Cisco Secure Firewall alternatives and competitors

On-premises, we used Cisco but replaced our core firewall world with Palo Alto because we wanted more visibility. Plus, we were looking for features such as IPS for PCI compliance. We wanted next-generation capability, but we had the ASA traditional firewall with Cisco, which doesn't do much, so we replaced it with Palo Alto. 

In the cloud, we use Palo Alto for the zero trust implementation. Initially, we tried to work with the Azure firewall, but we found a lot of limitations in terms of visibility. It couldn't provide us with the same visibility we wanted for Layer 4 and above.

The solution is deployed both on cloud and on-premises. The cloud provider is Azure.

We have about 6,500 endpoints in my organization and five administrators.

One of our key challenges was for the PCI, the new standard 3.1. There's a requirement that financial applications need to have some sort of zero trust architecture. They need to be completely segregated. We implemented zero trust using Palo Alto so that if we are within the same subnet within the network, we have protection.

The unified platform helps us eliminate security holes. We use another product from Palo Alto, called WildFire, which is basically sandboxing. We have layers of products. Because of WildFire, we're able to identify any weaknesses in the upper layers.

We give a copy of the same packet to WildFire, and this helps us identify things that were bypassed, such as malware or malicious files. It's especially helpful when we're transferring files, like on SMB, because it's integrated.

The unified platform helps eliminate multiple network securities, and the effort needed to get them to work with each other. It's a very good product for us because it fits well in our ecosystem. 

Our other vendor is Fortinet. Previously, we struggled with having multiple products. One of them was command-line based and the other one was web-based. The engineers would have some difficulty because not everyone is good with a command line platform. Palo Alto and Fortinet are both managed by the UI and they're very similar products. They work well with each other, so we use certain capabilities here and there.

For example, for some internet browsing, we generally have a separate solution for our proxy, but there are situations where we need to provide direct internet access to a particular server in a certain situation. The problem is when a particular product does not work with the proxy for some reason. This is where we use Palo Alto's web filtering. If we didn't have a solution that could do this, it would be difficult on our side because how can we provide direct access to the server without securities?

When browsing, the logs provide us with the required information. For example, we allow certain URLs to a particular server, and we have that data also. This goes back into our same solution. With Palo Alto, the connectors are built in.

Our Palo Alto Firewall has the zero-delay signatures feature implemented. For the IPS capability, we rely completely on Palo Alto. If we don't have this implemented and there's a new, ongoing attack, we will be exposed. We make sure there are controls on the policies we have on each layer.

Even if a patch is released for that particular issue, it would take us time to implement it. We actually rely on the network layer, which is our Palo Alto box, to prevent that in case someone tries to exploit it. In the meantime, we would patch it in the background.

One of the key features for us is product stability. We are a bank, so we require 24/7 service.

Another feature we like about Palo Alto is that it works as per the document. Most vendors provide a few features, but there are issues like glitches when we deploy the policy. We faced this with Cisco. When we pushed policies and updated signatures, we ran into issues. With Palo Alto, we had a seamless experience.

The maintenance and upgrade features are also key features. Whenever we have to do maintenance and upgrades, we have it in a cluster and upgrade one firewall. Then, we move the traffic to the first one and upgrade the second one. With other vendors, you generally face some downtime. With Palo Alto, our experience was seamless. Our people are very familiar with the CLI and troubleshooting the firewall.

It's very important that the solution embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention. There is one major difference in our architecture, which we have on-premises and on the cloud. Most enterprises will have IPS as a separate box and the firewall as a separate box. They think it's better in terms of throughput because you can't have one device doing firewall and IPS and do SSL offloading, etc. In our new design, we don't have a separate box.

When we looked at Palo Alto about five years ago, we felt that the IPS capability was not as good as having a separate product. But now we feel that the product and the capabilities of IPS are similar to having a separate IPS.

Machine learning is very important. We don't want to have attacks that bypass us because we completely rely on one product. This is why any AI machine learning capability, which is smarter than behavioral monitoring, is a must.

There was a recent attack that was related to Apache, which everyone faced. This was a major concern. There was a vulnerability within Apache that was being exploited. At the time, we used the product to identify how many attempts we got, so it was fairly new. Generally, we don't get vulnerabilities on our web server platform. They're very, very secure in nature.

We use Palo Alto to identify the places we may have missed. For example, if someone is trying something, we use Palo Alto to identify what kind of attempts are being made and what they are trying to exploit. Then we find out if we have the same version for Apache to ensure that it protects. Whenever there are new attacks, the signature gets updated very quickly.

We don't use Palo Alto Next Generation Firewalls DNS security. We have a separate product for that right now. We have Infoblox for DNA security.

Palo Alto Next Generation Firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates with all security capabilities. We send all the logs to Panorama, which is a management console. From there, we send it to our SIM solution. Having a single PAN is also very good when we try to search or if we have issues or any traffic being dropped. 

Panorama provides us with a single place to search for all the logs. It also retains the log for some time, which is very good. This is integrated with all our firewalls. Plus, it's a single pane of glass view for all the products that we have for Palo Alto.

When we have to push configurations, we can push to multiple appliances at one time. 

Previously for SSL offloading, we utilized a different product. Now we use multiple capabilities, IPS, the SSL offload, and in certain cases the web browsing and the firewall capability altogether. Our previous understanding was that whenever you enable SSL offloading, there is a huge impact on the performance because of the load. Even though we have big appliances, they seem to be performing well under load. We haven't had any issues so far.

We have had some challenges. There are some advanced features that we aren't able to use, which include active IP authentication and app ID. We are facing challenges with implementing those two features.

Other products provide you with APIs that allow you to access certain features of the product externally with another solution. In the cloud, we have a lot of products that provide us with these capabilities, such as Microsoft. It has its own ecosystem, which is exposed through Graph API. I would like to have the capability to use the feature set of Palo Alto and provide it to another solution.

For example, if we have a very good system to identify malicious IPs within Palo Alto, we would like the ability to feed the same information into another product using the APIs. These are obviously very advanced capabilities, but it would be great if Palo Alto would allow this in the future.

I have used this solution for more than five years. I'm using version 10.1.

It's extremely stable. We've used it on the parameter and as a core firewall in our data center. In both cases, it's what we rely on today.

The scalability is amazing. When you look at the data sheet, sometimes you'll find that the equipment won't perform well under the same load. However, if something is mentioned on the data sheet and you implement it, you'll find places where you have high CPU and high memory utilization. When you buy something, maybe it should be 50% load, but when you put it into actual implementation, you find out that the CPU and memory remain very high.

With Palo Alto, the CPU and memory are both intact. It's performing well under load. We have different timings where we have a large load and it goes down and then goes up again. In both scenarios, the product is very good. The CPU performs well. Especially during upgrades, it was very stable and straightforward.

We have plans to increase usage. We're doing a migration in the cloud right now, and we plan to move a lot of our services to the cloud. This is where we'll either add more virtual firewalls in the cloud or increase the size and capacity of firewalls that we have there.

The technical support is great. We've faced very, very serious problems where our systems were impacted due to some reason, and they were able to provide adequate support at the same time. When we raised a P1, an engineer started to work with us right away. Some vendors don't touch the customer's product.

Palo Alto's support is great; they're willing to get their hands dirty and help us.

I would rate technical support nine out of ten.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the IPS for compliance, but there were other factors as well, such as usability. We didn't have enough engineers who were well trained on Cisco because it's a very traditional kind of product that's completely CLI driven. We only had one or two people who could actually work on it. Even though people understand Cisco, when we asked them to implement something or make a change, they weren't that comfortable. 

With Palo Alto, it was very simple. The people who knew Fortinet also learned Palo Alto and picked it up very quickly. When we had new people, they were able to adjust to the platform very quickly.

It was straightforward for us. For the initial deployment, we had two experiences. In one experience, we replaced one product with Palo Alto. In that particular situation, we used a tool from Palo Alto to convert the rules from Cisco to Palo Alto. It took us around four or five days to do the conversion and verification to make sure that everything was as it was supposed to be. The cloud deployment was straightforward. We were able to get the appliance up and running in a day.

For our deployment strategy, when we replaced our core, one of the key things was if we wanted to go with the same zones and to identify where the product would be placed and the conversion. We tested the rule conversion because we didn't want to make a mistake. We took a certain set of policies for one particular zone, and then we did the conversion and applied it. We did manual verification to ensure that if we went with an automated solution, which would do the conversion for us, it would work correctly and to see the error changes. Once we applied it to a smaller segment, we did all of it together.

For the cloud deployment, we had some challenges with Microsoft with visibility issues. From the marketplace, we took the product and deployed it. We did a small amount of testing to check how it works because it was new to us, but we were able to understand it very quickly. The engineers in UA helped us because the virtual networking for the cloud is a little bit different than when it's physical.

We were able to get it up and running very quickly. Palo Alto provides a manual for the quick start, which we used to do the deployment. It was pretty straightforward after that.

For maintenance and deployment, we have two engineers working in two shifts. We have around 15 or more Palo Alto firewalls, so we can survive with six members. That's more than enough to handle operations.

We offer security services, so it's difficult to calculate ROI. But since we're an organization where we cannot compromise on security, I would say the ROI is very good. We don't have any plans to change the product since we moved from Cisco.

The cost is much better. We've worked with multiple vendors, and Palo Alto is very straightforward. We've done many implementations with Cisco, and they kill you on the licensing. When you enable each capability, it costs a lot. They charge you for the software and for the capabilities. They charge you for the licensing. It's very complicated. 

With Palo Alto, the licensing is very straightforward. For example, if you only have a requirement for a firewall, you can go with that. If you want to go with a subscription, you get all the features with it.

I work for an enterprise, so we have the topmost license for compliance reasons. There is an essential bundle and a comprehensive bundle for enterprises.

Palo Alto also has a security essential bundle, which covers everything that's required for a small organization.

The PA-400 series of Palo Alto is the smaller box for small businesses. The good thing is that it has the same functionality as the big boxes because it runs the PAN-OS operating system in the background. It's a very good product because it provides you with the same capabilities that an enterprise uses. It provides the same operating system and signatures.

It's also good for an enterprise because you get the same level of capabilities of the firewall. There are firewalls that are 20 times more expensive than this. However, on a small box, you have the same capabilities, the same feature set, and the same stability, so I feel it's a very good product.

We chose Palo Alto right away because we couldn't go with the same vendor, which was Fortinet. We needed a different vendor, and the only option left was Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. 

As a recommendation, I would say go for it. It's a very good product. With implementation, we looked at a lot of different processes that said they offered a lot of capabilities. We've used almost all of them, such as GlobalProtect, which is for the VPN capability, and site-to-site VPN. We have done all kinds of implementations and in most of the cases, it's pretty much worked for us.

At some point, you will have requirements where you have third-party vendors, or you have to integrate with a third party. With Palo Alto, you're safe no matter what. With other open-source solutions, they work but you'll face issues, and you'll have to step up your security. 

With Palo Alto, it's straightforward. You'll have adequate security, it works well, and you'll be able to work with other solutions too, create tunnels, and GlobalProtect.

There are people who utilize open source products also, and it works well for them. But if you're an enterprise that provides 24/7 services, it's better to go with a company that has the support and features that work. We don't have any challenges with it. 

This is very important because maybe you can get a cheaper solution, but stability and functionality matter, especially when we talk about zero-day issues every single day. This is where Palo Alto would be best.

Secondly, with new types of technologies, like with Kubernetes or microservices, it's better that you go with a company that's actually able to cope with all the technology changes that are happening in the background. If you have a multi-operating system, you'll notice that the signatures for the attack are different for different types of operating systems. 

For instance, if you have Linux, Windows, and Unix, you need a product that understands all the different types of attacks on different systems. I think it's better to go with something that's well supported, works well, and is stable.

This is our core firewall for the data center network.

We have two on-premises appliances set up in a high availability configuration.

The VM-Series enables us to extend consistent next-generation protection across different infrastructures with a unified policy model, which makes it very easy for us. It is very important that we have this single pane for monitoring all of the network resources and multiple devices because, today, it's a complex environment where you have to take care of many devices.

This solution makes it very easy to quickly migrate workloads to the cloud.

Since we updated the system, the network has been very stable. Previously, there were issues with traffic throughput. With the improved visibility we now have, the traffic is being properly monitored, which means that we are better able to manage it. These are improvements that we saw very quickly.

This is a firewall product and every OEM has claims about their special features. This device is very user-friendly and offers ease of monitoring.

Changes to the configuration happen quickly.

There is a single pane of glass for reporting, which is quite good. 

The interface is user-friendly.

It would be helpful if we had a direct number for the support manager or the supporting engineer. That would be better than having to email every time because there would be less wait. Having a dedicated number where we could send a text message in the case of an emergency would be helpful.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for approximately six months.

We are very much satisfied with the stability and performance.

This solution is quite scalable because it has options for deploying in a VM as well as an appliance. The interfaces are all license-based, which means that features can be added just by obtaining another license.

Our current environment has more than three gigs of traffic.

We have a team of four or five people that is responsible for the network. They are continually monitoring the firewall and updating the policies, as required.

Pala Alto has very good support. Generally, the response is very good and they address our issues as soon as we contact them. For example, they assisted us during our deployment and it was a very good experience.

My only complaint about the support has to do with complications that we had with communication. Sometimes, support was done over email, and because of the difference in time zone, there was occasionally a long gap in time before we got the proper response.

We used to have Cisco ASA and Firepower, and we had some issues with those firewalls. Once they were replaced by Palo Alto, we didn't have any problems after that. 

Compared to the previous devices that we have used from other vendors, Palo Alto is very user-friendly, and we are comfortable with the features and capabilities that it offers.

The initial setup is very straightforward and we had no issues with it. It is not complex because the procedures are properly defined, the documentation is available, and there is proper support. Our initial setup took about 15 days, which included migrating all of the data.

Our deployment is ongoing, as we are adding policies and dealing with updates on a day to day basis. We have a very complex environment that includes a firewall for the data center, as well as for the distribution networks.

The Palo Alto team supported us through the deployment process.

Palo Alto definitely needs to be more competitive compared to other products. The problem that I have faced is that the price of licensing is very high and not very competitive. When a customer wants to implement Palo Alto, even a small box, there are several licenses, and having all of them is sometimes really hard to justify. It is difficult for some clients to understand why such a small box costs so much.

For instance, they have the dashboard license, and then they have the user license, and so on. If the pricing were more competitive then it would be good because more customers would use the product, rather than use simpler firewalls.

We have worked with firewalls like Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco ASA. We have dealt with almost all of the vendors but at this point, our experience with Palo Alto has been the best one. Palo Alto has been doing what it claims to do, whereas the other vendors' products have various shortcomings.

For example, some vendors do not have the performance that they claim in terms of throughput. Sometimes, the user interface is complex, or the device needs to restart whenever you make changes. With Palo Alto, it's simple to use and easy to get things done.

We have not yet used Panorama for centralized management but in the future, we may do so for other projects.

My advice for anybody who is looking into purchasing a firewall is to carefully consider what their requirements are. I have seen that when a customer procures a firewall, they initially choose products like Sophos. Over time, they engage in trials with the majority of the vendors and finally end up with Palo Alto. This is only after spending a lot of time and money on other products.

If instead, a client is aware of the requirements including how much traffic there is and what throughput is needed, it's better to invest in Palo Alto than to try all of the cheaper alternatives. Then, evaluate everything afterward and finally select Palo Alto. This, of course, is providing the client doesn't have limitations on the investment that they're going to make.

I say this because generally, in my practice, what I've seen is that when choosing a firewall, the clients first choose a cheaper alternative. Then, after some time they think that it may not be what they wanted. This could be brought about by a throughput issue or maybe some threats were not blocked or they have had some security incidents. After trying these firewalls, they replace them with another, and yet another, until finally, they settle on Palo Alto.

Essentially, my advice is to skip the cheaper vendors and go straight to Palo Alto.

In summary, this is a very good product and my only real complaint is about the cost. If it were more competitive then more customers would choose it, and those people suffering losses as a result of security incidents would be saved. I find the real reason that people don't choose the right product is due to the cost factor. Even when they know that the product is the best choice, because of the limitation that they have on the investment they can make, they're not able to choose it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for firewalling. Lately, we are also using it for remote access or VPN access for the users to the firewall and then onto the local network for people working from home. We've seen a huge jump in work from home. Everybody is working from home, so we need a secure connection to the office.

I am not using its latest version. I normally wait for a couple of months before upgrading the unit to make sure there are no bugs or issues. I check on the forums to see what other people are saying and whether there are any issues. 

There are many features. VPN, firewalling, and intrusion detection are the main features that are most useful for us at this time.

Their support is fairly good, and they come back to me. I've had an issue once or twice where I couldn't understand what the support person was saying because those calls were probably routed to India. They were a bit difficult to understand, but it is generally not an issue.

I have been using this solution for seven years.

It is stable. We've been dealing with it for such a long time. We know exactly how to set it up. Sometimes, clients have got funny ideas, and I just say to them, "You tell me what you need, and I'll do the config and set it up." I've got two clients who have got technical skills. One of them is fairly proficient on Sophos, so he does the work as well, but for most of our other clients, we set it up, and there are no issues. It just works.

It is scalable provided you purchase the correct product. We do a bit of homework. We don't just sell you the first device on the list because that's not always suitable. We do a scope of the client's business. They may be a startup with just five users, but they might have a plan to have 100 or 200 users. We need to just size according to what they anticipate to be. It is no good if we sell them an entry-level device now, and two months later, it is too small. We purchase according to a client's requirements.

We've got clients with four users, and the number can go up to hundreds. I'm currently busy setting one up for 150 users, and obviously, there is much more work involved in doing the remote VPN setups.

I use the local support in South Africa. If they can't help me, then I log a case with their international support. They're fairly good, and they come back to me. 

I've had an issue once or twice where I couldn't understand what the support person was saying because those calls were probably routed to India. They were a bit difficult to understand. They spoke so fast, and I could not hear what they were saying, but it is generally not an issue. It is not a showstopper, and we manage to work. If I don't understand, I say to them, "Can we rather chat by email?", which makes it a lot easier.

There some other firewalls that my company is using, but they're way below in terms of specs and what they can do. Sophos XG is a layer 7 firewall, and most of the others are only layer 2 firewalls. Sophos is far superior. 

I do not have any knowledge about Cisco, Juniper, or other firewalls. I don't really use them. I use some open-source firewalls, but they're also a lot lighter. I've got one or two very small clients or non-profits where we run an open-source firewall, but the feature set is way limited compared to Sophos.

Sophos XG comes in at a fair price as compared to some of the other products out there. Its learning curve wasn't that steep. It makes sense, and it is a sensible product. It is not like some of the other products.

It is simple for me. I've done so many setups. I can probably do these things in my sleep. In fact, I have got one in front of me now that I need to configure and install. I'm fairly proficient in the use of these devices. I'm happy with it.

The deployment duration depends on the setup. Some simple setups can be up and running within two hours. Complex ones most probably will take four to six hours. It also depends on the client's needs. Some of them have simple requirements, and they just want firewalling and one or two remote-access VPNs. Others have got a complex setup where we need to set up cameras and VoIP telephone systems. It all depends on a client's requirements.

It doesn't require any maintenance because the definitions are auto-updated. I've got a dashboard where I can manage all of the firewall devices from one dashboard. If I want to upgrade the software on 20 of them, I'll log onto the dashboard and upgrade the software just by selecting it and saying upgrade the software, and it is done. It requires very minimal handling on a day-to-day basis. Antivirus definitions, scanning definitions, and all those things are auto-updated anyway.

It comes at a fair price as compared to some of the other products out there. Its price is in the middle. It is not the cheapest, and it is also not as expensive as Juniper, Check Point, and definitely Cisco. Nowadays, everybody is very cost-sensitive, and people don't want to spend unnecessary money, but even before that, it was a fairly priced product.

You've got your choice of what license you want. There are basically two types of licenses, and it depends on what you need to do, and everything is included in that license. There is no cost for VPN and DMZ. You purchase the license, and you know upfront what you're getting or what you're not getting, and that's it. It is one license fee and done and dusted.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. I recommend it to all my clients. I'm using it at home as well, and it works great. I'm fairly proficient in it, so I'm very confident. I can recommend it to anybody and everybody. It is a great product, and I've got no issue with it.

I would rate Sophos XG a ten out of ten. It is a rock-solid product that works. We've so many deployments of this solution. I'm just happy with it. 

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.

It does a lot for you for intrusion protection and as an antivirus. The threat management bundle is worth the money. You don't need another company to monitor your web traffic for you. You can do everything yourself on the firewall. You restrict your own black list for people on the firewall. You don't need to pay some other company for another product to do that for you. The firewall can do that for you. So, it's an easy-to-use product for people to be independent. They don't need to rely on other vendors to do what the firewall can do. They can do everything.

The GUI is good. I'm really happy with the ease of use of the firewall. Fortinet's support is also great.  

I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself.

I've had different models of Fortinet since 2009. They all are physical appliances. I had 300As, and now I'm on 300Ds. I've got a remote site with a different model, which probably is 60F. They are great little firewalls, and for bigger size places, they have 300 models.

I don't have virtual appliances. I don't have a virtual infrastructure. I have an older virtual environment with Hyper-V, and the servers are not up-to-date. It was a money thing. So, it was better to go with the appliance itself.

I'm happy with what they got. It is a great product. Sometimes, you're going to get a lemon—the way it initially happened with FortiAuthenticator 300F—but that doesn't happen very often.

If there is a problem, the next business day, they send it and get the replacement, and they help me configure it.

In terms of its users, everybody uses the firewall because they're going out. That's our egress point. So, there are about 20 users for that. We have a dozen IPsec tunnels with which we connect to different companies. So, security is a big part of it. I also have a remote location with about 10 users who use a different firewall.

We probably won't be increasing its usage. Now that I got Authenticator, it nicely compliments the Fortinet firewall. The size of the company isn't going to grow any more than what it is. So, we're good.

Their support is great, but it also depends on who you get for support. From the support perspective, they can help you do it yourself, which is always more beneficial to both parties. They can stop being so time-sensitive about the call duration and let a user help himself a little bit more.

It takes time to study this stuff, and I don't always have time to do it. So, I'm looking for a quick answer because I get interrupted all the time during work. I don't always have the time to study something and figure it out. So, I have to call them, but I don't always get somebody who really knows what they are doing. They don't know deep enough to help you. They're troubleshooting with you, and that's the difference between Level 1 and Level 2 support.

When I first got here in this job in 2007, they had Cisco ASA Firewall, but it was too cryptic. You had to enter all these CLI commands for a configuration. It also didn't do everything that Fortinet could do. It was very limited, and it wasn't easy to use. I know what I want to do, and I don't have to learn a special language in order to do it. I just want to be able to use some basic programming code that they have put into the firewall and use the GUI interface with it to actually visualize what I am looking at. Some of the Cisco products are not visual enough. That was one of the reasons I stayed away from it. Cisco is also very high-priced. They price themselves out of business a lot of times for equipment, but Fortinet is just great.

I've also used SonicWall before. It was okay, but it is better for bigger places. I was looking for a midrange-size firewall for a couple of hundred users, and I felt Fortinet was the right fit.

Its deployment and maintenance are easy. 

I pretty much used the support from Fortinet to do it. They're good about their support. I did it myself by being a nuisance to Fortinet. I kept calling them to ask questions. They had to remote on to it and see you do something you don't know how to do.

It was probably about $2,500 per firewall. It was all included. It included support, services, threat management software, and 24/7 FortiCare on it. Cisco products are more expensive.

Fortinet has got great firewalls. They do everything. They do FortiTokens for two-factor. They do the IPsec VPNs, SSL VPNs. They have a great GUI for you to know, but you still got to know the CLI commands. 

I would rate it a 10 out of 10. It does its job, and it is easy to use. The support is great.