements and what business outcomes they actually want from a solution. From there, you develop architecture. Then it's a matter of selecting the right kinds of kits to go into the architecture to deliver those business outcomes. We talk to customers to understand what they want and what they're trying to achieve, and we'll then develop a solution to hopefully exceed their requirements. 

Once we've gotten that far, we're down to creating a low-level design and fitting the components that we're going to deploy into that design, including the ASA firewalls and the switches, et cetera. We then deploy it for the customer.

Your investments are protected because of the innovations over time and the fact that you're able to migrate to the latest and greatest technology, through Cisco. 

There are also a lot of Cisco ASA skills out there in the marketplace, so if you have ASAs deployed and you get a new employee, it's more than likely they have had experience with ASAs and that means you're not having to retrain people.

We do deploy other manufacturers' equipment as well, but if I were to deploy a solution with firewalling, my number-one choice would probably be Cisco ASA or the FTD image or Cisco Meraki MX.

The flexibility you have in a Cisco ASA solution is generally much greater than that of others in the marketplace. 

For any Cisco environment, we choose Cisco because it comes down to support. If the network is Cisco, then you have one throat to choke. If there is a network issue, there's no way that Cisco can say, "It's the HP switch you've got down in the access layer."

ASA morphed from being just a traditional firewall, when they introduced the Firepower Next-Generation Firewall side. There has also been progress because you can reflash your old ASAs and turn them into an FTD (Firepower Threat Defense) solution. So you've got everything from your traditional ASA to an ASA with Firepower.

Cisco ASA has been improved over time, from what it was originally to what it is now. Your investments are being protected by Cisco because it has moved from a traditional firewall through to being a next-gen firewall. I'm a fan of ASA.

I think ASAs are coming towards the end of their lifespan and will be replaced by the FTDs. It's only a matter of time. But there are still a lot of Cisco customers who use ASAs, so migrating that same level of knowledge those customers have of the ASA platform across to the FPR/FTD image, will be a challenge and will require investment.

I'm working as a Solution Architect for an energy provider in Austria. We have approximately 1,500 people working in Austria and also in some neighboring countries.

We are using Cisco Secure Firewall. We started with Cisco ASA long ago, and now, we have Cisco Firepower or Cisco Secure Firewall. We are using the product as a perimeter firewall and for remote access VPN and site-to-site VPN tunnels with other partner companies. So, the primary use case of Cisco Secure Firewall is to secure our perimeter, but it's also for the remote access VPN for employees in the home office or if they are outside the company.

The benefit of using Cisco Secure Firewall is that there is a lot of integration with other Cisco products like Cisco ISE or even with third-party systems. It's important to have these integrations with other systems. On one hand, you get more visibility, and on the other hand, you can also use the information that you have from the firewall in other systems, such as a SIEM or other similar things. You overall get better visibility and better security.

In terms of securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats. When it comes to detection, it's pretty good because you have the background of Cisco Talos. I can't say if it's the truth, but they probably are one of the top players in threat hunting, so it's pretty good at detecting known things that are outside.

The most valuable features of the product are the VPN and the NextGen firewall features such as application control, URL filtering, etc. These features are especially valuable because nowadays, it's not enough to just filter for source and destination IPs. You need more insights or visibility to see which applications are passing your perimeter, which applications you want to allow, and which ones you want to block. Without this visibility and these features, it's a little bit hard to secure your network.

There is room for improvement in the stability or software quality of the product. There were a few things in the past where we had a little bit of a problem with the product, so there is room for improvement. In the past, we had problems with new releases. 

Also, from the beginning, some functionalities or features have not worked properly. There are bugs. Every product has such problems, but sometimes, there are more problems than other products, so it's definitely something that can be improved, but Cisco seems to be working on it.

There is room for improvement in the stability of the product.

I know that there are several models for every type of scale that you need. For small branches up to the data center or even for the cloud, there are models, but so far, we only have one cluster. Among all these different types, we found the perfect matching size for our company.

The Cisco support with Cisco TAC is pretty good. With the TAC Connect Bot that you have with WebEx, you can easily open a case or escalate the case through the WebEx app. That's pretty cool. Also, the engineers that are working for Cisco TAC are really good. Among all the vendors that we have in place, it's the best support that we have experienced. I'd rate them a 10 out of 10 because compared to the other vendors that we have in place, it's definitely the best support.

Positive

We have a multi-vendor strategy for the firewall so that if there is some security issue in the software or something like that, you are not directly impacted, and there is another vendor in between. If I compare Cisco Secure Firewall with the other vendor that we have in place, the pro for Cisco Secure Firewall is that detection is better with the database of Talos. The con that comes to my mind is the deployment time when you deploy a change. With the other vendor, the change is more or less deployed immediately, whereas, with Cisco Secure Firewall, you have to wait for a few minutes until the change is deployed. This is one of the biggest cons on this side because if there's a misconfiguration, you are not able to correct the issue as fast as with the other vendor.

We migrated from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower, and it was straightforward because there were some migration tools to export the old ASA rule set and import it into Cisco Secure Firewall. With these tools and the documentation that you find on Cisco's site, it was pretty straightforward, and we had nearly no problems with the migration to Cisco Secure Firewall.

In terms of the deployment model, we have one high-availability cluster, and, of course, FMC to manage this cluster. These are physical clusters, and we have them on-prem in our data center.

For deployment, we worked with our partner who helped us a little bit with the migration. Our partner's engineer had good knowledge and supported us when we had questions. When we didn't know how to do something, they helped us with that.

The licensing models that are available for Cisco Secure Firewall are okay. You have nearly every option that you need. You can pick filtering, advanced malware protection, or all the available features. It's sufficient.

In terms of pricing, there are, for sure, some cheaper vendors, but overall, it's nearly the same. It has a fair price.

To those evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall, I'd advise thinking about what are your use cases and what's your goal to achieve with this product. It's also a good idea to talk to other customers or a partner and ask them what's their experience and what they think about it, and if it's suitable for this use case or not. And, of course, it's also a good idea to do a proof of concept or something like that.

At the moment, I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a six out of ten. The reason for that is that we are having some problems with the stability and functionality of the product, but there are also features, such as VPN, that are working from day one without a problem. So, there are good parts, and there are parts that are not working as well as we would like them to, but we and Cisco TAC will solve this in the future, and then the rating will go up.

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."

We mainly use it for policy-based VPNs to IPSec one of the businesses. We also use it as a firewall solution for remote VPN users. We have vendors who have access to our VPN solution, and they get a dedicated network.

We can automate the VPN. The build process and how we've standardized it makes it very easy for us to focus on other tasks. We know that an end user can push a button, and the VPN will get built. They only bring us in for troubleshooting or higher-level issues with the other vendor. Because of that program, the ability to use Cisco ASA every time, in the same way, makes our job easy.

Once we started standardizing and using the same solution, we've been able to correlate that so we know what we are doing. We can train even less experienced and newer guys to do the tasks that in turn frees up the higher-level engineers. It has cut out the VPN work for higher-level engineers. They may have been spending ten hours a week previously, and now they may spend ten hours in the quarter.

It has improved our cybersecurity resilience. It has allowed us to see some differences with partners using weaker ciphers, which allows us to validate what we're using and reevaluate it. We put exceptions in cases where we have to. The security risk team is as well aware of those, and they can essentially go back on a buy-in or see if the vendor has upgraded to plug in a security hole. It has given us that visibility to see where we are weak with our vendors.

Being able to use it as a policy-based VPN is valuable. It's very easy to understand. 

It's very easy to troubleshoot. It may be because I'm comfortable with it or because I've used it for so long, but it's easy to use for me. I don't have any problems with how to set it up or use it.

For what we use it for, it ends up being the perfect product for us, but it would help if they could expand it into some of the other areas and other use cases working with speeding up and the reliability of the pushes from the policy manager.

We've been using Cisco ASA at least for the last six years. That's how long I've been in this organization, but my organization has been using it longer. 

We don't open bugs for it. It just works for what we've used it for. The last time we opened up an ASA bug would have probably been three years ago. From a reliability standpoint of what we're using it for, it's fantastic.

We've had no problems with scaling our business. We went from using probably 200 active VPNs an hour to over 600 VPNs without blinking an eye at that.

I enjoy Cisco's tech support. Just like any tech support out there, you could get a great or fantastic engineer, or you may get somebody who has just learned, so you just have to work with it. However, working with Cisco TAC, you find less of that than you do with other companies. 

Just to give them a shout-out, whenever we hit the Australian TAC, they're absolutely fantastic. Sometimes I feel that we should wait our hours when we open a ticket just so that we get one of them. They know their stuff. They absolutely do, so whoever they're hiring there, they got to keep that up and spread that out. I'd rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

I've worked with Check Point's firewall, and I've worked with Palo Alto's firewall. Things like packet capturing and packet tracing that I can manipulate to pretend I'm doing traffic through the firewall are a lot easier to do with ASAs than with other products.

We have other firewalls in our environment. We still use Palo Alto. We do have a little bit of a mix with Palo Alto in our environment, but in terms of VPN specifically, the way that Palo Alto does route-based VPN by default doesn't flow well with most people out there. It works great with cloud providers. Cisco can do route-based VPNs too. We have a route-based VPN solution with Cisco as well. We just use an ISR for that instead of a firewall.

I've been part of the deployment. Specifically, how NATTING and the firewalls work, that part is not difficult at all, but there are some challenges when you take any product and manipulate the order of operations, but that's not a Cisco challenge. You're pairing different information. There are some tools that usually try to help with those conversions, but most of the time, I find it just easier to develop what you need and just build it from scratch.

We implemented it on our own.

We've seen an ROI in terms of our high-level engineers having to work less on the product. I've been able to provide it to the NOC because of the use of the solution. They see value in that.

Pricing is more for my leadership, but I give them the quotes, and if they approve, they're happy. They've never wavered, so I wouldn't say it's out of the realm where they're considering another product. It must be in the direct price range for our leadership to not blink an eye when we give it to them.

To those evaluating this solution, I'd say that it's a solid product. It works. It does what we need. It gives us peace of mind to sleep at night. I'd definitely put it up there with some of the other firewalls to consider.

I'd rate Cisco ASA a nine out of ten.

We use it to protect our DMZs and externals, to protect our network from our other city partners who manage their own networks to which we have direct connections, like VPNs, and to manage the security parameters between inside and outside connectivity and vice versa.

Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall was introduced as a migration of many firewalls into one. Just having one firewall with one place of security and one place to look for your packets has really helped.

The features I've found most valuable are the packet captures and packet traces because they help me debug connections. I like the logs because they help me see what's going on.

The security correlation events and the network map help me to drill down on a host at will.

I really like the flexibility of the policies such as those you can use and the layer three policies with which you can block applications. It's really versatile. I like the security zones.

Cybersecurity resilience is our main focus right now. Because we're a government organization, everybody's really nervous about security and what the ramifications are. My device generates all the logs that our security team goes through and correlates all the events, so it's really important right now.

I think they need to review their whole UI because it feels like it was created by a whole bunch of different teams of developers who didn't fully talk to each other. The net policy screen is just a mess. It should look like the firewall policy screen, and they should both act the same, but they don't. I feel like it's two different buildings or programming, that don't talk to each other, and that really annoys me.

They should either build an application or get away from the web. They need to do something that's uniform and more streamlined.

We have a multi-person firewall team, and I can't look at a policy while somebody else is in it. It'll kick me out. I might be working on something that the other guy has to modify. I know that in the next versions they will be dealing with it with a soft lock, but it should've already been there.

One of Cisco's strengths is the knowledge depth of their staff. The solutions engineer we worked with knew the routing and each protocol. If he didn't know something, he would reach out to someone else at Cisco who did. He would even talk to a developer if he needed to.

I've been using Firepower for about three years.

There are some stability issues. We ran CheckPoint for years and didn't have problems with the firewall itself. However, with Firepower, in the past two years, we've had two major crashes and a software bug switchover.

We were debugging NAT rules. I did a show xlate for the NAT translation, and the firewall rebooted itself.

It has only been three instances in two years, but when I compare the stability to that of CheckPoint, it seems higher. CheckPoint just seemed to run.

We have about 8000 end users. Scalability-wise, it's already handling a large amount of traffic.

I like that Cisco's technical support will help me recover the firewall when everything falls apart. I'd give them a nine out of ten. They've really been consistently good, and they go after the problem.

Positive

We previously used CheckPoint and Fortinet. We switched from CheckPoint because it was unsupported, and we wanted to move to a next-generation firewall.

We went to Fortinet, and when we switched over, it caused a huge network outage. The Cisco engineers helped fish us out of that. Our GM at the time preferred Cisco, and we switched to Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall.

Setting up the machines was straightforward, but exporting was complex. That is, it wasn't a complex deployment as far as the hardware goes. It was more of a complex deployment as far as transferring all the rules go because of our routing architecture.

Firepower is our main interface out to the outside world. We have about eight DMZs that are interface-based. You can do a logical DMZ or you can have an interface and a logical DMZ. We have about eight that are on interfaces. Then, we have our cloud providers and the firewall. We have rules so that our cloud providers can't ingress into our network.

I've found that Firepower does need a lot of maintenance. It needs a lot more software updates than other solutions. We have three people to maintain the solution.

For the deployment, we had about 18 team members including firewall administrators, Cisco firewall engineers, and techs.

The licensing scheme is completely confusing, and they need to streamline it. They have classic licensing and a new type of licensing now. Also, the licensing for the actual firewall is separate from the one for TAC support.

My advice to leaders who want to build more resilience within their organizations is that they should help make policies. Leaders don't want to make policies; they don't want to put their names on policies or write policy documents. I as a firewall administrator am the one saying what the policy should be. I tell them what should happen, and sometimes, they resist.

Also, because the system is just too big to really manage without TAC, you would need TAC along with Firepower.

My advice would also be to go with HA or a cluster up front and not to be cheap. You really need to go in with a robust solution up front.

I would rate Firepower an eight on a scale from one to ten because the firewall and tech support together make it a very robust solution.

We have all kinds of use cases. Our customers are large enterprises, and they need perimeter security. Zero trust, network access control, and network segmentation are quite important these days.

We are a partner and reseller. We implement, and we resell. As a Cisco Secure reseller, we have all the expertise. Our customers are usually overworked and have no time to learn how to implement these things and get some expertise. That's what we bring in. We help them select the right solution, select the proper design and architecture, and implement it. They basically lack the time and expertise, and we are a trusted advisor who helps them with their issues.

I'm working with security. It improves the security posture of our customers and protects them from threats. We recently saw a bunch of hacks in Germany and our customers are concerned. We help to protect our customers from that, and that's very important.

The analysis tools and encrypted traffic analysis save time. They help detect security threats and incidents that can cause outages for customers. It's a great improvement.

Application inspection, network segmentation, and encrypted traffic detection or encrypted traffic analysis (ETA) are valuable for our customers. I'm from Germany, and in Germany, people are very concerned about privacy. We have a bunch of public customers, and they have an issue with decrypting traffic, even if it's only for security analysis. They have some fears. So, they are quite interested in the capability to detect threats without decrypting traffic.

The usability of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense is an issue. The product is still under development, and the user interface is very difficult to deal with. That's one area where it should be improved. Another area for improvement, which is also related to the firewall, is stability. We are having stability issues, and we had some cases where customers had a network down situation for about one or two days, which is not great.

As a partner, I have been working here for about nine years, but we offered this solution all the time. The company has probably been doing that for at least 15 years.

Cisco Firepower Threat Defense has improved a lot over the last few years, but we sometimes still have really big issues.

Their support is pretty awesome. It doesn't really matter if you have a hardware issue or a software issue. If it's a hardware issue, you get a replacement quickly, and if you have a software issue, you get quick support. There are also some bad examples. I have one from wireless where after a problem was acknowledged, it needed about one year to get fixed. It depends a little bit on how complex the issue is, but in general, it's quite okay.

We are also selling Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. We sell all solutions, but I'm quite focused on Cisco. It's mostly because I have the most expertise and experience with it over the years. I've been working with Cisco security solutions for 15 to 20 years. That's where my expertise is, and with Cisco, you have a solution for everything. It's not always the best of breed, but in the overall solution frame, you have something for everything, and they interact nicely with each other, which is great.

The deployment model is totally customer dependent. The way we work, we look at the customer environment and develop a proper deployment model for them. Some of them are using enterprise agreements. It's becoming more and more common, so they can use several solutions at once or with some kind of added use price and other benefits.

I'm not always involved in the deployment. I work as an architect. I do not implement all the solutions I design, but I implement some of them. For me, it's important because, for one, I like it, and second thing is that I need to have some kind of hands-on experience to understand the solution so that I can make better designs.

If you do the initial setup for the first time, it's somewhat complex., but over time, you get the experience, and then it's more or less straightforward. 

Our clients rarely used the firewall migration tool. It gives you a starting point for the configuration, but usually, there are so many things you need to rework afterward. We use it sometimes, but it only does a part of the job.

It does require maintenance. The clients have maintenance contracts for that.

In our company in Germany, just for the security solutions, we have about 20 to 30 engineers. They are experienced in different areas. For the firewalls, we have 10 engineers.

Cisco was never a cheap solution. Compared to other vendors, it's more or less at the same level, except maybe Fortinet which is fairly cheap.

In terms of licensing, we still have issues with the subscription model. Many of our customers are used to buying a solution and owning it. It takes time to convince people to go for the subscription model. That's still an issue for us.

We have Cisco Firepower Threat Defense, email security, web security, and Cisco Umbrella. Most of the time, I am working with Identity Services Engine for identity-related things. That's the main product I work with all the time. I have almost no direct contact with Talos, but I know that below the hood, it just improves all their security solutions.

To those evaluating this solution, I would advise being a little bit careful with it. It interfaces well with other Cisco solutions, so it has value, but it's not always the best solution.

At the moment, I would rate it a six out of ten.

We use Cisco Secure Firewalls to secure our business.

Cisco Secure Firewall is a Layer 7 next-generation firewall, providing us with a significant amount of visibility into our traffic patterns and the traffic passing through the firewall. It informs us about the zones that facilitate a smooth data flow, where the data is being directed, and covers ingress and egress all the way up to layer seven. Therefore, I believe the visibility it offers is excellent.

Cisco Secure Firewall is effective in securing our infrastructure from end to end, enabling us to detect and remediate threats. However, the way we currently utilize it may not be the most optimal approach to fully leverage its end-to-end capabilities. Nonetheless, considering its purpose within our usage, it effectively fulfills its intended role.

The ability of Cisco Secure Firewall to enhance our organization's cybersecurity posture and resilience is commendable. Cisco Secure Firewall serves as our primary line of defense, deployed at the Internet edge of every site across the globe.

The most valuable feature is zone segmentation, which we utilize through the Firepower management console. This allows for centralized management, which proves highly useful. In the past, when using Cisco Firewalls, we had to manage them independently. However, now we have a single unified interface to manage all our Cisco Firewalls worldwide.

The Cisco Firewall UI could be improved. While having a centralized management console is a significant improvement, I believe there are several enhancements that could be made to the UI to enhance its user-friendliness and improve the overall flow. This is particularly important during troubleshooting, as we want to avoid wasting time navigating through different sections and excessive clicking. It would be beneficial to have everything readily accessible and a smoother flow to quickly reach the desired locations.

I believe Cisco needs to make the appliance more automated in order to provide us with additional time. This would eliminate the need for us to manually go through the firewall, search, find, and troubleshoot everything. It would be beneficial if the appliance had some form of AI integrated to generate such information, enabling us to quickly identify the problem. If necessary, we could then delve deeper into the issue.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for 19 years.

Cisco Secure Firewall is stable.

The scalability of Cisco Secure Firewall depends on the different models available, as each model may have a fixed scalability level. Therefore, the scalability we obtain will vary depending on the specific model we utilize.

The quality of technical support varies. We occasionally receive excellent technicians, while other times we do not. Consequently, I believe it is preferable to rely more on the competent ones rather than the subpar ones.

Neutral

We had previously used Check Point but decided to switch to Cisco Secure Firewall. The reason for this switch was the lower cost and our company's desire to remove Check Point from our environment. It was an excellent deal, and the technology was on par. We did not lose any functionality or experience any drawbacks by choosing Cisco over Check Point. In fact, I believe we gained additional features, and Cisco is more widely adopted and supported compared to Check Point. Therefore, I am confident that we made the right decision.

The initial setup was complex. Firstly, we were migrating from a completely different platform and vendor to Cisco. Therefore, the ruleset migration was not only complex but also tedious because there was no suitable migration tool available for transitioning from Check Point to Cisco Firepower. The second part involved a complete change in our design, as we opted for a more zone-based approach where our checkpoints are more streamlined. This complexity was a result of our own decision-making.

We utilized our partner, ConvergeOne, for the integration, and they were exceptional. They demonstrated sharp skills, and together we successfully completed the job. The entire process took us a year during which we managed to cover every site within our company.

We have witnessed a return on investment through the capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall itself, along with its numerous threat defense technologies. As a result, we do not need to purchase additional tools to enhance the firewall; everything is already integrated. Therefore, I believe this was a significant victory for us.

The pricing structure for Cisco Secure Firewall can be challenging to manage. It involves separate line items that need to be carefully tracked, such as SmartNet, FCD licenses, and other license features. This complexity adds to the difficulty of dealing with the pricing.

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Firewall has not helped consolidate any of our applications or tools.

We use Cisco Talos to pull the signatures for everything we download. However, we don't rely on Cisco Talos for our day-to-day operations. 

Cisco Secure Firewall is a commendable product and holds a leadership position in the industry. While there are other competitors available, it is certainly worth considering, particularly for organizations that already utilize Cisco switching, routing, and related infrastructure. Cisco Secure Firewall can seamlessly integrate into the existing ecosystem, making it an appealing option to explore.

Having in-house expertise in Cisco and its products is indeed valuable when making a decision to go with Cisco Secure Firewall. The fact that our team already had a lot of expertise and experience with Cisco products played a significant role in the decision-making process.

We primarily use it as a corporate, perimeter firewall for traffic to the internet and back, for surfing. We also have some site-to-site connections with customers.

So far, there hasn't been any breach, so we are very happy.

It has also helped to reduce the operational costs of our firewall. There is a report that is automatically generated. You don't have to search for and prepare everything by yourself. You don't need staff to prepare the information because it is automated. We only go through this report once a week and if there are some special events, we can take care of them.

The next-generation features, like IPS, among others, are the most valuable. IPS is mandatory in modern networks for protection against malicious attacks and network anomalies.

Also, it gives you great visibility when doing deep packet inspection, but you have to do HTTP inspection. If you don't do HTTP inspection, the visibility is not complete. That is the case for every firewall vendor.

The ease of use, when it comes to managing Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls, is getting better because the UI is improving. It was a bit cumbersome in previous versions. Checkpoint, for example, has one of the most intuitive user interfaces, and now Cisco is really improving.

The only drawback of the user interface is when it comes to policies. When you open it and click on the policies, you have to move manually left and right if you want to see the whole field within the cell. Checkpoint has a very detailed user interface. Cisco is getting better and becoming more and more user-friendly.

Cisco needs a more intuitive user interface. When you know what to do, it's easy. Otherwise, you need training. You can install it and do the initial configuration, but if you don't have the proper training it's also possible to configure it the wrong way. If that happens, some things might pass through that you don't know about.

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about five years, from the beginning of the Cisco Firepower 2100 Series.

We were on version 6.2.2 but now we're up to version 7.7.0, and it has really improved. It was not hard to implement but there were many bugs in the earlier version and some were serious, but now it's stable. There are no more bugs. It's really getting better. I would recommend Firepower to every customer now because it's stable. It's a really nice firewall.

The model we have is okay for our environment, so it's scalable. We haven't seen any problems in that regard. There are 50 or 60 devices behind it and about 500 clients. It is used in a very specific environment for a large Slovenian system.

The device has achieved its purpose. We won't implement any other features.

Cisco support is the best, especially if you compare it to other vendors. Cisco may be a bit expensive compared to other vendors, but the support is really good. When you open a case they're really responsive and they resolve every case. This is my personal experience, not only when it comes to Firepower but for the whole Cisco portfolio, which I have been working with since 2005.

Positive

The initial configuration was done within a few hours, but getting all the policies in place took about a month. That was not related to the firewall, it was related to all the requirements from management and from other people as well. But the configuration to get it set up initially was straightforward, nothing special.

My colleagues and I did the deployment. We are an internal team. We are integrators, so we were able to do it by ourselves.

When it comes to XDR, the cost-effectiveness of this firewall depends on the use case because you don't always need XDR functionality. SecureX is included free of charge, so from that point of view, maybe Cisco is not that expensive compared to other vendors.  Other vendors' XDR products are not free of charge. 

But if you just look at just the firewall functionality, Checkpoint is expensive but Cisco is not the cheapest. Fortinet is cheaper.

Where we have seen ROI is due to the support, time savings, ease of management, and the reporting.

Aside from the user interface, which is getting better, Cisco is at the top for functionality and in all other respects. We work with Fortinet, Checkpoint, and we used to work with Juniper, in addition to Cisco.

With Cisco, there are a lot of features such as the network map. Cisco builds the whole network map of the machines you have behind your firewall and gives you insight into the vulnerabilities and attributes that the host has. Checkpoint and Fortinet don't have that functionality directly on the firewall. They don't give you that direct visibility into the host, such as which operating the host has.

We don't work with Juniper anymore because its user interface is really not okay. You only have the CLI or you have to use Security Director for management, which is very complex and not user-friendly. That is why we abandoned Juniper as a product.

I would rate Cisco at eight out of 10 overall, and Check Point would be a seven. Check Point fields a great solution in this space, but they have very bad support, and support is one of the most important things. Having great blogs doesn't help if support doesn't come through when you need it.