Likelihood to Recommend FireMon is best used in a large environment (for example, I have >100 firewalls in my environment). It's best used when trying to improve security posture and showing changes in firewall security over time. It might not be the best choice for smaller environments or those that aren't concerned about security management.
Read full review It's very well suited for geographically dispersed organizations, where deploying and managing remote firewalls and other network security functions aren't practical. Once deployed, and the deployment isn't difficult after planning and understanding the data flows of the IoT devices, the system is easily managed and flexible. You're able to allow front line operations people to add devices into a role without sacrificing the integrity of the security model.
Read full review Pros Give good real time reporting for anyone making a change to any of our firewalls Provides good reporting tools that are out of box Provide good customization tools that is specific to our needs Upgrades are a simple process and support does relatively well with assisting us. Read full review Low capital and support cost structures. Ease of deployment. Ability to work over the existing network. Read full review Cons Some features could be added to the existing functionality which include NAT rules usage Rule expiration normalization from firewalls rather than entering them in rule documentation .csv exports of the files from the firewall pane only gives usage for 30 days by default and that should be increased Read full review Integration with third-party security controls. Automating the on-boarding of devices. Reporting needs to be more detailed. Read full review Likelihood to Renew The shell is locked out and we can't run any general centos commands. The implementation and maintainence of the arch is very complex. Even with the right identifiers on log messages the log collection keeps failing. The warning messages on the device are ambiguous. The log messages on firemon are a bit confusing and don't show the exact issue.
Read full review Usability It save me time and I'm able to have the review - review the rule independently with using my time.
Read full review Reliability and Availability FireMon has been relatively stable overall. However, there have been a handful of times where we had issues with the console. For example, we couldn't update which devices to include in a security assessment. The initial suggestion from support was to just reboot it. It seems like there weren't many other options available such as to restart services before going to the extreme of a complete reboot.
Read full review Performance I'm not sure we have the largest implementation of FireMon out there but we do have a few 1000 devices being probed by FireMon. Overall, the system's performance has been rock solid. The console refreshes quickly and reports are generated within an expected timeframe.
Read full review Support Rating FireMon technical support is awesome! They respond quickly to our requests and they are well trained and very knowledgeable about the tool. Some issues have to be referred to the development team, but technical support largely provides solutions for any issues that we may have.
Read full review It's pretty darned good for a new company. We had to hash through a couple of instances that no one had ever run into, but once we got to the right person on the engineering team, they were able to work through the solution pretty quickly. The nice thing is, unlike Cisco, once you fix something, you don't find three new things that have to be changed.
Read full review Implementation Rating Implementation is fairly simple. Most issues can be resolved by referencing manuals.
Read full review Alternatives Considered I has worked with
AlgoSec and while they are very similar product, I find the FireMon is easier to understand and get rolling with. While both require some learning, FireMon is by far the easier one. Once you have an understanding of how things are arranged and labeled you can easily import firewalls and begin to work on them to improve them
Read full review The cost and complexity vs. ISE is as different as Uber and Lift are from trying to take a taxi in Duluth, Minnesota. The complexity of Cisco's IoT security is a joke. It was going to take us over a year just to deploy all the Cisco equipment, and that was if we could have gotten it all working together. We got the entire project deployed in just under 3 months, and that includes working out all the bugs and logistics. Honestly, I don't think all the Cisco parts would have ever been running like Cisco promised it would. It's just way too complicated.
Read full review Scalability Firemon Is easily scalable and maintainable with any size team. Although it requires some tech debt, it is well worth the time to invest to ensure compliance is visible and reports are accurate. Although our environment is very large we do not fully utilize the scalability of the Firemon product.
Read full review Return on Investment FireMon's Compliance Reporting provided an immediate and tangible benefit FireMon helps identify egregious or erroneous rules quickly across multiple platforms FireMon took our audit process from an Excel spreadsheet into a far more advanced process with readily available context for reviewers Read full review Capital cost to deploy was 1/4 the cost of doing Cisco. People and time frame to do the entire deployment was 1/12th the time/people to complete the installation. On-going management is being done without adding staff. Read full review ScreenShots