Slow deployments
Updated December 10, 2025

Slow deployments

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 2 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Software Version

Firepower 1010

Overall Satisfaction with Cisco Secure Firewall

We have been switched to Firepower 1000 series, and this has given a lot of different situations where we hit a wall. We have been using the 1010 and the 1120 products. The 1010 we have switched away from because, in my experience, they run really bad, gets overheated and takes up wards 10 min to deploy to via Secure Cloud. The ones we had we actually change out to a 1120 even tho it's overkill. But just to make sure that the site is up and running. The 1120 is better, but we have had alot of weird experiences with them, this might not be the product itself. But can be that Secure Cloud is having a lot of bugs, still ones we are trying to figure out via TAC. One of the cases has been running for 6 months with no resolve yet, and, in my opinion, its starting to get frustrating and the TAC engineers are also clueless and cant provide any fix, all they say is, let's wait for the next big update and see if its fixed, this is horrible. So no, I wish I could recommend the products, because they seem to have a lot of great features, but since we are having so many issues, I can't recommend it at the moment.

Pros

  • They turn on

Cons

  • All of the integration with Secure Cloud
  • Our sites are getting tired of downtime, because of bugs with Secure Cloud, and the way it puts NO NAT on ranmon firewalls when deployed to all sites.
Well like I said, performance is very slow, when you make a change in a policy, it takes 5 to 10 min to deploy, this is not really fast performance. When you are toubleshooting on lets say a opening, you have to make multiple deployments to finding the solution.
Look at the other questions and its explained
Yes we use VPN, and have it connected with small to do MFA, which actually works good. Also, I have been looking at the new analytics feature for policy shadowing rules, which seems like a great feature.

Do you think Cisco Secure Firewall delivers good value for the price?

No

Are you happy with Cisco Secure Firewall's feature set?

No

Did Cisco Secure Firewall live up to sales and marketing promises?

No

Did implementation of Cisco Secure Firewall go as expected?

No

Would you buy Cisco Secure Firewall again?

No

Everything is described in the first part of this survey, in my experience, from the overheating on the 1010's and the why that it takes upwards 10 min to deploy changes to the problem with secure cloud and having it to take 6 months to get TAC to find a solution. So as for now I cant recommend going the Cisco Secure Firewall way.

Cisco Secure Firewall Feature Ratings

Identification Technologies
10
Visualization Tools
8
Content Inspection
9
Policy-based Controls
10
Active Directory and LDAP
10
Firewall Management Console
5
Reporting and Logging
10
VPN
10
High Availability
10
Stateful Inspection
Not Rated
Proxy Server
Not Rated

Using Cisco Secure Firewall

i think overall after ALOT of tac cases it works allright now. But still have alot of issues if you use cloud based mangement. fx, if you open 2 windows of access policys, both of the pages, rules starte to jump form side to side. if you then open one more list, its start to jump even faster. if you close the 2 of them, its back to normal. ALSO the extended access lists for VPN, SUCKS. Its the tiniest window when opening the editor, and you are not able to give the rules names, Which means finding and editing rules SUCKS, its a horrible experience, and eveytime we have to we want to yell :P
ProsCons
Convenient
Unnecessarily complex
Difficult to use
Not well integrated
Inconsistent
Feel nervous using
Lots to learn
  • i have nothing that is '' easy'' or ''elegant''
  • connecting it to cdo
  • editor for vpn (extended accesslist)
  • have more than 1 access policy open. (we have 50 locations and sometimes we need another one open to compare a rule or so.

Comments

More Reviews of Cisco Secure Firewall