My use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is because the old solution for the VPN access for the employees and also for the external contractors was already out of date, and there was no possibility of somehow prolonging it. So we did the search for a new solution and from the auction and bidding, Cisco Secure Firewall came.

I consider the most valuable aspect of Cisco Secure Firewall to be that we are basically using it only for termination of the VPN, so that's basically the most valuable thing for us.

If I could improve Cisco Secure Firewall in any way, I have no clue, to be honest. I really don't know what to improve. It's working as it should be. Maybe it would be nice to have a better overview regarding the logging, regarding the issues a client can have with the VPN. But I can understand that because the primary feature for the firewall is not the VPN; it's the firewall, but we are not using the firewall.

There is still room to improve. There can be some things that can be better, such as some of the menu and some of the visibility. It's not chaotic, but it's not that user-friendly.

The GUI of Cisco Secure Firewall could improve, as there are better solutions in terms of how they look and how they can be navigated.

I find the solution reliable and stable, and I can say that there is no downtime. As I am used to Cisco products, they are stable and reliable.

I think that what we bought is overkill, but whatever. Basically, it can serve up to 1,000 clients on VPN, so for us it's basically unlimited. The largest number I have seen on the dashboard was 300 users connected on the VPN.

My experience with Cisco customer support has been nice all the time. Sometimes they can take their time, but if they are properly motivated, they can be fast.

If I had to rate their support from one to ten, with ten being best and one being worst, I would give it an eight.

I evaluated basically the new solution from Pulse Secure, which is now called Ivanti.

The reason we chose Cisco Secure Firewall was more or less politics because Ivanti didn't have the hardware, and they will not have the hardware in the foreseeable future. So we went with the only one who was able to provide it to us.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall was kind of straightforward and was not problematic.

It took us two months, together with the migration, but the thing is that we needed to change the groups and rules and everything in the background. It was more or less up to us, not up to the platform. We needed to change things on our side.

It was internal, not the product's fault. The migration was lengthy.

Regarding the pricing and licensing of Cisco Secure Firewall, it's not up to me.

I know that it was purchased from our partner, from the local distributor.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being best and one being worst, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall with my past experience as nice. Because I cannot say it was good, from the point of view when I was able to look through Cisco Secure Firewall, it was nice. The FTD, the Firepower Threat Detection, is really mature, but the former ASA was a pain in the ass.

The former ASA was a pain in the ass because when someone is used to the Cisco way, the ASA was a strange thing. My overall rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is only as a VPN concentrator.

The only feature I find most valuable in Cisco Secure Firewall is the VPN concentrator because we use it.

The only real benefit I realize from using Cisco Secure Firewall in this use case is that it's a different vendor, so a different attack vector.

A significant drawback for Cisco Secure Firewall is the ASA software, as I have not used the Firepower software yet. The ASA software has a GUI that is extremely ugly and appears to be made in the 1980s. At 28 years old, I am not accustomed to working with something that primitive.

The update procedures do not work, and the VPN creation wizard does not work. The GUI is useless for me and frustrates me to a very high degree, which led me to switch to the CLI for configuration.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for three years.

I assess the stability and reliability of this firewall as both very good. I have had no issues with stability, as once they run, they run.

Since I am not using Cisco Secure Firewall for very heavy operations such as IPS or other intensive features, it scales quite well. We have two Firepower 1150s, and we are far under the limit of what our organization needs, so it scales well with our needs.

I have used Cisco support extensively, and I used it for this product once because during the setup there was an issue with the licensing, and I needed Cisco support to help me with the licensing for the ASA.

I am always satisfied with the level of support that I received. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is a 10 because they are reactive and effective. That is all we ask for in support.

We could accomplish this with another vendor such as Palo Alto, where we would not have to pay for licensing.

When I use the CLI, everything works quite well. I attempted to do everything with the GUI at the beginning, but nothing works. I managed to set up the HA pair with no issues once I used the CLI.

We are using quite a few other vendors for firewalls, and I do not think I can disclose which firewall we use where, but we use other major vendors such as Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point. We have a bit of everything in our portfolio.

If it was my choice, I would have put another firewall there with something easier to configure, more straightforward, and a cleaner interface to maintain it.

My honest advice for someone who is evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall based on my experience would be that if you can get something else, go for something else. If you are going to use it, then use the CLI because the GUI is not usable. If I had the choice, I would not be using Cisco Firepower or ASA on top of it because in my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues and my management, it is not the best device for the role it is playing.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Firewall is 5 out of 10.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is to have the different clients secured in their own VLAN and subnet, ensuring effective segregation of our network.

We do not have an internet connection with Cisco Secure Firewall; basically, it is all on-premise. We have different use cases and those need to stay separated, so they do not interfere with each other.

My main usage for Cisco Secure Firewall is that I work in a train company where we are basically managing the network for the different use cases of the train. Those need to get separated, so the phone does not interfere with the cameras, for example, and we only allow the designated ports to the other.

What I appreciate most about Cisco Secure Firewall is that it has been working since we bought it without any failure, highlighting its reliability and performance.

An example of how Cisco Secure Firewall benefits my organization is that it performs its function very effectively. We use it as a router, and it works really well, ensuring our operations run smoothly.

I think the old interface could be improved, as it is not that good. Cisco Firewall Management Center is much better, but I need to get more experience with that because we do not really have any experience with it. I did not work extensively with it as we are in the migrating phase.

I have been using a Cisco firewall, specifically the ASA, for ten years and now we are migrating to Cisco Secure Firewall, which represents our ongoing commitment to network security.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Firewall as performing really well. We have had one small issue, but it happened over ten years, and with the new one, we have had no issues.

I believe Cisco Secure Firewall can scale and grow with the needs of my organization because we bought the biggest model, so we do not really need to scale anywhere. We roughly calculated this and it should last the next nine to ten years, so if we buy a new one, it will probably have more performance, but the next ten years are secure.

I have used customer service for Cisco Secure Firewall. We have a partner between us and Cisco and only the extreme cases get to Cisco. Most of the time our partner, Logicalis, will solve the problem for us because they have experts, so only really problems with the software or these kinds of things get right to Cisco.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, we have a complete Cisco network, so we tried to keep the network together, completely Cisco. Therefore, there were no other solutions, as we did not use one before and we did not consider different options.

I would describe the experience of deploying Cisco Secure Firewall as very smooth. We used the migration software which just took the complete ASA configuration and put it in Cisco Secure Firewall in Cisco Firewall Management Center, and that was it; it worked.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include serving as a perimeter firewall between the data center and users, and as the firewall between the internet and users.

An example of how Cisco Secure Firewall benefits my organization is that we use it with Azure, along with Azure firewall and FTD, and it works very well.

Cisco Secure Firewall is highly performant and easy to manage.

Cisco Secure Firewall handles this adequately, but a simpler licensing model would be beneficial, especially when using the firewall in the cloud, since on-premises performance is limited by the hardware being used.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for approximately fifteen years, starting from Cisco PIX.

Cisco Secure Firewall has demonstrated good reliability and stability. Although we did not invest heavily, which results in limited performance due to our license being restricted to one gigabit, that is our constraint rather than a Cisco limitation. I have not experienced any crashes or downtime with Cisco Secure Firewall, and everything has operated smoothly.

Cisco Secure Firewall can scale with the growing needs of my organization.

I have not needed to use customer service.

Deploying Cisco Secure Firewall is very straightforward and uncomplicated, as the systems are simple to deploy and the graphic interface is user-friendly.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall is positive.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, I considered some competitors, as we have other firewalls from different vendors. It is beneficial to use firewalls from different vendors because if someone can overcome one firewall, there is the other firewall for protection.

I selected Cisco Secure Firewall because it works well in the Azure environment.

One of the biggest use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall is Public Bank; they use it in Malaysia, but we implemented it in the Sri Lankan branches.

When a global company is using Cisco Secure Firewall, they would prefer to go with the same product with the same switching and firewall, making it an umbrella solution.

I think the UTM is the best feature of Cisco Secure Firewall.

The UTM features are indeed the best.

The reason why the UTM feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is the best is because the customer is more concerned with security; for a worldwide company, they need the most security, and I think it's very suitable for the most secure companies.

The centralized management console in Cisco Secure Firewall is effective and helpful.

Most of the partners are looking for AI-driven solutions now, so if Cisco improves more on the AI part than other products, it will be very good when they are trying to capture the market.

Cisco Secure Firewall has to enhance its AI part.

Customers using Cisco Secure Firewall are looking for UTM features, and some enhancements have to be done, such as when you block applications, more applications have to be able to be blocked and categorized.

I've been working with Cisco Secure Firewall for around 15 years as a partner.

Cisco Secure Firewall is stable, and there are no issues or challenges that my customers have faced with it.

Customers use Cisco Secure Firewall both on the cloud and on-premises, and it is a scalable solution and easy to scale.

My experience with Cisco support is good. I would rate the technical support of Cisco Secure Firewall eight out of ten.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall takes one day.

Customers see a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall, and it is workable in terms of value for money.

Competitively, Checkpoint is the best, but considering pricing and everything else, Cisco Secure Firewall is also the best product.

Cisco Firewall is better in terms of cost and is cheaper; unlike other products, if the license expires, no features work, but Cisco isn't that way. Most of the time, they have perpetual licenses, so that's the best solution customers are looking for.

The threat intelligence functionalities in Cisco Secure Firewall are also good, but when considering Checkpoint and others, they have some enhanced features; there is some differentiation, but it's also good.

They need a global, one single vendor, which is why they see value for money with Cisco Secure Firewall.

I recommend Cisco Secure Firewall because it's a global vendor.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall an 8.

Our main use case for Cisco Secure Firewall is to protect our RTU traffic, specifically on the operational technology side, for SCADA systems. For our side, we don't have encrypted traffic; for the most part, we have the firewall to protect everything behind it when it comes to RTU traffic, which is remote terminal units.

The visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall benefit our company by making it easier for us to parse through traffic that is denied or allowed through, and that helps us with troubleshooting, so it does help cut down on troubleshooting.

The feature of Cisco Secure Firewall that I prefer the most is the use of ASDM where we visually are able to see all of our traffic when it comes through the firewall.

Cisco Secure Firewall does a good job unifying policies across our environments because we have many firewalls that have the same rules, so when Cisco Secure Firewalls are able to do that, that's very beneficial.

The fact that unifying policies will help us save time, costs, and be more efficient in general is very important for our company. Unfortunately, the impact of the cloud-delivered firewall on our company's security posture is negligible since we are an air-gapped system, and we do not deal with the cloud infrastructure.

Cisco Secure Firewall does a good job in helping our company implement a zero-trust security model, and it deserves an eight out of ten.

Cisco Secure Firewall could be improved in terms of the GUI and management. It could be more intuitive, as sometimes there might be too many features and buttons that make it harder when we're trying to parse through information.

To make Cisco Secure Firewall a ten out of ten, improving the documentation of all the features would help significantly. I sometimes feel I'm just searching around on Google for specific configurations compared to Palo Alto, which has more detailed steps.

We've been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about 20 years. We've had it since the whole creation of our RT team.

In terms of stability and reliability, Cisco Secure Firewall is reliable. We haven't had real issues where these firewalls have gone down or anything of that nature, so we're happy with the consistency.

When it comes to the scalability of Cisco Secure Firewall, it scales very efficiently and is easy to implement with the growing needs of our company.

Our experience with customer service or technical support through TAC for Cisco Secure Firewall could be more in-depth instead of going through the first levels.

We often find ourselves trying to escalate faster because we need timely responses. I would rate the customer service and technical support from Cisco Secure Firewall a six out of ten. They're good and know what they're doing in general. That said, it's not where we want it to be.

We considered Palo Alto before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall, and we do have some Palo Altos on the network to compare. We're mostly using Cisco products in general. I'm aware Palo Alto is a strong competitor when it comes to firewalls.

The deployment is pretty seamless. Sometimes we do have some issues with Palo Alto Fireworks, where when it comes to deploying, it's not as intuitive. It doesn't work correctly, and there are some bugs that come up. So we have to troubleshoot that aspect. Cisco Secure Firewalls is pretty pretty seamless.

The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall comes from how intuitive it is. The more it's able to identify issues during troubleshooting, the better the ROI we achieve.

I'm not too concerned about the pricing of Cisco Secure Firewall. The pricing is fixed, and we're comfortable with it since pricing doesn't matter as much since we have to purchase it if there's a need for it.

The main differences between Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto come down to the GUI. They are on par when comparing unified policy and how to make things more intuitive for monitoring traffic and creating rules based on that traffic.

We haven't used any new features or functionalities in Cisco Secure Firewall recently. The features work efficiently, and I can't think of anything new that I would want right now.

I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall an eight out of ten; it's reliable, and we have no real issues.

We're using the solution as a firewall, for securing our whole network for students and staff throughout the whole school.

Cisco Secure Firewall's performance benefits my company by allowing us to shape the bandwidth and internet for staff with quality of service where it works better for them rather than students, or vice versa. When students are testing, you can adjust it for that too.

The performance part of Cisco Secure Firewall is pretty good. You can control the bandwidth and features such as bandwidth shaping and quality of service, and I appreciate that part. At our school, a lot of the kids use laptops, the staff use laptops, and they have Wi-Fi.

I just tried the chat feature in Cisco Secure Firewall, and that was pretty cool; the AI worked pretty good when I tried it at home in the evening, so that was a nice feature.

The visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall in managing encrypted traffic are pretty good too, as our finance department uses it, so keeping that part secure for them works out well.

For our students, we have them in certain groups, and then our staff in certain groups, so with Cisco Secure Firewall, you can push out policies for each one.

Cisco Secure Firewall is important. You can control what students are looking at, and if they're looking at something inappropriate, you can control it. You can also see which device is taking up more bandwidth.

Regarding the zero-trust security model, Cisco Secure Firewall helps our company. Our students and staff have the ability to do whatever they need to do with their research. It helps them while keeping security top of mind.

I would like to see more about the pricing of Cisco Secure Firewall or maybe see it enhanced.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about ten years now.

The stability and reliability of the Cisco Secure Firewall have always been good; it never falls, never fails, and it's always backed up, which is always good too.

We have more kids and more staff coming in, so with Cisco Secure Firewall, just having that ability to add on more features is great. Currently, it appears we're barely using it, so we can add more with it, and we always have room for that, which is good.

Whenever I call about a problem with Cisco Secure Firewall, they're always helpful and very knowledgeable, getting me to the right solutions I need. They're always willing to help afterwards too and send me documentation, which is always good.

The deployment experience with Cisco Secure Firewall is easy, with a straightforward deployment.

From my point of view as an IT admin, the biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Firewall is seeing what kids are looking at, shaping what they're looking at, shaping the bandwidth, quality of service, and you can do all that with the firewall, too. It also helps in blocking kids from things and monitoring what staffers are looking at.

I work for a school, so getting licensing and getting the budget for Cisco Secure Firewall for certain products is a challenge. It's good to have them, however, it costs us a lot.

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

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.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include revamping old networks, security, content filtering, amp protection, et cetera.

Cisco Secure Firewall is easy to configure, and you can do it all in one pane of glass. It is really simple to configure. The solution allows my junior admins to go into the dashboard and look at any issues or reconfigure any features that need to be tweaked without me physically having to be there.

I have been using the assurance feature in Cisco Secure Firewall recently, and I am starting to see that it is a lot more beneficial for me, with all the analytics and reporting that it provides.

Cisco Secure Firewall allows us to pinpoint exactly where the packets are being delivered or dropped, and we are able to identify issues quicker than with other models or other vendors.

I assess Cisco Secure Firewall's ability to unify policies across my environment as having ease of building. We need to be able to scale and deploy without running a bunch of commands, especially when managing multiple locations acting as separate entities. It is important to my organization since our team is really small. As an engineer, it is just myself and a few juniors. I can verbally tell them to look at specific things or deploy certain features. It gives them the confidence to touch a firewall without being insecure.

The impact of the cloud-delivered firewall on my organization's security posture is very important. It allows us to place certain policies compared to the old infrastructure that is currently in there, with outdated hardware. It allows us to control the firmware and deploy the firmware. In evaluating Cisco Secure Firewall, I find that it helps us implement a zero-trust security model by allowing us to create one policy and deploy it across all of our networks versus multiple agents. Cisco Secure Firewall is very helpful and convenient for me.

I faced challenges moving away from the MS switches to the CS switches, as it is a little different. I am experiencing some small issues with IP reservations, however, I am working with the Meraki engineers to work around or configure it the next day.

Regarding stability and reliability, I have experienced false negative alerts with the CS models, which indicate that my switch has gone down when in reality, it has not. That is a fix that is needed.

I would say I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for the past two months.

Regarding stability and reliability, I have experienced false negative alerts with the CS models, which indicate that my switch has gone down, but in reality, it has not. That is a fix that is needed.

Cisco Secure Firewall scales tremendously with the growing needs of my organization. I know in the future we are going to start deploying SD-WAN and other applications that will require all of our clinics to connect to our HQ, and deploying Meraki will make their IPsec tunnels very seamless.

I evaluate customer service and technical support based on productivity. If I can reduce ticketing by 10% to 20% by deploying these solutions, I consider or job done.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service and technical support of Cisco a ten. There is always someone on call. They are very thorough; they know the product and work with you to resolve issues. That is important for me.

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Firewall, I was using different solutions at various locations. As we transition and take on these clinics, we have anywhere from home networks, where someone's uncle installed something, to very outdated firewalls. When we come in and present Meraki and what it can do, it becomes a done deal.

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

I come in when they have the old network and deploy it. I install a cabinet and new drops. I configure the Meraki gear onto their old network side by side.

Especially during downtime, I can plug the firewall into that rack to get the external IP configured. Once my ISP comes in, I apply those IP addresses to the firewall.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Firewall.

I handle pricing, setup costs, and licensing with our vendors. I contact our vendors, we go over the pricing and the licensing. I make sure they get all the proper codes. As I purchase and license these firewalls, it is all in one place and easy to read and do.

Before selecting Cisco Secure Firewall, I considered Fortinet, which was probably one of the bigger competitors, and SonicWall. We thrive in the Meraki policy. What stood out to me in the evaluation process, compared to other options, was the ease of deployment, the dashboard, being able to manage everything in one place, and Meraki support.

I did not purchase the product on AWS Marketplace.

My advice to other organizations considering Cisco Secure Firewall is to make sure they plan for their organization. Plan for your growth, a three-year growth, and then scale your solutions accordingly.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall overall a solid ten.

My main use cases for Cisco Secure Firewall include certain requirements from the energy sector, NERC CIP compliance, acting as a perimeter security device, doing layer three routing for us, and VLAN segmentation, as well as creating DMZs.

These features benefit my company by reducing my troubleshooting time, and in the energy sector, time is money, so it does help. The time reduction depends on how quickly someone gets used to it.

The feature of Cisco Secure Firewall I prefer most is troubleshooting, packet capture, and packet tracer; I love those features.

You can quickly run certain commands on CLI or on FMC CLI to find out what could be the root cause, and it varies from person to person, but it's very useful.

I prefer Cisco since it has been here for a very long time, we have a good relationship with the sales team and Cisco representatives, and the support is pretty good, providing us with 24/7 support, which makes me pretty happy.

Cisco Secure Firewall in helping my company implement a zero-trust security model. I've yet to try it, however, I'm very excited to work on it. My impression of the visibility and control capabilities of Cisco Secure Firewall in managing encrypted traffic is pretty good. We can build site-to-site tunnels and various ways of site-to-route based or policy-based, allowing us to see the packets and cap decaps, and Cisco CLI provides a way to see the packets inside, which is very helpful.

Cisco Secure Firewall's licensing model can be improved, as I struggle with it in an air-gapped environment. To make it a ten, a couple of challenges need to be addressed, particularly with the licensing model, as I'm looking for a permanent license solution for air-gapped environments.

The second issue is the ROMmon mode, where during power outages the firewalls go into ROMmon mode, causing outages and financial loss until we can send someone on-site.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for almost six years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are pretty stable.

The only challenge I see is with the substation, where when it loses power and there's no manual reboot, it ends up in ROMmon mode and requires a physical reboot, which means we have to send somebody on-site. It does not pick it up when the power goes out and comes back up, going into ROMmon mode, so I need better answers from Cisco about that.

I'm not sure how Cisco Secure Firewall scales with the growing needs of my company.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been good. If I were to rate customer service and technical support on a scale of one to ten, I would give them an eight.

In the past, we have used other solutions such as Palo Alto and other vendors. I am more of a Cisco person and prefer Cisco.

My experience with the deployment of Cisco Secure Firewall is that it's pretty straightforward.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Cisco Secure Firewall is reliability and robust network design.

Regarding pricing and setup costs, apart from the licensing issue, Cisco products are on the pricier side. That said, they're worth it. We have over 500 substations plus our data center just on OT, and everything is Cisco, so we are a core Cisco customer, and as long as the product is reliable, it's worth every penny.

We did consider other solutions before choosing Cisco Secure Firewall.

I'm not sure how Cisco Secure Firewall's ability to unify policies across my environment is, as I haven't tried that.

I am not using Cisco SecureX with Secure Firewall; I'm using FMC for centralized management for the firewalls.

The impact of the cloud-delivered firewall on my company's security posture is tricky. For compliance, we are not supposed to have anything cloud-based, so it must be on-prem. We're a big company and we can use it in some other parts of the network, just not for my team.

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