The price could be a little lower. 

The solution should force customers to integrate with network traffic to see the full benefits of XDR. If you are not integrating it or feeding in your network traffic, then you are just buying a normal antivirus which doesn't make any sense. You are paying double the price to use the antivirus feature or to say you have XDR, but in reality you are not using it. 

The solution should include an on-premises option because some customers want only on-premises. It would be hard, but good to do if possible. 

Open XDR would be beneficial in the future. Right now, the solution is Closed XDR so cannot communicate with the few new vendors in the Open XDR market. 

There are some default policies which sometimes affect our applications and cause them to run around. In the hotel industry, we use a different type of data versus Oracle and SQL. By default, there are some policies which stop us from running properly. Because of this, the support level is also not that strong. We have to wait to get a results. 

Originally, we wanted to uninstall Traps because we could not run our operations because Traps, by default, had blocked applications and files. This is still a thing, as we still have to give flexibility to certain policies which are pre-defined in the Traps application.

The server sometimes stops continuously to check things so it would be helpful to receive access updates or technical reasons. 

I have run into some detection issues with Cortex XDR. 

If they had pulse rate detection, it would be better.

The whole state IPS should be better. 

It needs to be better at detection of internal attacks. 

The onboarding process could be better. 

It tends to do 99.9% of things. The only thing I'd like is single sign-on authentication into their cloud platform so that my users can be properly authenticated against it.

We have implemented a product that blocks USB usage and also provides device control for our company. 

Currently, we are monitoring all USB drives and ports but we would like to improve our device control capabilities. 

Although we are using this feature, we allow specific systems and USB devices. For example, we enable certain users to use external hard drives but we may disable them if necessary. However, due to the nature of our organization, we do not have a dedicated department for this task.

The licensing model is complex to understand. It requires expertise to explain how the licensing works. You need expertise to guide you through the subscription plan.

Everything is fine. However, if there are any security suggestions, they should be addressed promptly. For instance, configuring the tool and setting up email configurations are essential. Additionally, web filtering is crucial; if there are any high-risk URLs or logs, they should be filtered. Palo Alto Networks already has a robust database for this purpose, which they utilize in their perimeter-level devices by leveraging this database and integrating it into Cortex XDR, enhancing the security posture. Automatic security suggestions are also provided for individual devices, further enhancing security. Adding URLs and addressing the mentioned points are essential steps. They're aggregating all the logs from various devices.

It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive.

We had a problem with getting our older endpoints up to date, but their newest updates have been really good. I've been pleased with it in terms of what our needs are. It's doing what we want it to do.

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.

Cortex XDR is not that smart compared to Check Point. We also deal with Check Point. Check Point solutions, Check Point Firewall, Check Point solution WAF technology, or anti-virus technology can be considered smart because of Palo Alto. The detection of malicious activities performed by Check Point is good. Artificial intelligence is not a good match for Check Point because sometimes Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR does not detect malicious activity like in other anti-virus solutions like Trend Micro and Windows with Cisco.

I also want a better detection feature like the one in Check Point and any other anti-virus, for a matter of fact.

They need to do definition updates. Instead of the version, they just put an update on the portal, and each time we need to upgrade it. Sometimes it's hard to upgrade the offsite clients. Sometimes the internet that they are using is not that stable. It gives us a hard time. Every 30 or 40 days, there's a new version and we need to go and make sure our customer's laptops are upgraded. 

It would be ideal if the updates would happen like Symantec updates or other antivirus solutions. The upgrade needs to deploy directly to the users.

There are still a few gaps with this solution. For example, real-time, on-demand antivirus is not there. If you're looking for compliance XDR is somewhat lacking. There is also no recovery feature; if some endpoint is under attack there must be the possibility of recovering it or restoring it to a normal state. That is currently lacking in XDR. 

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by offering remote management. It would be useful to look at the client's issue to fix it.

It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue. So, making exceptions would be easier and would probably be better for logging.

It would be nice if it were easier to use and if there were some free training hours.

As for additional features, I would suggest having mobile access to the console, perhaps through a mobile app for the console.

The solution should enhance the ADR and reporting. As of right now, they are giving reports, which are okay, however, there are other ways to get better reporting. That is an area where I already requested that Palo Alto work on.

In reporting they should have a customizable dashboard due to the fact that C-level people don't like reporting to the IT department. They prefer to have a real-time dashboard. That kind of dashboard needs to have various customizations. 

They should extend the solution for URL filtering, as other endpoint security products are doing that already. Nowadays, users are working from home and therefore we have plenty of traffic back through the data center just for URL filtering security. If that functionality could be there in the endpoint, then we would be happy. It would ensure users working from home couldn't access malicious websites. 

This solution is not complete enough to help us. We use a different platform that provides us with more information.

In my opinion, it is not a very complete program. I prefer to work with Carbon Black. It's a better solution as well as Cynet. For example, I use Cynet when I check installations, which provides me with more information. It is not easy to use for beginners, but it provides me with more information, which is lacking in Cortex. When it comes to core analysis, and security analysis, Cortex needs to provide more information. Cynet is a complete platform in my opinion.

We are ready to use a new solution called Deep Instinct. It's a new concept of the security platform. It's a very new company from the USA.

I would like to see a feature that allows you to check the endpoints included. I am currently having trouble checking the endpoints when using Cortex. Including this feature would benefit the platform's endpoints.

The downside to the solution is that there are a large number of false positives. There are a whole lot of different things for business automated actions, and it's hard to sort through all that. Without some assistance and suppression of false positives from Palo Alto or some event triaging that you might have enabled on your SIEM, you'll continue to get the high number of false positives. It's related more to the lack of capability to easily identify and suppress false positives before they're presented to you. There needs to be a function for suppressing false positives for types of machines and not necessarily for the actual groups.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks could improve by adding a sandbox feature to better compete with their competitors which have it.

We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky.

The tool should have the ability to test an environment to see what percentage it is secure against threats, such as ransomware. This would allow for adjustments to be made to the network for more security. We don't have the capability to test the networks daily there should be a parameter in order to report on the healthy of the network for security vulnerabilities.

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks can improve mobile integration to allow access to the console.

They've been having some issues with updating their endpoint agents, and it has been quite frustrating.

Although I would say this product is highly-rated, it could probably do more because nothing does everything that you want.

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. 

Cortex XDR should have a lightweight agent, and the agent size should not be heavy. Cortex XDR’s technical support should also be improved.

Cortex XDR should provide a feature to remove or uninstall an agent directly from the console itself without the help of an IT engineer. No one wants to do a manual installation of the agent. Everyone is looking for a solution to remove the agent from the console directly.

Its price is too high. That's a big problem for customers.

It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system.

In terms of additional features, there is very strong development. I have seen the roadmap, and we will see what happens. The roadmap looks nice, but it's still more of a network security solution than a content-security solution. The development in network security is quite strong. I'm very happy with that, but if a customer would like to implement a zero-trust security concept, it's necessary to combine this solution with other vendors. There is some part of the integration that is not so easy because you have to integrate rules and some features. It's not so automatic in network communication. You have to make some appropriate automation there, or you have to do it manually. It's time-consuming and it's also expensive.

Cortex XDR could be improved with more GUI features.

There are some third-party solutions that are difficult to integrate with, which is something that can be improved.

An area for improvement is the remote connection for administrators - this is available in the current version but is limited as it's a command-based model rather than GUI-based.

The product's pricing could be better.

It would be better if they could educate the customers more. Some sort of seminars and roadshows will help educate the customers and show what the product can do. The price could be better. It would also help if they had a team for deployment and support.

1. Disk Encryption capability.

2. User group-wise admin role. They have module-wise roles but a user group-wise role is not available.

I don't like that they have different types of licenses. For example, if users select a license, they think they will have all the platforms they need to improve their network or security. But after some time, Palo Alto Networks changed their licensing, and some of the features that, for example, were free at the beginning now have a cost. I think the integration can be improved. For example, a lot of tools are just integrated through APIs.

In general, the price could be more competitive.

As an improvement, I would like to see enhanced connection speeds. On China's side, we need to set up a local server for the definition updates, and the performance has not been very good for the company when directly connected to the internet. We are a little disappointed with that.  

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.

The GUI could be improved. It's a little bit cumbersome. It could be more user-friendly.

In terms of areas of improvement, we have not completed our review of the product. We're also looking at other products. So, it's a little bit hard to tell what could be different because we have not completed the review of this product, but based on our experience so far, its implementation is quite complex.

In terms of new features, we don't have any functions or features that we would like to add at the moment. 

The one area which should improve is not on the user side but on the product itself. Currently, if you use Palo Alto endpoint protection as the only solution it's very complicated to remove pre-existing threats. For example, if you had something that was not detected by the former solution, and you install Palo Alto, you will have some difficulty removing the virus with the Palo Alto tool. It would be helpful if they had a tool for removing a virus or threat in these cases.

What would be interesting, is if it could also read IoT protocols. If they can improve on the IoT part that would be great. In general, in this area, they can still improve.

It's not an ideal choice for smaller businesses, as you need a minimum of 200 endpoints to even use the solution at all. 

It is not easy to sell Cortex XDR, not because it isn't a good tool. Its marketing needs to be improved.

The MAC agent is not as robust feature-wise as the PC version. I need to control USB ports on MAC laptops and cannot. This is a MUST so I opened a case with Palo Alto and requested this feature for an upcoming update.

I would like to see more automation and self-healing for incidents that can be easily classified as malware.

A little bit more automation would be nice.

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

It is a complex solution to implement.

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

This product could be simpler to use. For example, the onboarding process and getting it started could be improved.

The technical support is in need of improvement.

The product's impact on system performance is horrible, adding a lot of delays for users. 

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 installation should be easier and the Palo Alto pre-sales and sales should teams have more information on the product because they don't know what they are selling.

They don't know the features of the products they sell.

For example, Cortex XDR includes Cortex XDR Prevent, Cortex XDR Pro, and Cortex XDR Pro per TB. They don't know the real differences between Cortex XDR Pro and Cortex XDR Pro per TB.

Sometimes, they will tell you about features for one edition that belong to another edition. They don't seem to know what features belong to what edition.

Managing the product should be easier.

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

No signature updates needed.

Stops the attack before it is executed.

The playbooks could be improved to include more functionalities or actions. 

There are many areas that could use improvement. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that times change, and we need to be adaptable to what happens. Ultimately, we want to see positive results and improvements.

In the next release, I would add dashboards that allow everyone to see what's happening, not just the security team. Users can view the data and see what's happening. Also, I think the Data Lake from Cortex XDR should be public, not private.

For working with the solution, you only really need a web browser, however, we've found that working on Chrome, for example, is horrible.

Cortex does not offer an on-premises solution. However, some customers would prefer not to be on the cloud. It would be ideal if it could offer something on-prem as well.

It's my understanding that this solution is at end-of-life.

It's hard to use as a product. It's not easy or straightforward. Especially when I deal with a government sector or other sensitive industries. They do not accept that it's so easy to share metadata outside their organization. They prefer on-prem even if it is not as powerful due to the fact that they perceive it as being more secure.

The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements.

The deployment is pretty hard. Competitors like Trend Micro or Symantec have features on their console that make them easier to use. This solution does not offer items that would increase its usability.

Before I moved to technical sales, I handled implementation, and I remember it being very difficult. They need to improve this aspect.

The solution provides a lot of false positives. The average amount of false positives you get is 5%. It would be great if this could be lowered.

The solution eats memory of the computer, unlike anything I've ever seen. It eats more memory than Chrome. 

I have a lot of users that are eating my memory each hour every day and it's causing us problems. We have to go and buy more memory for each computer. When you have a lot of computers like we do, is not a very good situation.

Some of the computers are only using 4 GB of memory, so if you put aside the differences, most only have some Chrome, some internet, and Office and that's it. And yet, the memory is getting eaten.

If someone catches something like malware, or something else, I want to know if the file was spread to other machines and what the target was. I want to be able to get ahead of the spread. This solution doesn't do enough to protect us against these types of vulnerabilities or to give us much information about the spread. The tool really does need some more reverse engineering features.

There's an overall lack of features.

The initial setup could use improvement. Currently, I must go to each machine and deploy everything manually. We are in 2020, not in 1980. It seems like such a dated way of doing large deployments.

The application whitelisting/blacklisting feature is based purely on path and filenames. Changing a filename can bypass it easily. The uninstall admin password for the client is passed in clear text during install. 

There is a severe gap in functionality between Windows, Linux, and Mac versions. For example all folder restriction settings are Windows only. Traps 5.0+ does not have SAML / LDAP integration. This is ridiculous for an enterprise product. 

Traps 5.0 does not integrate with Palo Alto's Panorama product, which was a big selling point of Traps 4.0. Traps 5.0 has no ability to send an email to alert of detections. Instead customers have to jump through hoops to use Palo Alto's log management service to forward logs into a 3rd party SIEM and then build your alerts from there. No EDR functionality, though this is supposedly coming.

I would like the Panorama module included. It's another solution that is provided by Palo Alto and we are interested in that.

I would like to see some additional features related to email protection included.

In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution.

I would like to see some sort of attachment scanning included.

Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access.

I want a plugin for email attachment scanning and email body scanning.

I'd like the solution to provide URL filtering and web-based prevention. We'd like to block web pages at a high level.

We would also like to have advanced tech protection and email scanning.

The solution should offer more dashboards and they should be better customized. The case number of items should be addressed. 

I have found the interface of Azure to be more simple and customizable than that of the solution. 

The dashboard is the area that needs to improve so that we can have the ability to drill down without having to go elsewhere to verify results.

I started using it from 4.1, but it didn't change that much. Some features and some fixes have been added to 4.2, but not that much. They need to improve reporting, the end-point reporting. They could also enhance their notification statuses. In the current version, you will see some threat alerts, or if anything is executable, but you will not see behavioral analysis. You will see what was being blocked, and that's it. If Traps logs something, you will get a notification. Otherwise, you have to generate the dump file and investigate on your own.

In the next release, I would like to see more UI improvements. Their UI is a bit basic. When we are speaking about Palo Alto Networks they are a big company, so they can surely improve the UI a little bit. The UI, the reports, the log system can all be improved. But overall, when we speak about security and protection, they are one of the top providers.

Technology evolves every day, so it would be nice if it gets more secure. It can also have more integration with other platforms.

It'll help if customization was easier. It would be better than how it's now if it came out of the box using their stock set up to get it up-and-running. Then you go in, and you add more restrictive things to make it better.

It should support more mobile operating systems. That is one of the cons of their infrastructure right now.

In terms of what could be improved in Cortex XDR, definitely the host insights module. The ability to kind of take a look at what applications are running on the endpoint is a new feature, but there is a lot of room for improvement there in terms of versioning and so forth.

Additionally, the dashboard could use some significant improvement, just making it more useful with more information. It has a limited amount of information right now. It is customizable, but I'd love to see a better out-of-box dashboard.

The solution could improve by providing better integration with their own products and others.

It would be good to have a better way to search for a file within the UI. Like in SentinelOne, you can search for an arbitrary file, and in Cortex XDR, you can't. You can do it with an addendum license, but I think we could all benefit from getting it with the standard license. Because if you want to do threat hunting with this product, you have to search for files now and not wait to get a license.

I would like to see them include NDR (Network Detection Response). Then it would work well with SIEM Response. Also, if they could make an on-premises version we would definitely go with Cortes. At this time, they are not offering an on-premises solution.

It is not a suitable solution if you are looking for a single product with multiple features such as DLP, encryption, rollback, etc.
this is good as an endpoint protection to prevent malware, exploits, zero days, ransomware, botnet etc. For features like Host DLP or encryption or patch management, or any such features which are available in basic anti-virus, you cannot expect it in Palo Alto Network's Cortex XDR solution. rest, all features work as expected, without any lagg or slowness observed in the system.

There are a lot of logs generated and an engineer has to go through all of the events to find out exactly what the bottleneck is. We do need to collect the events but this can be time-consuming. Being able to filter the events to see those that are related to the actual alert would save time spent by the engineer.

A better pricing plan would make this product more competitive.

It is not very strong in terms of endpoint management. It should have additional features like DLP, encryption, or advanced device control. Currently, Cortex is good in terms of the security of the endpoints, but it is not as good as other vendors in terms of the management of the endpoint.

The dashboard could be more user-friendly.

The configuration could be simplified.

I would like to see better protection, specifically to protect email applications.

The solution needs better reports. I think they should let the customer go in and customize the reports. 

It could also use better graphics and more information.