Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

It is the primary data firewall for our organization and our data centers.

We have faced multiple issues regarding bugs with Cisco Firepower products. A running product is hit with bugs most of the time, and we had a lot of challenges in using the Cisco Firepower product, actually. In the future, we are planning to replace it, or at least use it instead as a secondary firewall.

The content filtering is good. 

The maturity needs to be better. The product is not yet mature. A running product is hit with the software bugs most of the time, and whenever we then log a case with the tech team, they're sometimes helpless with that. They have to involve the software development team to fix that bug in the next release. It's not ideal. Being an enterprise product, it should be mature enough to handle these types of issues.

I've been using the solution for the last three years. 

The performance is okay, however, the product is not stable. It is all hit with CVL software bugs routinely. That portion requires attention from Cisco and the tech support in this area is somewhat delayed. An open ticket can sometimes take more than two to three months to resolve. For the production setup, it is tough to rely on the tech team alone for the closure of the case.

The solution is very scalable. 

Cisco support is always available. However, multiple times, it has been tough for them to fix the software bugs in the product. They have to then deploy their development team for the same ticket.

Earlier we used the Cisco ASA Firewall. Now, it has been phased out. Firepower is categorized as the next-generation firewall, however, we haven't found the utility of that level in this product. It lacks maturity at many levels.

We have two data centers at two geographical locations. We have two firewalls - one in one data center, at the perimeter, and another at a different location.

The initial setup was okay. We had more of an in-between partner doing the installation part since the product was also new to us. The product was part of my overall product solution. We procured a firewall and another ACL fabric portion for the data center. Overall, the solution installation took over seven to eight months.

We had two people assist with the deployment process. 

We used an integrator for deployment. Overall, the experience was positive. 

There is no ROI. It is functioning as a normal firewall, as a data center perimeter, however, we expected much more than that. At times, there has been downtime with the firewall, and our custom modifications have won at a very high level. The product has to be mature when it is being used at the enterprise level.

The solution offers mid-range pricing. We can get a cheaper product like Fortinet, and we can get a costlier product like Palo Alto, and these are all in the same category.

There's only one license based on the support. Cisco Firepower is priced on the support of the product that we require: with SSL and without SSL. Currently, we are not doing any SSL inspection. We have an ATP report firewall.

When we were looking for a product, we put it through tender and we put out specifications of the product that we required. Cisco had the lowest price. We evaluated the L1 after it was technically qualifying. That is how we acquired it.

We looked at Palo Alto, however, it was far too costly.

We are a customer and an end-user. 

It was earlier named Sourcefire. Cisco acquired that company and rebranded it as Firepower.

We are actually a public cloud provider. We offer data center services to clients.

I'd advise others considering the solution that, for implementation, the product needs some stability and maturity to be offered as a next-generation firewall at an enterprise level. If a company is in need of an enterprise-level solution, they need to be aware of this.

I'd rate the solution a five out of ten. 

The product needs maturity in terms of running without hitting a bug. We have used other products also. A running product is never hit with a bug. It is normally some vulnerability or something that needs to be attended to, however, a running product is seldom hit with a bug and the operation gets stalled. We rarely find this kind of thing in an enterprise scenario. That is what we ask from Cisco, to build a stable product before offering it to customers.

One of the things that we have solved the most with this solution is the P2P connection that we have with different clients. It gives us greater connection security with good management of the configured rules. 

Likewise, it has made it easier for us to have this type of equipment under monitoring, and, since we have implemented them, we have not been presented with any performance problems in the equipment as they have not presented CPU or RAM saturation or that for some reason it fails without any cause. We all have them managed and monitored. We always receive an email notifying us if there's something that the equipment has detected as well.

The ASA firewalls have undoubtedly helped us to improve our infrastructure throughout the corporation and currently we have just over 50 firewalls - all of them in different parts of Mexico. 

This infrastructure has been improved since, in our corporation, we handle the dynamic EIGRP protocol, which Cisco owns, and this solution has given us a geo-redundancy in our company. In case of presenting a problem with a firewall or a link, it performs an immediate convergence where end-users do not detect a failure, helping us to maintain a 99.99% operational level at all times.

I am very happy to use this type of Cisco equipment in my infrastructure. It has given us the most value is the management of dynamic routing, in this case, EIGRP. This protocol, together with a series of additional configurations, has helped us to maintain an automatic redundancy in all our infrastructure, keeping us with very high numbers of operability and without failures that take more than 1 minute or that have not been resolved automatically. With this solution, we only speak with our suppliers either for a link or equipment report, and even if the box or circuit is out of operation, the operation continues to work without problems.

Today, ASA firewalls are leaving the market and are being replaced by firepower equipment - a technology with which I am not very familiar. However, in the training or research, I have done on this new product, I see that it has many additional tools such as centralization of the administration through a single team (in the case the firepower management). It is something that we do not have, yet we are already considering it since this type of technology will help us to have better management and better administration of the equipment through a single platform. The management of additional services with this new module will certainly help us to have the internet network much more secure with connections to the outside.

I've used the solution for more than seven years.

The solution is great in terms of stability.

The scalability is great.

Technical support is great.

We previously used Fortigate.

The initial setup was not complex.

We handled the implementation in-house. 

We've seen an 80% ROI.

Cisco is not cheap, however, it is worth investing in these technologies.

We always evaluate various other options.

We are a payment switch and we deal with cardholder data and information. Our primary goal is to ensure the security of customers' payment data, that they are protected.

Our security maturity is now at a good level compared to the past. To be accepted to drive Visa and Mastercard, you have to pass security assessment audits and we have managed to pass all of them now, for some years.

Apart from our firewall, we have three security tools. We have a NAC, we have a SIEM, and our syslogs.

It's easy now because we have many Cisco devices in a central point. We don't need to log in to each device and apply rules to them. We can do it from the management control and apply them to the specific firewalls that we want to apply them to.

In addition, compared to our previous firewall solution, the security is much better. Through our monitoring, we now see all the information that we require on security, in terms of PCI. We can see exactly what is happening in our environment. We know what is going, what is going in and out. If an incident happens, it provides a notification so that we can do an analysis.

Web filtering is a big improvement for us. The previous version we used, the AC520, did not have that feature included. It was not very easy for us, especially because the environment had to be isolated and we needed to get updates from outside, such as Windows patches. That feature has really helped us when we are going outside to pull those patches.

Another important feature for us is user access. Now, we can base access on rules and specify that this or that user has privilege on the NG firewall. That was not available before. 

The IDS also makes it easy to detect abnormal traffic. When it sees such traffic in the environment, it sends a notification.

We have been using Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall for about two months.

The solution is stable. It's not hanging. With the firewalls from Cisco we are not facing a situation where devices are hanging because of too much traffic.

The scalability is fine.

We're getting support but there's a big delay until we get a response from their technical team. They're in the USA and we're in Africa, so that's the difficulty. When they're in the office, they respond.

We migrated from Cisco AC520 to the Cisco NGFW. We have also used HPE and IBM switches, as well as FortiGate firewalls. We are now completely Cisco.

Previously, we were also using AlienVault and it was easy to integrate with Cisco devices.

The initial setup is 50/50, between straightforward and complex. Migrating from Cisco to another Cisco product is okay, but migrating to Cisco from other network devices, like an IBM switch, is a bit tricky. You can't test the configuration to see if it's the same as what you're going to. But we managed with support from Cisco.

It took a month to complete the deployment.

Our implementation strategy was based on not upgrading everything at the same time. It was phased. We deployed a specific device and then we monitored everything to make sure everything looked okay, and then we moved on to the next one.

It requires a minimum of two people for deployment and maintenance, from our network and security teams.

We used internal resources with support from Cisco.

We have gotten exactly what we're looking for, based on the company's requirements.

The pricing is high.

Cisco NGFW's ability to provide visibility into threats is good compared to other solutions. The visibility is quite impressive and gives us what we're looking for, based on our security requirements.

The scalability, the performance of the devices, the features, and the support, when looking at them combined, make the product a nine out 10.

We're planning the deployment of Cisco ISE soon, to be like our NAC.

We provide IT solutions. We provide solutions to our customers based on their requirements. We support them from the beginning and do the installation and configuration in the head office and front office.

We installed Cisco ASA to support a customer in a WAN environment. They used it for site-to-site VPN and remote VPN. They used it for accessing remote office locations via the remote VPN feature. They had Cisco ASA 5500.

It made our customer's network more secure. They also have customers outside the office, and they are able to use the remote VPN feature to log in securely.

The high-availability and remote VPN features are most valuable.

It is easy to configure. It has a GUI and a CLI.

It doesn't have Layer 7 security.

I used this solution for maybe a year.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

For any issues, we contact the local support. They are very easy to deal with.

I have also worked with Fortigate.

It was easy to configure. The site-to-site VPN configuration didn't take too much time. It was complete in three to four hours.

Its price is moderate. It is not too expensive.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a nine out of 10.

We were using ASA 5585 without firepower. We were using it just as a stateful firewall. We also had an IPS module on it. So, we were also using it for network segmentation and network address translations for hosting some of the services or giving access to the internet for our end users.

Initially, it was good. At the time we bought it, usually, IPS was in a different solution, and the firewall was in a different solution. You had to kind of correlate between the events to find the attacks or unwanted behavior in the network, but it had everything in a kind of single platform. So, the integration was great.

Our bandwidth was increasing, and the number of services that we were hosting was increasing. Our old solutions couldn't catch up with that. Cisco ASA was able to handle a lot of traffic or concurrent connections at that time. We had almost 5 million per week. We didn't have to worry about it not having enough memory and stuff like that. It was a powerful machine.

The configuration was kind of straightforward from the command line and also from the ASDM. It was very easy to manage by using their software in Java. 

High throughput, high concurrent connections, easy site-to-site VPN were also valuable. It also had the capability to do double network translations, which is really useful when you are integrating with other vendors for site-to-site VPN.

When we bought it, it was really powerful, but with the emerging next-generation firewalls, it started to lack in capabilities. We couldn't put application filtering, and the IPS model was kind of outdated and wasn't as useful as the new one. For the current state of the network security, it was not enough.

One thing that we really would have loved to have was policy-based routing. We had a lot of connections, and sometimes, we would have liked to change the routing depending on the policies, but it was lacking this capability. We also wanted application filtering and DNS filtering.

We have been using it for around eight years.

Its stability is really great. It is very stable. We didn't have to worry about it. In the IT world, every time you go on holiday, you think that something might break down, but that was not the case with Cisco ASA.

Initially, we had just a single firewall, and then we moved to high availability. Even when it was just one hardware without high availability, we didn't have any problems. Apart from the planned maintenance, we never had any downtime.

We feel we didn't even try to make it scalable. We had 30,000 end users.

We haven't interacted a lot with them because we have our own network department. We were just handling all the problem-solving. So, there were only a couple of cases. Initially, when one of the first devices came, we had some problems with RAM. So, we opened the ticket. It took a bit of time, and then they changed it. I would rate them an eight out of 10.

Our bandwidth was increasing, and the number of services that we were hosting was increasing. Our old solutions couldn't catch up with that. We had some really old D-link firewalls. They were not enterprise-level firewalls.

After our IPS subscription ended, we couldn't renew it because Cisco was moving to the next-generation firewall platform. They didn't provide us with the new license. Therefore, we decided to move to Palo Alto. The procurement process is taking time, and we are waiting for them to arrive.

It was straightforward. Cisco is still leading in the network area. So, there are lots of resources where you can find information. There are community forums and Cisco forums, where you can find answers to any questions. You don't even have to ask. You can just Google, and you will find the solution. Apart from that, Cisco provides a lot of certification that helps our main engineers in learning how to use it. So, the availability of their resources was great, and we just followed their best-case scenarios. We could easily configure it.

The deployment took around two or three weeks because we had different firewalls. We had a couple of them, and we migrated all to Cisco. We also had around 30,000 rules. So, the data input part took a lot of time, but the initial installation and the initial configuration were done in a matter of days.

It took us one week to set up the management plane. It had different ports for management and for the data. After finishing with the management part, we slowly moved segments to Cisco. We consolidated the rules from other firewalls for one zone. After Cisco verified that it was okay, we then moved on to the next segment.

We did it ourselves. We had about five network admins for deployment and maintenance.

We definitely got a return on investment with Cisco ASA. We have been using it for eight years, which is a long time for IT. We only had one capital expenditure. Apart from that, there were no other costs or unexpected failures. It supported us for a long time.

When we bought it, it was really expensive. I'm not aware of the current pricing.

We had problems with licensing. After our IPS subscription ended, we couldn't renew it because Cisco was moving to the next-generation firewall platform. So, they didn't provide us with the new license.

I am not sure about it because back then, I was just an engineer. I didn't have decision-making authority, so I wasn't involved with it.

We recently have done pilots with Check Point and FortiGate for a couple of months. They were next-generation firewalls. So, they had much more capability than ASA, but because of being a pilot, we didn't get full-scale throughput like big enterprise-level firewalls. The throughput was not enough, and their memory cache was always filling up. They were smaller models, but both of them had the features that ASA was lacking. Traffic shaping in ASA is not as good, but these two had good traffic shaping.

I wouldn't recommend this solution because it is already considered to be a legacy firewall.

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall a strong eight out of 10. It is powerful, but it lacks some of the capabilities.

We are using it as a firewall for our data center and headquarter. We are also using it for DR. We are using Cisco ASA 5500 Series.

It is a security device, and it is useful for securing our environment. It provides role-based access and other features and helps us in easily securing our environment.

It provides visibility. It has been helpful for packet inspection and logging activities for all kinds of packets, such as routing packets, denied packets, and permitted packets. All these activities are visible on Cisco ASA. There are different commands for logging and visibility.

We use Cisco ASA for the integration of the network. Our company is a financial company, and we are integrating different organizations and banks by using Cisco ASA. We are using role-based access. Any integration, any access, or any configuration is role-based. 

The remote access, VPN, and ACL features are valuable. We are using role-based access for individuals.

IPS is also valuable for intrusion detection and prevention. It is a paid module that can be added. I'm using it for security, VLAN management, segregation management, and so on.

It is easy to use. In our region and our country, Cisco is well known, and most of the companies are using Cisco products. We have been using Cisco devices for a while, and our company primarily has Cisco devices. So, we are familiar with it, which makes it very easy to use for us. Even when we compare it with other products, it is easier to use.

It is easy for us to manage it because it is a familiar product, and it has been a part of our environment. Now, other products are providing free training, free access, and free license, because of which things are changing. So, you can easily become familiar with other products.

Its licensing cost and payment model can be improved. Cisco doesn't provide training and certification for engineers without payments. Other companies, such as Huawei, provide the training for free. Their subscription and licenses are also free and flexible. Other products are breaking the market by providing such features. 

It doesn't support all standard interfaces. It is also not suitable for big companies with high bandwidth traffic. Its capacity should be improved.

Other products are becoming easier to access and configure. They are providing UI interfaces to configure, take backup, synchronize redundant machines, and so on. It is very easy to take backup and upgrade the images in those products. Cisco ASA should have such features. If one redundant machine is getting upgraded, the technology and support should be there to upgrade other redundant machines. In a single window, we should be able to do more in terms of backups, restores, and upgrades.

We have been using this solution for almost eight years.

It is stable. It needs to be configured based on the standards and functionality. We have one device that has been working for more than 10 years, which indicates it is stable, but it requires licenses to upgrade features.

It doesn't have an expansion card. So, it may not scalable for huge buildings. It also lacks a lot of standard interfaces. Other products are providing capacity for a data center. Other technologies are expanding their interface bandwidth from 10 gigs. In my opinion, Cisco ASA doesn't have this capability.

Their support is very good. We have a support license, so their support is very good. They are tracing us and following up with us to solve the problem on time.

Its setup is easy. We are familiar with Cisco ASA and other Cisco products, and they are easy to configure. A lot of resources are available on the internet, so it is easy to set up for anyone with basic training. It is easy in different types of environments, such as universities and colleges.

It generally doesn't take more than a day, but it also depends on the size of the organization. If an organization is very big and if you need a line-by-line configuration for access role and VPN, it can take a bit more time.

Cisco is constantly upgrading and providing features based on current requests. We usually plan deployments at the end of the year and at the beginning of the year. Everyone plans for new products, new configurations, and new expansions based on that.

Any security product provides a return on investment. Any gap in security may cost an organization more.

It is expensive. There is a cost for everything. There is per year license cost and support cost. There is also a cost for any training, any application, and any resource. Things are very costly to do with Cisco.

Other brands are cheaper. They are also more flexible in terms of training, subscription, and licensing. They give lots and lots of years free. They provide more than Cisco.

I would advise understanding its features, advantages, and disadvantages as compared to other solutions. It is simple, but its cost is a negative point. 

I would rate Cisco ASA Firewall an eight out of 10.

We are using it for firewall and intrusion prevention.

I have deployed it into different environments: retail, commercial, law, real estate, and the public sector. Retail is the biggest environment that I have deployed this firewall into, with 43 different sensors and a range up to 10 GbE throughput.

I am using up to version 7.0 across the board as well as multiple models: 1000 Series or 2100 Series.

The integration of network and workload micro-segmentation help us provide unified segmentation policies across east-west and north-south traffic. It is important to have that visibility. If you can't detect it, then you can't protect it. That is the bottom line.

The solution has enabled us to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments. These are important because they give us flexibility and more granular control of access.

• Ease of operability
• Security protection

It is usually a central gateway into an organization. Trying to keep it as secure as possible and have easy to use operability is always good. That way, you can manage the device.

The solution has very good visibility when doing deep packet inspection. It's great because I can get packet captures out of the device. Because if an intrusion fires, I can see the packet that it fired in. So, I can dive into it and look at what is going on, what fired it, or what caused it.

Cisco Secure Firewall is fine and works when it comes to integration of network and workload micro-segmentation. 

The integration of network and workload micro-segmentation is very good when it comes to visibility in our environment. It is about how you set it up and the options that you set it up for, e.g., you can be as detailed as you like or not at all, which is good.

Its Snort 3 IPS has better flexibility as far as being able to write rules. This gives me better granularity.

It needs better patching and testing as well as less bugs. That would be nice.

I would like it to have faster deployment times. A typical deployment could take two to three minutes. Sometimes, it depends on the situation. It is better than it was in the past, but it could always use improvement.

I have been using it for seven years.

Stability has been good so far. It has been much better than in the past. In the past, there were times where there were known issues or bugs.

Scalability has been fine. I haven't had an issue with it. I just haven't had a need to deal with scalability yet.

I would rate Cisco's support for this solution as nine out of 10 for this solution. The support has been very good. We got the job done. Sometimes, why it wasn't perfect, the challenge was getting a hold of someone.

I have used this solution to replace different vendors, usually Cisco ASA that is reaching end of life.

The initial setup is straightforward for me at this point. That is just because of the experience that I have in dealing with it. for a new person, it would be a little bit more complex. They have gotten better with some of the wizards. However, if you are not familiar with it, then that makes it a little more challenging.

Depending on the situation, we will go through the typical setups. We know what we want to configure and sort of follow a template.

We have seen ROI with a better, more secure environment. 

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped us to reduce our firewall operational costs. This is based on the fact that the newer models, where we have been replacing older models, have better throughput, capacity, and performance overall.

Pricing is the same as other competitors. It is comparable. The licensing has gotten better. It has been easier with Smart Licensing.

There are additional costs, but that depends on the feature sets that you get. However, that is the same with any firewall vendor at this point.

I have also worked with Check Point and Palo Alto. The support is much better with Cisco than Check Point. Check Point had a little bit better of a central management station. Whereas, Cisco with the FMC is a little different as far as there are still some features that are being added to the FMC, which is good. As far as Palo Alto goes, they are quite comparable as far as their functionality and feature sets. Cisco wins for me because it has Snort, which is a known standard for IPS, which is good. Also, Cisco has the Talos group, which is the largest group out there for security hunting.

Check Point was the easiest as far as user-friendliness and its GUI. After that, Cisco and Palo Alto would be kind of tied for ease of use.

Definitely do your research, e.g., how you want to set it up and how deep you want to go in with it. This will actually help you more. When we say Cisco Secure Firewall, is it Next-Generation, running ASA, or running Firepower? Or, does Meraki actually fit in there? So, there are different scales based on what you are trying to look for and how deep security-wise you want to go into it.

SecureX is a nice feature, but it has to be for the right environment. It is nice that we get it, but most people don't take advantage of it.

The dynamic policy capabilities can enable tight integration with Secure Workload at the application workload level, but I am not using much with Secure Workload at this point.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall as nine out of 10. I would not give it a 10 because of bugs.

We helped a customer to configure a new data center network. We provided the core firewalling. Between virtual routing instances, or virtual networks, we had two Firepower 2130s in HA. We did the routing and firewalling between the VRS and, in the same data center, we have an internet edge firewall also set in HA that provided the routing and firewalling to the internet and to Azure. In the same data center we had two ASAs for out-of-band management. If an error occurred in the data center, we could VPN into the ASA and troubleshoot the routing issues in the data center.

I have customers that have migrated from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower. They have benefited from the change because they have much more visibility into the network. An ASA is often used as a Layer 3 to 4 firewall. We allow networks and ports. But a Firepower firewall has the default intrusion prevention engine, so you can allow it to https on port 443, but it can also look into the packet, with deep packet inspection, and see if there is malicious code that is trying to be pushed into your system. It's a much more secure product than just having a Layer 3 to 4 firewall. It is a Layer 3 to 7 firewall.

We also use Cisco Talos, and when we configure a Firepower, we set the automatic update to get the latest vulnerabilities and databases, Snort rules, geolocation database, and security intelligence from Talos. Our customers aren't benefiting directly from Cisco Talos, but they are benefiting from having a product like Firepower that has connections to Talos.

The dynamic access policy functionality, and the fact that in Firepower 7.0 the feature has one-to-backward compatibility with the Cisco ASA Firewall, is a game-changer. Our customers have begun to transition from Cisco ASA to Cisco Firepower and because they get this capability, there are more and more VPN features. And when they shift from ASA to Firepower, they go from Layer 3 to Layer 7 visibility, instead of only going from Layer 3 to 4. They gain through the visibility they get from a next-generation firewall. They get more visibility and a more secure solution.

For Firepower the most important features are the intrusion prevention engine and the application visibility and control. The Snort feature in Firepower is also valuable.

For ASA, the most valuable feature is definitely the remote access VPN solution. The AnyConnect solution is very scalable and stable—there are no errors or flaws—which is necessary in today's world when we're all working remotely. The remote access VPN for ASA is very good.

When it comes to application visibility and control, both ASA and Firepower can provide them but the AVC feature is mostly used in Firepower. You can allow or disallow many applications through Firepower, through the access control policy.

If you configure Firepower correctly, it is good when it comes to threat visibility. It is proficient. It is the state of the art when it comes to blocking threats, network-wise. If you use it with an SSO encryption, and use your own features, blacklists, security intelligence, intrusion prevention, and access control points—if you are using it with every feature—Firepower can block most threats on your network. But it can't stand alone. It is necessary for the clients to have AMP for Endpoints, Cisco Umbrella, and Cisco ISE. If you're using Firepower as a standalone device, it can block, say, 20 or 30 percent more than the ASA can. But if you're using all of the security features from Cisco, you get much more security. It's like an onion's layers. The more layers you have, the more protection you have.

The ease of use with the new version of Firepower is more or less the same when compared to other versions of Firepower. But the dashboard has received a refresh and it's easier to use now than before. Overall, the ease of use has been increased.

On the VPN side, Firepower could be better. It needs more monitoring on VPNs. Right now, it's not that good. You can set up a VPN in Firepower, but you can't monitor it. 

Firepower Management Center is slow. It could be better. And the Firepower Device Manager doesn't have all the features that the ASA has, and that's despite the fact that it's almost the same product. Cisco could use many more features from ASA in Firepower Device Manager.

I have used Firepower for two years and I have worked with all Firepower models: Firepower 1000 Series, 2000 Series, Firepower 4000. I have never had my hands on a Firepower 9300, but it's mostly the same as the 4000 and 9000 Series. I have also used Firepower Management Center, virtual, the 1000 Series, and the 1600. I have also used Firepower virtual devices, the Firepower Next-Generation Firewall Virtual (NGFWv).

I was using Firepower 7.0 for around 10 weeks on a beta program. I was using it more or less every other day. I have been using it quite a lot.

If you stay on the recommended releases, Firepower is very stable. Cisco has had a lot of trouble and issues with Firepower since they acquired Sourcefire, and some of the issues or problems are still there. But if you stay on the recommended releases you shouldn't hit that many errors or bugs. It can be stable, but it can also be very unstable if you jump on the newest release every time.

Firepower scales well if you have the 4100 Series or 9300 Series. They can scale and you can cluster the devices. Otherwise, you can only add one device, but that's more for the small customers. But if you get up to the high-end series of Firepower, it scales very well. 

We have customers that have 100 or 200 clients but we also have customers that have 20,000 endpoints. They are using several different appliances. Two devices for internet edge, two devices for core infrastructure, and two devices for VPN. We help customers of all sizes.

First you have to configure the Firepower Device Manager, or Firepower Management Center. When you bootstrap it or do the initial config, you type in the IP address, host name, and DNS. When you have the IP configuration in place, you can log in to the Firepower Management Center and start building policies that suit your needs. When you have all the policies, you can add or join Firepower devices to the Firepower Management Center. After adding the devices to the Firepower Management Center, you can then apply the policies that you built in the first place, through the devices, and that will affect the behavior on the devices.

ASA is best for VPN solutions, site to site, remote access VPN. It's for everything that is connected with VPN solutions. For every other feature, Firepower is better. While Firepower is getting better for VPN, it's not where it should be yet.

I have tried configuring Zyxel firewalls. I have never logged in to Check Point or Palo Alto. From my point of view, Firepower is better than Xyxel when it comes to application visibility and control.

I did use competitive solutions many years ago, so things might have changed with them. But I would say that Cisco Firepower is a bit more complicated if you are an inexperienced user. If you are setting up a firewall for the first time, other vendors have an approach that makes it easier. Cisco Firepower it's more detailed and you can do more complicated configurations than you can with some competitors. It is easier for us to approach customers with Cisco Firepower, because we can do more detailed configurations compared to what customers can get from other vendors.

With SecureX, you can get more value out of the product, especially if you're using all the security features from Cisco. In that situation, you will definitely get more out of SecureX. When you do that you can integrate all of your Cisco products into SecureX and you can correlate all the data in one place, with a single pane of glass. In that way, you get a lot more value for money with Cisco Firepower and SecureX. You will get the full value if you combine it with other products, but if you only have Cisco Firepower then SecureX will not provide that much added value.

Have a plan. Find out how much bandwidth and throughput you need before you implement it because if you don't scale it well from the start, it can slow down your environment. Keep in mind that it adds so much security that the total data throughput can take a hit. 

We have many customers, but in general, many of our customers are using all the tools they can to secure their infrastructure, such as AMP, Umbrella, and Firepower. Many companies are doing what they can to secure their network and their infrastructure. But there are also customers that only have a firewall. In today's world that's not enough to secure the network at all, but that's a decision the customer has to live with. We have tried to push them in the right direction. But the majority of our customers have a secure infrastructure.

The other Cisco products or services our customers are using in conjunction with their firewall include AMP, AnyConnect, cloud mail Email Security Appliances, Cisco ISE, and Web Security Appliances. We are only a Cisco partner. We don't do HP or Check Point or Palo Alto, so our customers do have a lot of Cisco features. For regular use, the integration among these Cisco products is pretty easy, but I have also worked with these products a lot. But it's easy to implement a firewall solution on Firepower and you can tweak it as much as you like. ASA is also easy to set up and configure, in my opinion, but I'm a security professional. For a regular user, both products can be pretty cumbersome.

Firepower 7.0 gives you visibility into how it inspects the packets, but it's tough to say how deep or how much visibility you get. However, if you have a Layer 4 firewall, it is clear that a Layer 7 firewall gives you more visibility, and you can see the packets that the application connection is using, meaning which application is using them. It's not how much visibility you get but, rather, the fact that you get Layer 7 visibility.

Cisco Secure Firewall has reduced our operational costs because it is faster to deploy configurations to firewalls. But when using it, it's more or less the same as it was before 7.0. The amount of time it saves when deploying configurations depends on how often you deploy policies or how many changes you have. But if you compare 7.0 to earlier versions, deployment time has been reduced from five to 10 minutes down to two to five minutes. If you make all the changes at once and only do one deployment, the time saved is not that big of a deal. But if you do one change and deploy, and another change and deploy, and another change and deploy, you will save more time.

We use it to segment the east and the west traffic in our data center. We also use it on the internet edge and for VPN termination.

We use its multiple versions. We use the virtual and the physical ones. We have multiple Cisco Firepower 9300, and we also have a few Cisco Firepower 4100.

It helps in protecting against threats from outside and within our data center. With the enhancement in the newest version 7.0, visibility is where we always wanted it to be. The introduction of the Unified Events feature really helps us out daily.

It enables us to implement dynamic policies for dynamic environments. With the recently added Dynamic Attributes feature, we are able to create more dynamic and fast-changing policies. In our data center, workloads tend to go up and down very quickly, and that's why dynamic policies are important. Because the workloads in our data center are fast-moving, we need to be able to change our firewall policy accordingly and quickly. That's what makes it a very important feature for us.

Snort 3 IPS allows us to maintain performance while running more rules. Our performance has
definitely increased after migrating to Snort 3. Rules are easier to implement. We also like the underlying antivirus advancements that they made with the new architecture, which increases its benefit for us.

The VPN and the login enhancements that were introduced in version 7.0 are invaluable to us. That was something that was missing before. 

Feature-wise, we mostly use IPS because it is a security requirement to protect against attacks from outside and inside. This is where IPS helps us out a bunch.

It is good in terms of the overall ease to use in managing it. Some of the things need some tuning, but overall, it is good.

The visibility for VPN is one big part. The policy administration could be improved in terms of customizations and flexibility for changing it to our needs.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

Its stability is quite good. We couldn't find any issues.

Its scalability is very good due to clustering. 

In terms of our plans to increase its usage, it has everything we need. We don't plan to add anything more because it has all that we need as of now.

Their support is not perfect. Sometimes, you get the feeling that some of the support engineers don't have a deep knowledge of the product, but there are some engineers who are able to help.

Most of our clients were on Cisco ASA.

I wouldn't call it extremely straightforward, but I wouldn't call it complex either. Its deployment took about a day.

In terms of the deployment strategy, we create our deployment plans for ourselves and our customers. The deployment plan depends on the environment.

We deploy it ourselves.

It is very hard to say because we don't measure that. It is also very difficult to measure if it has helped in reducing our firewall operational costs.

Its pricing is good and competitive. There is a maintenance cost.

It includes SecureX that makes it cost-effective as compared to the other solutions where you have to pay for XDR and SOAR capabilities.

Technically, it is a very good firewall, but some improvements need to be done on the management side. I would advise getting a consultant or someone from Cisco to help you in implementing and using this firewall to its fullest extent.

We don't use workload integration as of now. We also don't use its dynamic policy capabilities to enable tight integration with a secure workload at the application workload level. Similarly, we don't use the solution's tags for VMware, AWS, or Azure for dynamic policies implementation in the cloud.

I would rate Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall an eight out of 10.

We have multiple use cases for Cisco Firepower. We have two types of use cases:

• Protect the perimeter of the enterprise.
• Inter-VRF zoning and routing. 

The goal is to have some Firewall protection with a Layer 7 features, like URL filtering, IPS, malware at the perimeter level as well as inspecting the traffic going through that firewall, because all traffic is encrypted. We want visibility, ensuring that we can protect ourselves as much as we can.

In production, I am currently using Cisco Firepower version 6.7 with the latest patch, and we are starting to roll out version 7.0.

I have multiple customers who are running Cisco Firepower on-prem. Increasingly, customers are going through the cloud, using Cisco Firepower on AWS and Azure.

We are implementing Cisco Firepower at the Inter-VRF level so we can have some segmentation. For example, between ACI and all the Inter-VRF being done through Firepower, we are able to inspect local east-west traffic. It is great to use Cisco Firepower for segmentation, because on the Firepower, we now have a feature called VRF. So, you can also expand the VRF that you have locally on your network back to the firewall and do some more tweaking and segmentation. Whereas, everything was coming into a single bucket previously and you had to play around with some features to make sure that the leaking of the prefixes was not advertised. Now, we are really working towards segmentation in terms of routing in Firepower.

The integration of network and workload micro-segmentation helps a lot to provide unified segmentation policies across east-west and north-south traffic. One concrete example is with Cisco ACI for the data center. Not only are we doing what is called a service graph on the ACI to make sure that we can filter traffic east-west between two endpoints in the same network, but when we go north-south or east-west, we can then leverage what we have on the network with SGTs on Cisco ISE. Once you build your matrix, it is very easy to filter in and out on east-west or north-south traffic.

Since SecureX was released, this has been a big advantage for Cisco Firepower. You can give a tool to a customer to do some analysis, where before they were doing it manually. So, this is a very big advantage. 

The IPS is one of the top features that I love.

The dashboard of the Firepower Management Center (FMC) has improved. The UI has been updated to look like a 2021 UI, instead of what it was before. It is easy to use and navigate. In the beginning, the push of the config was very slow. Now, we are able to push away some conflicts very quickly. We are also getting new features with each release. For example, when you are applying something and have a bad configuration, then you can quickly roll back to when it was not there. So, there have been a lot of improvements in terms of UI and configuration.

We saw a lot of improvements on Cisco Firepower when Snort 3 came along. Before, with Snort 2, we were able to do some stuff, but the bandwidth was impacted. With Snort 3, we now have much better performance.

I would like to see improvement when you create policies on Snort 3 IPS on Cisco Firepower. On Snort 2, it was more like a UI page where you had some multiple choices where you could tweak your config. On Snort 3, the idea is more to build some rules on the text file or JSON file, then push it. So, I would like to see a lot of improvements here.

I have been using Cisco Firepower for multiple years, around four to five years.

In terms of Firepower's stability, we had some issues with Snort 2 CPUs when using older versions in the past. However, since using version 6.4 until now, I haven't seen any big issues. We have had some issues, just like any other vendor, but not in terms of stability. We have had a few bugs, but stability is something that is rock-solid in terms of Firepower.

Cisco Firepower scalability is something that can be done easily if you respect the best practices and don't have any specific use cases. If I take the example of one of my customers moving to the cloud, there is one FMC and he is popping new Firepower devices on the cloud, just attaching them to the existing policy and knots. This is done in a few minutes. It is very easy to do.

When you open a ticket with Cisco tech support for Cisco FMC, you can be quite confident. Right away, the engineer onboarding is someone skilled and can help you out very quickly and easily. This is something that is true 90% of the time. For sure, you always have 10% of the time where you are fighting to get the right guy. But, most of the time, the guy who does the onboarding can right away help you out.

The initial setup and implementation of Cisco Firepower is very easy. I am working with a lot more vendors of firewalls, and Cisco Firepower is one of the best today. It is one of the easiest to set up.

The minimum deployment time depends on really what you want to do. If you just want to initiate a quick setup with some IPS and have already deployed FMC, then it takes less than one hour. It is very easy. 

What takes more time is deploying the OVA of Cisco Firepower Management Center and doing all the cabling stuff. All the rest, it is very easy. 

If you are working without a Firepower Management Center and using Firepower Device Manager with Cisco on the cloud, then it is even easier. It is like the Meraki setup, where you just plug and play everything and everything will be connected to the cloud. It is very easy.

If you configure Cisco Firepower, it has to be based on Cisco's recommendations. You can view all the traffic and have full visibility in terms of applications, support, URL categorization, and inspect malware or whatever file is being exchanged. We also love to interconnect Cisco Firepower with some Cisco ISE appliances so we can do some kind of threat containment. If something is seen as a virus coming in from a user, we can directly tell Cisco ISE to block that user right away.

I am working for a Cisco Professional Services Partner. We have only one guy deploying the devices. We don't require a big team to deploy it. In terms of configuration, it takes more people based on each person's skills because you have multiple areas: firewalls, IPS, knots, and routing. So, it depends on which skills will be required the most.

For maintenance on an average small to medium customer, it takes one to two people. When it is a big customer with multiple sites, you should have a small team of four to five people. This is because it is mostly not about creating the rules, but more about checking and analyzing the logs coming through Cisco Firepower Manager Center.

Whether Cisco Firepower reduces costs depends on the architecture that you are on. I had some of my customers answer, "Totally, yes," but for some of them that is not really true.

When we are fighting against other competitors for customers, whether it is a small or big business, we feel very comfortable with the price that Firepower has today.

I have worked with Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Sophos. I work a lot more with Palo Alto and Cisco Firepower. I find them to be very easy in terms of management operations. Fortinet is also a vendor where we see the ease of use, but in terms of troubleshooting, it is more complex than Firepower and Palo Alto. Sophos is the hardest one for me to use.

I love the IPS more on the Cisco Firepower, where you can do more tweaking compared to the other solutions. Where I love Palo Alto and Fortinet more compared to Firepower is that you still have CLI access to some configs instead of going through the UI and pushing some configs. When you are in big trouble, sometimes the command line is easier to push a lot more configs than doing some clicks and pushing them through the UI.

Compared to the other vendors, Firepower requires more deep dive skills on the IPS stuff to make it work and ensure that you are protected. If you go with the basic one in the package, you will be protected, but not so much. So, you need to have more deep dive knowledge on the IPS to be sure that you can tweak it and you can protect yourself.

Another Cisco Firepower advantage would be the Talos database. That is a big advantage compared to other solutions.

In terms of threat defense, we have a feature of TLS 1.3 that is free where we can see applications without doing any SSL inspection, which can increase the performance of the firewall without doing some deep dive inspection. At the same time, we keep some visibility of what application is going through. Therefore, we have a win-win situation if one wants to protect against some specific applications.

Do not just look at the data sheet that vendors are publishing. Sometimes, they make sense. But, in reality, these documents are made based on specific use cases. Just do a proof of concept and test every single feature. You will find out that Cisco Firepower is much better and more tweakable than other solutions.

When you start using Cisco Firepower Management Center, you need a few days to get used to it. Once you know all the menus, it is kind of easy to find your way out and analyze traffic, not only in terms of the firewall but also in terms of IPS or SSL decryption. Different users are split away who can help you to troubleshoot what you want to troubleshoot, not having everything in one view.

Today, the only use cases that we have for dynamic policies are leveraging the API on Cisco FMC to push some config or change the config. There isn't a feature built automatically on the FMC to build a new policy, so we are leveraging APIs.

I would rate Cisco Firepower between eight and nine. The only reason that I am not giving a full nine is because of the Snort 3 operations, where there is a need for improvement.