Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

In our organization, we are using it as an internal firewall.

It is already improved because all of the computer updates are available online. So, you can update, and I think that the ASA 5585 is already updated.

All of the licensing features can be upgrades.

The interface is user-friendly.

The cost is very high. Most organizations cannot afford it.

We have been using the latest version of this solution for the last five years.

It's a stable product.

It's a scalable solution. We have more than 2000 users in our organization.

Technical support is fine, we have no issues.

The initial setup was very easy. Cisco documentation is online, so it was no problem at all.

It took approximately 30 minutes to install.

If we compare it with FortiGate and the co-existing ASA, FortiGate is better in terms of price.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I'm the group information technology manager and we are customers of Cisco. 

The best feature for me is the VPN and I also like the firewall. 

In terms of improvement, we'd like to see a good graphical user interface. I'd also like to see the initial setup simplified. In comparison, if I were to implement the Fortigate firewall from scratch, it's a fairly simple set up. That is not the case with the ASA firewall, where you really need to have the skill and know what you're doing.

I've been using this solution for 18 years. 

The solution is stable, we haven't had any issues. If we need something, we go to a consultant. In terms of product stability, it works very well.

We haven't made any changes since implementing and we haven't tried scaling.  

We get our support from the resellers, not from Cisco. 

For those who have the technical know-how with Cisco products, I would recommend going with the ASA firewall, but if you're new to the field and running a smaller business, deployment will be complicated. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

I am a pre-sales engineer, and I do comparisons based on my customer's requests.

The most valuable features of this solution are the integrations and IPS throughput.

The price and SD-WAN capabilities are the areas that need improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see more of the FortiGate features added. FortiGate is compatible with Cisco ACI, but I can't see Firepower with Security Fabric. For example, if I had Fortinet activated, could I integrate with it?

I have familiar with the Next Generation firewalls for two years, and six years with firewalls in general.

It's a stable product.

It's scalable indeed.

Our clients are SMB Enterprise.

It's just a fact, nothing is better than Cisco technical support.

Previously, I was working with Fortinet. I would most likely recommend Fortinet, because of the price and the security fabric integration with other products. It's scalable as well, and all of the FortiGate features are useful.

It's very easy to implement and it's very easy to administrate.

The initial setup was straightforward. With other vendors, it is easier, but it was straightforward.

This product is expensive.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The number one use for this product is security.

The management of the application can be improved with enhancements to the user interface.

I would like the ability to drill down into certain reports because currently, that cannot be done. In fact, this is one of the reasons that we want to move away from Cisco. Better reporting tools would be an improvement.

We have been using Cisco ASA for approximately seven years.

This product is pretty stable.

Our current model is reaching its end of life, so it's not very scalable at the moment. We don't plan to increase usage.

It is currently providing protection for about 30 users.

The technical support is with our solution provider. I would say that it's average, rather than very good.

The initial setup is complex. I would say that it took a maximum of a week to deploy.

We had a service provider who took care of the installation for us.

This is an expensive product. We pay about €2,000 ($2,400 USD) per year for licensing. 

Technical support is in addition to the standard licensing fees.

At this point, Cisco ASA is not a product that I recommend. My advice is that people should look at other solutions because there are other products available on the market that are just as good, if not even better.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for basic firewall configurations such as NAT, FORWARD PORT and Block TCP-UDP Port.

My company is very small just built last year, i now am using cisco asa 5510 for NAT and Port Forward and limit users access directly from internet only via Remote-VPN.

The ability to block threats is its most valuable aspect.

Most clients in Laos use the basic setup, which works quite well. It ensures that nothing can get onto the local network.

It's pretty reliable and allows for isolation capabilities within the network.

The ADSM is very good.

I like that I can use the command line. I use a lot of Cisco and often work with this. If you are comfortable with the command line, it's quite good.

The user interface isn't as good as it could be. They should work to improve it. It would make it easier for customer management if it was easier to use.

Cisco does not have a lot of web management. We have to use ASTM server management to make up for it.

I've been using the solution, give or take, for around five years at this point.

When we need assistance from technical support, we typically deal with the team in China. They've been very good. Whenever I have a problem, they can resolve it. They are knowledgeable and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we get.

We typically offer clients a few different solutions. For example, we may recommend Fortinet.

For a new user, the initial setup may be a bit difficult. For me, since I am comfortable with Cisco, it's pretty straightforward. A new connection has its own complexities. It may be a different thing on Java SDK. There may be some programs that may not be able to access it.

In Laos, clients don't have much wiggle room when it comes to cost. The economy right now isn't very good. Most just choose the basic solution in order to avoid pricey licensing fees.

subscription payment  

We're just customers. We use it in our office and suggest it to clients. However, we don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We try to adhere to our client's needs, and therefore, if they specify hardware they want to use, like Fortinet, we tend to accommodate them.

That said, if they ask my opinion, I usually recommend Cisco ASA.

I know a lot about the product and I'm good at controlling everything. I have a lot of knowledge and understanding after working with it so closely. That's why I tend to favor it when my customers ask for advice.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten. If the user interface were a bit better, I'd rate it higher.

We are a solution provider and Cisco NGFW is one of the products that we implement for our clients. My clients use it for internet access within the enterprise.

I like the firewall features, Snort, and the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). 

This product is managed using the Firepower Management Center (FMC), but it would be better if it also supported the command-line interface (CLI). Cisco's FTD devices don't support the command-line interface and can only be configured using FMC.

We have been using this product for the past four years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue implementing it for clients in the future.

Cisco NGFW is a scalable firewall. My client has more than 100 users.

We have support from Cisco's TAC, the Technical Assistance Center, and they support this product well. We haven't had any issues with them.

Prior to the Next Generation firewall, my clients were using Cisco ASA for more than 10 years.

The initial setup is easy, with the installation and configuration taking about two hours.

I did the deployment myself.

This product requires licenses for advanced features including Snort, IPS, and malware detection.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I am a consultant and when clients ask for white papers or studies, I do the research. At that point, they do whatever change processes they have; I give them all of the numbers and other relevant data, but that's the extent of what we do in my organization.

They are just using it as a stateful packet inspection firewall, traditional firewalling.

At this point, my client is looking for their next solution so something may not be working.

The most valuable features for my client are the ASDM and monitoring.

They have familiarity with the Cisco CLI.

Cisco ASA is not a next-generation firewall product.

My client has been using the Cisco ASA solution for approximately five years.

They've been using it for five years and my assumption is that it's been good for what they needed it t do. However, they were consulting to move forward with something different.

The scalability is very limited because as a traditional firewall, it's a step behind. As far as the scale goes, my assumption is that you just buy a bigger model.

I was not consulting with this client when they implemented the Cisco ASA.

This is a hardware-based device, versus a virtual one, so it's maxed out.

My assumption is that it's a typical HA, basic setup.

My client is looking for a next-generation firewall solution to replace the Cisco ASA.

What they need is a step up from what they already have that includes application-controlled firewall rules, as well as other features that ASA doesn't currently have.

My suggestion for anybody who is looking at Cisco ASA is to work with the vendor, as they have newer products.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The configuration support is very good. You can find a lot of configuration samples and troubleshooting tips on the internet, which is very good.

You need to have a little bit of knowledge to be able to configure it. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to configure because there is no GUI. The latest software available in the market has a GUI and probably zero-touch provisioning and auto-configuration. All these things are not available in our version. You need to manually go and configure everything in the switch.

In terms of new features, we would definitely want to have URL-based filtering, traffic steering, and probably a little bit steering in the bandwidth based on the per-user level and per-user group. We will definitely need some of these features in the near future.

I have been using this solution for the last one and a half years.

Stability-wise, it is pretty stable. It is probably not very feature-rich, but whatever features we are using, they are pretty stable.

Scalability-wise, we did not have much problem because we have a single site. If we have two or more sites, and if we want to have a site-to-site VPN and more number of users, we are not sure about the scalability. We will have to go for an updated version of the new product line. 

We have close to 80 plus users. We anticipate a huge increase in the number of users and plan to increase the usage of Cisco ASA Firewall. We may have to open a new center in a different city, which will lead to more sites, users, and usage.

Their support is good, but the cost of support is very high. Next year onwards, we may not go for technical support because most of the time, they only do the configuration, and the configuration-related information is pretty much available on the internet.

Initially, we started with some open-source alternatives, like Opium, but eventually, we thought of moving towards a proven solution. We just did a study. We didn't put the open-source solution into production. One of our customers was basically suggesting us to go with this one, and we went for it. We did not get time to go through, study, and explore different options because we didn't have the bandwidth for testing the complete features of the open-source alternatives. Therefore, we thought of going for a commercial solution. A lot of alternatives are available right now for this solution.

The initial setup was not too complicated. It was good. 

We took the help of a reseller for the initial configuration. 

The product cost is a little high. It is a little bit on the high side, and it should be a little bit cost-friendly.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a seven out of ten. It needs improvement in terms of a few features and cost-friendliness.