Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

The front page of device manager is the most valuable feature because it makes it easy to know the system status.

It’s hard to say because our equipment was EoS.

I have used Cisco ASA for three years.

We suffered an attack and the firewall was down repeatedly.

We have to buy more licenses to get more VPN connections.

I rate support 7/10.

We didn’t have a previous solution. I actually searched after another solution.

Setup was complex because we had not taken a course previously.

Sincerely, I prefer other products with no limit on licensing of VPNs, for example.

You have to find more confidentiality, integrity and availability.

It has very advanced security features including FirePOWER threat management, which is the most valuable, but also URL filtering, FireSIGHT, and advanced malware protection.

The cost of this product should be reconsidered.

I've used it for almost a year.

So far, I have found this model very smooth.

We had a slight issue with IPS, as the signature update was, sometimes, getting stuck.

I believe this product is very scalable with our current needs and requirements.

Yes, I used a normal model of Cisco ASA and found it a  very successful experience. Therefore we have it to a more advanced ASA box for improved, and more advanced, security management.

Cisco implementations are always very straightforward.

Evaluation is mandatory in IT, and we have found this device has better features and reliability when compared to other products.

I would suggest implementing this product ascand has advanced security features.

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 offer publishing services. It depends on our business, but we use this solution for security.

ASA 5505 and ASA 5506 are very powerful tools to use in a business environment, and provide a lot of security.

Intrusion prevention, we currently need to apply deep bracket inspection manually to use web filtering.

The simple access rule, Internet NAT and routing are valuable features. It is very simple and the most reliable perimeter firewall.

We were using Cisco Security Manager (CSM) to control and configure all of our Cisco products. ASA worked very well on the CSM.

The next-generation firewall could improve. Still, they have NGFW 5525 but I haven’t tried it yet.

We have been using this solution for seven years.

We have never faced any stability issues.

Sometimes, the throughput and CPU counter issues were faced, maybe because we started to use it a long time ago.

Technical support is great. They are very responsible, know the bugs and workaround.

We have used it from the beginning.

The initial setup is not simple and straightforward, because it is Cisco and you need to configure it by CLI.

Obviously, Cisco products are not cheap.

If you are looking for a stable run and it is easy to find someone to configure the service, then better go for Cisco; their support is very professional.

Cisco doesn't have many features but only basic firewalls.

No improvement. My clients have been using this product and moving to other products.

This product should have moved towards making UTMs.

Eight years.

No.

No.

Technical support and documentation is great.

No, I worked with this product by working for a client.

It is easy to set up and implement.

Never worked on pricing and licensing.

I would always prefer to evaluate other products when I have been asked for advice on firewall solutions.

Evaluate other product before using this product.

Business use. It has performed well.

Its ability to work with the traffic.

I would like it to be easier to work with and have a better user interface. It is not straightforward. You need to know the Cisco command-line interface.

Stability has been fine.

It is good.

I have not used technical support.

We have always been with Cisco.

Initial setup was fairly complex. Just having to know the command prompt rather than having a better user interface.

We looking for a possible new solution because of the licensing and VPN.

We evaluated Cisco and Meraki.

Look through what your needs are.

Starting in version 9.7 you could track a login history for audit purposes and, in 9.8, you are able to do active/backup HA with ASAv (Adaptive Security Virtual Appliance) deployed on MS Azure.

There is always room for improvement in virtually anything. However, the relatively new Firepower Threat Defense image (mix of ASA and Sourcefire network security) fills a lot of gaps and features that were missing on ASA. Moreover, with FMC (Firepower Management Console) you can complement it with even more admin and reporting capabilities for the entire platform.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

Excellent.

New version comes with initial setup tutorial, with very nice security policies baseline, set up by default.

Be sure of what features you are going to utilize to add/remove some from new bundles.

Best value will always be delivered by adding FMC (Firepower Management Console); at least their virtual edition.