Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks Reviews

We used it for malware detection and to detect weird DNS calls. Overall, it was for endpoint protection.

Many people here are surfing the web on Russian sites, Korean sites, Chinese sites, etc., and by definition, they download things that are not very nice. Whenever there was something fishy, most of the anti-virus solutions just wouldn't see it. We needed endpoint protection that would detect as soon as some code started doing funny things. Traps was very good at that.

The most valuable features are the fact that it was running in the background and it would intercept any weird stuff, and the fact that it would send things directly to the cloud for sandboxing. It's quite practical.

There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, was not user-friendly.

The stability was quite good. We never had any issue with it at all.

We had no issue with scalability. We deployed to 220 machines in one go with no problem. We had 130 users. Some people were using many machines. The users were mostly analysts. Ten to 20 of the users were IT people and the rest were doing analysis work on satellites. It was being used extensively, 100 percent in our case. Even the serves had it running. Everybody had Traps installed.

The technical support from the consultant was very good. I don't remember having to talk to Palo Alto directly. I had an issue, but I talked to the consultant and then he escalated it.

Before Traps we had no endpoint protection.

The setup was not very intuitive to start with, but after you've done it once, it's really straightforward.

The first time I set it up, for one machine, it took about 15 minutes until I understood what was going on, starting from the ESM and using the deployment tool. But as soon as you've done it once, and you understand the ergonomics behind it, it goes fast.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we started with a limited number of machines and the machines of people from IT, who we knew would surf to weird places. Then we deployed a small sample to the people who go to China and Russia and places like that. After a while, while, we decided to go all the way and we used the ESM to deploy it on every machine.

The process from the planning phase until it was fully implemented took about three or four months.

For the first installation we had a consultant, a Palo Alto dealer, consultant, and solution provider here in Madrid - Open3S. They're very good. Our experience with them was very positive. They're really competent. They really know what they're talking about. We were very happy with them.

The deployment required one or two people. Some days two people came, but normally, with one guy, it was okay.

It was more like insurance. You hope you're never going to use it, but you have it. It gave us some confidence in what people were doing because we know people were going to weird places on the web. With Traps, we were quite confident that if something wrong happened it would be detected and intercepted and deleted before it was spread around.

When we first bought it, it was a bit expensive, but it was worth it. The licensing was straightforward.

We didn't evaluate any other options because we had Palo Alto as firewalls and we were quite satisfied with Palo Alto. So the consultant took the initiative to do a demo and we liked it. Due to the type of business we are in, it's very useful.

Make sure you have a proper inventory of all the applications running. That's something we should have done to start with. We intended to do so but because we're using very strange applications to deal with satellite imagery, and it was giving us some issues. For somebody who's using the standard Microsoft Office, it's really straightforward. But if you have exotic applications, then make sure you test it before you deploy it. You will have issues.

To maintain it, the only thing you have to do is download the latest updates and install them. After that, the only maintenance you need is checking the logs every day to see what has been sent to the cloud for sandboxing and then move to the culprit machine to see what happened. It's difficult to say how many people are required for this. As soon as you get something exotic on the machine, this can take an hour, but that's not related to Traps. Traps is just telling you there's something exotic. After that, it's the time you spend doing all the malware and other analyses. As far as Traps is concerned as such, it doesn't require much maintenance. It's something you set and forget.

I would give Traps a nine out of ten. I think it's a very good application. It detected stuff that other things wouldn't detect. I'm very positive about it and was extremely satisfied with it. We had it for the reason I noted earlier. It has been replaced by something else, but I had a very good experience with it. Had we been in a Microsoft Office business - the normal applications - we never would have moved. But the people in charge of the system went to Microsoft Defender.

The primary use case is endpoint security. The product is my main endpoint, IP, and threat management.

In organizations where they don't implement a NAC, this product helps stop threats at the endpoint level. Everything goes through the endpoint. By the time you get something to a server, you are compromised at your perimeter, and you might be compromised at your ID or main control. With a third-party, you need a NAC, so you can put on something like McAfee or you need authorization so the organization can scan your computer, then you can connect to the network.

We can't do that for a daily operation. We can't just have personnel waiting for someone to connect, and say, "We need to scan your computer before you go into our network." We don't have time for that." So, you need to implement a NAC. However, if you don't implement a NAC from day one of your business, it is very complicated to do it after many years because the NAC is not like a security software. You have to go server by server and do an assessment. Meanwhile, you need to protect your organization. So, you can use tools like Traps to manage your security, even stopping the threat at the last contact. 

For organizations which do not have a NAC implemented, there has to be some type of endpoint security, and it needs to be tough, like Traps. With Traps, you can search events, manage them quickly, and locate any half exceptions. Trap's traffic is encrypted. 

We like the features where you can quickly locate exceptions and can configure process exceptions. You are building your own defense. Therefore, you are not only relying on Palo Alto, but you are applying day-to-day operations of configured language that a tool can understand.

If the user leaves our premises or network, Palo Alto Traps will still be on that endpoint and will still apply our policies. For example, if you take that endpoint out of our network, go to a Starbucks with a company laptop, then connect to our our virtualized gateway. That local endpoint will still have our network policies.

I'm so used to IPS IDS endpoint security that I don't see anything else that catches my attention other than it's working fine. It's a very good tool. It's the best one that we have.

It has Android support.

There are some limitations on the Traps agents. Traps for Windows has limitations and Traps for Linux too. Traps doesn't work with McAfee. You need to remove McAfee to install Traps. This is very common, and its nothing that should be an issue. Some antivirus engines recognize Traps as an threat component, so maybe they need to shake hands somewhere.

With Windows 7 and Windows 8 64-bit, when you want to install Traps, because its Windows, it will crash. They need a little more flexibility with antivirus engines.

It is very stable.

You can grow as much as you want.

We have four users: a cybersecurity analyst, two infrastructure security personnel, and a security administrator.

The technical support is very good.

We were previously using Malwarebytes and McAfee. We are still using them along with Traps.

The initial setup was straightforward, after we had to remove McAfee first.

The deployment took a couple of weeks. We centralized all our perimeter firewalls first, then we started deploying the agent.

We needed two personnel for deployment and maintenance: an infrastructure security person and a security administrator.

Our third-party installer was very efficient.

Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance. Security teams will spend less time and effort managing and mitigating breaches. They will be able to avoid having to activate their organization’s incident response team.

It is "expensive" and flexible.

We evaluated the following other large endpoint security companies: Kaspersky Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection, and McAfee Endpoint Security.

If you have Malwarebytes and you want to control a malware that you have on your computer, Malwarebytes will quarantine that malware. However, it depends how infected you got.

Test normal behavior of the Traps agents (injection and policy) and confirm that there has been no change in the user experience.

We use it for primary endpoint protection.

Its multi-layer approach helps my organization with anti-malware, exploit protection, and restrictions. A good analogy would be like peeling back an onion, getting through those layers. It gives you the confidence that it will stop exploits, ransomware, worms, or viruses from compromising endpoints, essentially providing peace of mind.

The multi-layered approach to the product is its best feature. Each layer has a different method of protecting its endpoint. 

With cloud integration, there were several improvements made:

• Previously, the endpoint would leave the environment, not being on our VPN, essentially unable to interact with the server to upload files. It was unable to retrieve new file verdicts. It was using a thing called "local analysis" to determine if something was a malicious file or not. There was no dynamic analysis. With the cloud implementation, we now have connectivity to the server at any moment, as long as we have an internet connection.
• A new user interface, which is a lot easier to use. Making it similar to managing a firewall.
• Additional OS support.

Stability has improved over the years, as there were noticeable bugs in earlier releases, such as 3.x. With the later releases, versions 4.1 through 5, they have polished the product. It has gotten much better.

When major releases come out with new features, it is a fairly simple process to upgrade these releases.

It is 100 percent utilized with every feature turned on. We leverage their product to the fullest extent.

Scalability is great with servers and workstations. At a moment's notice, you can add hundreds of endpoints. With Traps 5 being on the cloud, there is no scalability risk. You're not going to overload it, as it is a cloud portal. It is their problem, not yours. If you have any issues, call support. I'm confident I can push the client out to 1000 machines, and it will still check in.

We have over 2500 people in our organization using Traps (the entire organization).

The technical support has gotten better over the years. When they first started Traps, the support was overseas, and there was a language barrier being from the United States. Over the years, they have distributed that support throughout their company. Now, we will call and get someone in the United States, so there is no language barrier, which is an improvement. 

I feel like the support group has definitely improved over the years. If I call now, I'm positive I'm going to get someone who knows the product very well and is going to help me to resolve whatever issue I'm seeing. We have had weird issues, and they actually have done forensic analysis of what was going on. They have adjustments to future dynamic updates because of these issues. Thus, we have had an impact on the product by bringing them an issue, then having them correct it.

We previously used McAfee vs Palo Alto. McAfee is a traditional antivirus. It provided little to no value. We didn't see it stop anything. It wasn't blocking anything. The management was difficult to use because of the virus definitions, where you had to sync every endpoint each day with these updates.

I set up Traps 5 without even looking at the administrative guide. I set it up using logic. Looking at it, reading it, testing it and pushing it out. I set it up in an afternoon with a colleague of mine.

It is easy to implement. It also has dynamic updates, making it smarter. Therefore, there is not much work to be done once you get it configured and pushed out. You can manage it with a small crew of people. Because of its ease of use, businesses might require a full-time employee to manage it. 

It's just one of the tools in the toolbox, and it save us time.

They made it very easy to set up, because you just log into the portal and activate it. They have an automated process to spin up your environment in the cloud. It all happens behind the scenes. 

From a user perspective, it is a click of a button. You just put in the key that was paid for and click a button, then it runs through the setup. Then, they essentially give you a button on your portal, you click it, and it brings you to your management console. Everything is already set up. They manage the upgrades, which is another bonus when being in the cloud, because when it was on-premise, you have to care and feed the server, patch it, upgrade it, and manage the database.

It takes 10 minutes for everything to initialize, since it is a brand new environment. You get to pick your URL, and Palo Alto manages the certificates. When your endpoints connect to the URL, it's just a trusted signed public certificate authority. As long as your endpoints are patched and up-to-date, they trust that certificate. 

Palo Alto is making it easier to implement and manage. They're making it easier to upgrade. The dynamic updates came within the last year or two. Previously, you have to upgrade the actual endpoint software to get more features. 

With dynamic updates, it's an automatic process. It makes the software logic smarter. 

When I first set up Traps four years ago, it took a lot longer because I had to set up a server with the operating system. That takes time. I had to install the software and configure it. I had to have a database, which took time and involved other people. There was a client to deploy to endpoints. Then, there was a certificate to set up for the portal to have our endpoints to communicate with the portal over our SSL. There were a lot of steps.

We did our implementation in-house. We required three to four people for the initial deployment: database administrator, network engineer, server administrator, and security analyst. Afterwards, it takes two people to maintain the solution, but it could be done with one person. We use two people for quality control.

For implementation strategy, if it was a new push or a build, set up your cloud portal, then do a test group, such as a pilot. Set up your policies how you would want them. From there, with your test group, you want to see if any alerts come in and what your endpoints are doing. Then, depending on your company, do a site-by-site implementation. It is integrated with Active Directory, so you can also do group implementation.

We have peace of mind knowing that ransomware isn't spreading through our environment.

The product checks a lot of boxes for compliance efforts. The value is there, because these days no one can afford to experience a breach or have a compromised endpoint. Since these would have to be reported, depending on your industry, it would look bad for the company.

We didn't have to pay any additional fee for the cloud instance. It just came with the renewal, which was nice.

If ransomware were to spread throughout your company, you would not want your file shares to be encrypted nor your servers to be affected. My advice would be get Traps on your servers and on your workstations. Go with version 5 and the cloud instance, then turn on all the features that you can. Some of them come by default disabled out-of-the-box, but you want to turn on all of the features, such as local analysis, file quarantine, WildFire, malicious and grayware blocking and quarantine, restrictions (don't allow executables to run from USB drives, unless it's whitelisted). Turn on all the exploit protections with dynamic updates, and just let it just update. Since we all know the next version of Flash Player is going to have a vulnerability which no one knows about until it's discovered. Then, at that point, it could have already been out there for a while.

With Traps, it could potentially determine the exploit before it's even a known vulnerability. Turn on every single feature you can without taking an impact to performance. Once it's fine-tuned and doing its thing, I have never witnessed Traps not working properly.

They have put in improvements over the years. We have been using the product for over four years now (since I've been with the company). They have added support for additional operating systems, such as Android, macOS, and Linux. They used to be Windows only. They put improvements where they no longer require you to have an on-premise server, so you can host it on the cloud. Thus, when endpoints leave the environment, they can connect to a cloud host and have full connectivity to your policies.

When Traps does sandbox tests, it checks the verdict against their sandbox: WildFire. Having it in the cloud is great, because then the machine doesn't have to be on a VPN or within the company walls with connectivity to an on-premise server. Therefore, having the cloud implementation was definitely an improvement.

When Palo Alto acquires a technology, they implement it into Traps and make the product better. They have done this in the past, and there are cool things coming in the future from these acquisitions.

Our primary use case is anti-malware and anti-exploit.

Traditional anti-virus is signature-based, whereas Traps is behavior-based. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily whitelist things, it looks for anything with bad behavior. Thus, we've had a significant increase in blocking with a decrease in false positives, because it's looking at how the files work, not just a list of files that it's been told to look for.

The anti-exploit is impenetrable. We chose Traps because it is the only product that we were not able to get anything past.

Going from version 4 to version 5, they had a major change in their user interface. Version 5 is now all cloud managed, while it has a very intuitive, useful interface, it doesn't have all the features that were in the version 4 interface. For example, we lost being able to automatically trigger upgrades, like creating manual groups to upgrade with. It doesn't currently have the ability to use the Active Directory to create groups. 

It's fairly stable. They do have bugs which come up every once in a while, but they're usually good about getting them taken care of within a release.

It is definitely scalable.

Primarily, it is just being used by myself. The help desk also uses it. There are probably a total of around ten users.

We've deployed it to about 1500 endpoints so far. There is a possibility that we may expand our usage, but not in the foreseeable future. We are at pretty much at 100 percent deployment at this point.

I would describe Palo Alto's technical support as audio waterboarding. They have the worst support, as a company, that I have ever worked with, as they are difficult to get a hold of and keep on the phone. They don't know what they are talking about when you get them on the phone. They don't like to respond to messages when you send them to them. They like to "research problems" for weeks on end, then pass you off to somebody else.

We were previously using Sophos for antivirus, and are still using Sophos for antivirus, but we're using Traps to augment it.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward on version 4, but on version 5, it is almost idiot-proof.

The initial deployment of getting the servers and everything up took about a week, but getting everything deployed was somewhere closer to six weeks.

We implemented it in-house. We incrementally did some systems to make sure that it wouldn't block anything that it shouldn't. After that, we used Active Directory to push it to everything else.

Very little staff is required for deployment and maintenance, as Traps is self-maintaining.

I feel that we have seen ROI. There have been a number of blocked, bad files that could have gotten through, but were stopped by Traps.

The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic. So, if you have 1100 computers today, you can license that. Therefore, as long as you're below your licensing cap, you're fine.

We looked at Palo Alto vs Sophos, which has a anti-malware system called Intercept X, but it did quite literally nothing. We thought about Symantec, but we didn't end up testing them against Traps.

The implementation is fairly straightforward and easy. With version 5, everything is now on the cloud. It is easy to work with and use. I would use mobile device management (MDM) or Active Directory (AD) to push the file everywhere when installing it, as it will auto go from there. The management is pretty low. Thus, it will be set it, and for the most part, you can forget it.

The level of security I get for my endpoints and servers is extremely valuable.

No signature updates of the AV needed, so no old signatures. No patching, very little operational effort needed.

Performance at the endpoint is much better than with the old AV.

No signature updates needed.

Stops the attack before it is executed.

Two years.

No.

No.

No.

Perfect.

Real experts.

Yes. We switched because the footprint was heavy, the protection rate decreases and the operational costs (incidence response) were high.

Yes, it took one hour to install the back end and the rollout was done by software deployment. Project lasted four weeks .

In-house.

Ask your local dealer.

Yes.

If you are already a Palo Alto Networks Firewall customer you can have perfect Integration between your clients/servers and your firewalls. Automated response without supporting and APIs.

We use the product to monitor and control all the systems. It helps us understand user behavior.

The product gives full visibility and control of the endpoints in the environment. The users and the employees can protect their systems by investigating files for incidents.

The platform's most valuable feature is being a cloud-based solution. We can visualize and control the activities in the environment from anywhere.

The product's pricing needs improvement. They could provide more discounts. Additionally, the dashboard and control panel could be enhanced.

We have been using Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks for two months.

The platform is stable. As far as you have the internet, the product is secure.

The platform is scalable.

They have a good technical support team.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to maintain as well.

I implemented the product myself.

I recommend Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and rate it an eight out of ten. It is a good solution for the commercial sector as they can work on the cloud. I advise others to refer to user guides for understanding the processes easily.

The solution is like a next-level EDR. It can collect information from other solutions to have a global view of the risks and vulnerabilities.

The product has an intuitive dashboard. The first time a client interacts with the solution, they do not face any problems. It is easy for the client to navigate through the tool.

It is a complex solution to implement.

My organization sells the solution.

I did not have any problem with support.

Positive

I believe the implementation is not very easy, but it is not very complex either.

The price of the product is not very economical. It is suitable for clients that have a lot of money to invest.

Customers often ask for proof of concept. People wanting to use the solution should analyze the different tools that can be integrated with the product. At first, clients only consider it an EDR, but later, they might realize that the tool does not have all the capabilities they need. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The tool's use cases are relevant to security. 

The tool needs to be improved in terms of integration and interface. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

I would rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

The product's technical support is good. 

Positive

The tool's setup is easy. The solution's deployment took five days to complete. 

The solution is expensive. It's pricing is on a yearly-basis. 

I would rate the tool a seven out of ten.