My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall are mainly user access to the internet and blocking firewall sites.

With the centralized management of Cisco Secure Firewall, it's good in unifying policies across my environment. The simplicity and supportability are important to my organization as it's much easier if everything's the same as much as possible.

I appreciate that the central management of Cisco Secure Firewall is from one location, which saves a lot of time.

The IPS protection is good for us for security reasons.

The central management feature of Cisco Secure Firewall saves one location instead of having to log on to multiple locations, which speeds up deployment of any changes or requirements for monitoring.

The upgrading process of Cisco Secure Firewall is a long process on a per-firewall basis, and it would be nice if that could be improved. One firewall can take two to two and a half hours to upgrade, so we end up having to watch it. It becomes a problem; in the old firewall days, it would be about a ten-minute job. I know it's more complicated with the newer firewalls. It's just a long-winded process even if they have sorted it out a little bit with automation.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for probably about eight years.

I have not had one Cisco Secure Firewall fail so far, which shows it is stable and reliable. Right now, I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall scales with the growing needs of my organization, as we have different models and sizes, and our central boxes are powerful enough to cover whatever we want whenever we want.

My evaluation of customer service and technical support for Cisco Secure Firewall is that I have generally hardly ever had to use them. We did two weeks ago, and it was a very quick response that identified exactly where the issue in our configuration was.

Two weeks ago, I received a very quick response from customer service, which identified exactly where the issue on our configuration was, and it went very smoothly, so out of ten, I would give it a nine.

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Firewall, I was also using previous Cisco firewalls, and before that, we had Fortinet and Juniper.

The factors that led me to consider the change to Cisco Secure Firewall were actually price, as Cisco's was a very competitive price, and we received a very good deal.

My experience with the deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall has been generally okay.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall since we run them for a long time.

Our current Cisco Secure Firewall units have been in place for probably over three years now, and at the moment, we're not looking to replace them, indicating a good return on investment since they last and are supported quite a long time after they're released.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall shows it can be expensive, especially the bigger boxes, since they do a lot more and handle a lot more, with a big jump from the smaller firewalls to the big firewalls.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall include Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. We're generally a Cisco house and have been for quite a few times with the old Cisco firewalls, so it was a natural progression.

We did not purchase the product on AWS Marketplace.

We actually don't do that much encrypted inspecting traffic at the moment with Cisco Secure Firewall, which is something we want to look at. We just want to make sure we don't max out the CPU with the many jobs it does. Cisco Secure Firewall will be a building block part of our zero-trust security model, however, there will be a few other parts needed, such as Cisco Secure Access.

I have not really expanded the usage of Cisco Secure Firewall. My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Firewall is that it does what it says on the tin; it works, it's reliable, and I have never had one fail, so I think it's good.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a nine.

We bundle Cisco Secure Firewall with our telco offerings as a service provider. We bundle it basically with Meraki.

We have received good feedback from our engineers. It helps them with their day-to-day operations. I need to get some more input on specific items they need to gather more information about, but so far, there are no issues.

Regarding Cisco Secure Firewall's ability to unify policies across our environment, I haven't heard any particular issues from our engineers.

The feature of Cisco Secure Firewall that I appreciate the most is its ability to be used via the cloud, so we don't have to deploy service engineers on-site at any time.

Since telcos just provide basic connectivity, bundling Cisco Secure Firewall has actually allowed us to gain more value for our customers and level up versus our competitors. It helps our customers even more because they don't have to worry about cybersecurity issues, as we put it out of the box.

We found something that prevented us from using it and integrating it a few years back, so they should really have a discussion about improving those aspects. More specifically, it's related to cybersecurity technical details. Implementing a zero-trust security model is what we need help with. We're making progress. We have different types of security for our native applications, but we're slowly looking into what Cisco can deliver. We tried to look into Z3 models before, but our cybersecurity team found some issues where it was lacking. They found some bugs or loopholes, so we wanted Cisco to address these before we fully roll out the solution. We're trying again, and hopefully, with Cisco's updates, it will be acceptable to us in the near future.

We've been using Cisco Secure Firewall since 2016.

Cisco Secure Firewall covers roughly our 2,000 employees really effectively. It's just a matter of expanding the requirements and infrastructure requirements with AWS, and I believe Cisco has some integrations that allow us to use that scale to our advantage.

My opinion is somewhat biased because we have access to Cisco's TAC, and we are very much managed by our Cisco Philippines company team. I'd give them a nine out of ten.

The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is that there's no waste in any infrastructure cost and licensing costs for us. If we have to repurpose a specific box per year, we could save on cost by just transferring it to another person or project rather than pay another one-year license for it.

The pricing is very good for us, especially since we have a partnership with Cisco. The challenge is the licensing. There are competitors that offer more flexible licensing, such as daily licensing, some offer hourly, but Cisco is locked in for one, three, and five years. We don't have much flexibility, especially if we want to shift applications or shift users at any time. Hopefully, licensing becomes more flexible.

There were solutions from Fortinet. The main difference between Cisco and Fortinet is that Cisco will have more flexibility. It's just a matter of being able to put together the flexibility that we require versus what Cisco can provide at this time.

The impact of the cloud-delivered Cisco Secure Firewall on my company's security posture involves some hesitation because it's on the cloud, but we're slowly adopting certain parts of it for our cybersecurity team. We're undergoing that transition and don't have full visibility yet on how they see that as a future mode of operations versus what other companies are doing globally.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for some internal testing purposes, so I don't use it in a real environment. I use it in my dummy lab environment.

The product's user interface is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the product's price needs to be lowered.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years. I am a customer of Cisco.

I have faced no issues with the stability of the product. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product offers good scalability.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

I have experience with Sophos.

The product's initial setup phase is a little difficult.

The product's deployment phase is a good and easy process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The product is expensive.

I can't describe a particular scenario where the product has improved security, but I can say that the devices from Cisco are much more trustworthy and reliable compared to other devices in the market.

The most effective feature of the product for threat prevention stems from the granularity of the control that the devices from Cisco provide to its users.

The product offers great integration capabilities.

For our company's daily operations, the user interface provided by Sophos is much better and interactive compared to the one offered by Cisco.

You can choose Sophos if you want a low-budget or budget-friendly product. You can choose Cisco if you want a high-end and highly scalable tool with great integration capabilities, especially if budget is not an issue.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

I use it every day. It's something that's part of my daily tasks every day. I log in, look at logs, and do some firewall rule updates.

We have a managed services team. I'm not part of that team, I use it for our company. I look at why things are being dropped or allowed.

I'm using an older version. They got rid of EIGRP out of FlexConfig, which was nice. Now there's policy-based routing, which is something that I have to update my firewalls or my FMC so I can utilize that product.

Right now I use the Cisco-recommended version of FMC which is 7.0.5.

I like the GUI base of Secure Firepower Management Center. Coming from an ASA where it was the ASDM, I like the FMC where you can see everything is managed through one pane of glass.

It's a single pane of glass, we have multiple firewalls. I can click and be on to the next firewall in a few seconds, really.

As far as securing our infrastructure from end to end, I'm a big fan of Cisco products. I haven't used other products in the past, but I love the Cisco products. It helps a lot in the end.

We have firewalls on the edge, internally, and then on the cloud now, so I feel we're pretty secure.

Firewall helps with cybersecurity resilience. I really like this Cisco product. It's user-friendly. I don't like some other vendors. I've tried those in the past. Cisco is pretty easy. A caveman could do it.

I've used Check Point and Palo Alto, and I like Cisco better. It's what I'm comfortable with. Hopefully, I'll use it until I retire.

It runs forever. I haven't had any problems with any Secure Firewall. It just runs. You don't have to worry about it crashing. All Cisco products run forever. They run themselves. You need to update them.

I'm a team of two. Either I'm looking at it, the other guy's looking at it, or no one's looking at it. It's part of my daily routine as I get in there and I make sure that I have the status quo before I move on to other projects or other tickets for the day. It's a daily process. They log the information right in.

I'll find out about scalability in a few weeks. I need to change out some firewalls that are a lower model to a higher model because of the VPN limitations. I'm going to have to do some more work and see how long it takes.

They're awesome. I talked to the guys here, I had a couple of problems that keep me up at night. I was able to come here and they're going to help me out with some different ideas. Anybody I talk to has a solution, and the problem is fixed. So it's nice. I've never had any problem with TAC. They're awesome.

I wouldn't give them a ten. Nobody is perfect. I'll give them a nine because they help me with any issues I've had. I could put a ticket in a day, and then it gets taken care of in a speedy, efficient manner, and then I'm able to move on to other things that I need to worry about.

Palo Alto seems clumsy to me. I don't like it. It shouldn't be a guessing game to know where stuff is. Cisco is laid out in front of you with your devices, your policies, and logging. You point and click and you are where you need to be.

I haven't used Check Point in a while. It's been some time but it's an okay product.

For deployment, we have different locations on the east coast, on-prem, and in the data centers. We introduced a couple of firewalls, AWS, and Azure and we're implementing those in the cloud.

On-prem is pretty easy to implement. I could lab up an FTD on my own time. It's super easy to download and install. You get 90 days to mess around in a lab environment. I'm new to the cloud stuff. I've built firewalls there, but there were other limitations. I didn't quite understand that I have to get some practice and learn about the load balancers.

We're a Cisco partner, so we get 80% off. That's a big discount and companies are always looking at ways to save money these days.

I don't really look at Talos. It's in the background. I don't really look at it. It's there and it works.

Nothing is perfect so I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall a 9.2 out of ten. I love the product. It's part of my daily routine. I'll hopefully use it until I retire.