Palo Alto Networks K2-Series Reviews

We primarily use the solution for protection, especially web protection.

It's great at protecting very important aspects of our company, particularly our servers.

We enjoy the amount of visibility we have in terms of security within our infrastructure.

The initial setup is very easy.

The product scales well.

We've found the solution offers us good stability.

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

The pricing is reasonable. 

The user interface could be improved. Right now, it's an aspect that is lacking. They should make it more user-friendly. There are too many options visible right now, which makes it confusing. They need to streamline and simplify it.

I'd like to see more data protection on the system. It needs a DLP, a Data Loss Prevention, system.

We've been using the solution for just over five years. We've used it since 2015 or so.

The solution is stable and reliable. The performance is good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability is there if you need to expand it. It's good.

We have 100 or so users that are using Palo Alto in our organization at this time.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're likely to scale it. 

The technical supports has been really good so far. They respond quickly to our requests. We're quite satisfied with the level of service.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. We found the implementation to be very easy in general. We didn't have any problems. 

The product can be expensive. It's not the cheapest option on the market.

However, I do find it to be less expensive than Cisco.

We're a customer. We also work for other companies and help install the product.

The solution is perfect. I'd rate it at a ten out of ten.

Palo Alto is very affordable and very good overall. They respond quickly to our needs. Palo Alto detects a lot of cybersecurity threats, which has been great.

We are a system integrator and the Palo Alto K2-Series is one of the network solutions that we implement for our clients.

Many of the implementations that I am part of are for the banking sector in Egypt and generally, they are not interested in cloud-based solutions. The K2-Series is well-suited for this use case.

This Palo Alto firewall is easy to manage. You just implement it and forget about it. The Panorama management tool is very easy to use.

The documentation is good.

The partner support, which is a local company, is not that good and can be improved.

I would like to see the threat intelligence capability integrated with other vendors such as Cisco and Forcepoint. This would effectively be a multi-threat intelligence solution. Along the same lines, it would be useful to share threat signatures with different vendors.

I have been working with this solution for more than 18 months.

All on-premises firewall solutions have an issue with scalability if they aren't designed correctly from day one. You have to measure with consideration for future expansion and include it in your design, otherwise, you will get stuck.

There are two categories of support. There is partner support, which in my case is a local company in Egypt. The support provided by the partner is not very good. However, when you purchase vendor support, it is very good.

I have experience with similar products from several vendors including Cisco, Juniper, Forcepoint, and Fortinet.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to do.

Our in-house team implements this solution for our customers.

This is an expensive solution, although you will get value for the price.

Palo Alto is the leader in next-generation firewalls. The suitability of it, however, depends on the design, throughput, and the number of sessions.

Overall, this is a very simple and very effective firewall, and I am satisfied with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use for this solution depends on the preference of a customer and to some extent their existing environment.  

We have to establish things like:  

• what are the business requirements  
• how we can utilize what is existing or if the client needs to upgrade equipment  
• what kind of servers do we put in  
• what kind of servers does he have on cloud  
• what kind of servers do we have on-premises  

So it all depends on the customer's requirements. If a query comes up with a client, I am happy to answer that and provide a resolution but the situation needs to consider specific needs.  

The thing I like the most about Palo Alto is that the IPS system is the strongest you can get. Even if you check with resources like the NSS Labs or Gardner — anywhere else — they all say it has the strongest IPS. It holds true even over the past five years. They are the leaders in the field.  

The reason I believe in my eyes that the IPS is the most valuable feature in Palo Alto is that the IPS is basically protecting everything. I think every two or three hours the database for the IPS signatures gets updated.  

One more feature of Palo Alto, which is not in Fortinet if you compare, is decryption. Palo Alto firewalls are doing SSL inspection and they are doing decryption as well. If we need SSL inbound inspection it is available in Palo Alto but Fortinet does not have this feature. They are not doing SSL inbound inspection. It is one more thing I would like to include as a positive feature of Palo Alto in my opinion.  

There is not really anything that needs to be improved in the product. It might be nice if it were possible for newer users to get a higher level of support.  

The company I work for now is a business I more recently joined. It has been about two years with the company but I have been dealing with Palo Alto products for 10 years now.  

We are talking about a firewall and we are not talking about a simple machine. We are talking about a machine that is not something you can just make simple. We are not talking about a general machine, so it does not really have general features. It does have multiple features. It does have processing engines — the parallel processing of Palo Alto — which is great. The stability will depend on the configuration and use. You really only have two options. You can either go for Palo Alto, or with Fortinet. These are the leaders of network security right now, so I guess those are stable or they would not be popular.  

Palo Alto has got a lot of customers now — even in the middle East. Almost every version has been scalable. That is the main reason that people are buying the product. I am satisfied with the scalability.  

The quality of technical support usually depends on your support level. If your support level is 24/7 365 then obviously your support is going to be perfect. But if you did not purchase that support, you will have some other level of support which is not 365 days. For example, they have an option for eight-by-seven which is eight hours per day seven days a week or something like that. The eight-by-seven support is not good in that case if you need it often or at times when it is not available.  

I have worked for Palo Alto as well as consulting about their products and they are really good at what they are doing, but there are pros and cons for every product. This applies especially to the goals when it comes to support. Most of the customers are not educated enough to do hands-on technical stuff on a product that is new for them every time even if they have experience with similar products. They need support because the basic concepts are essentially the same for firewalls everywhere, but the operating system and the way it does the processing is different for every type of firewall. So new users of Palo Alto may require support to set up most of the things, and if a user does not have the level of support he needs, he will be facing issues. He will not be able to finish his work on time.  

I really feel that all products have some level of technical support issues. Every product has pros and cons and even in the support level. A lot of times we will not find support in our same region. It would be located in different regions. So it happens to be pretty much normal for IT. People probably do not feel that is a good issue to face, but issues in the support are actually fine. That is manageable.  

I do have experience using next-generation firewalls, traditional firewalls, NDN (Named Data Networking) firewalls, distributed firewalls, and NSX. We still use various products but I prefer to use Palo Alto because of its capabilities.  

I am actually satisfied with the pricing of Palo Alto even though it is expensive. If you are talking about using products by a leader in the field and it is a bit expensive compared to other vendors, then that is totally fine for me because you are not compromising your security. In many other cases — like if there are budget issues — the companies can always go for Fortinet. It is also a good firewall, but it is cheaper. If you have got the budget to purchase Palo Alto, get it. If you do not have the budget, go for Fortinet or any other firewall.  

When we were looking for some different solutions, I was looking for comparisons between AlgoSec's firewall and others. I have been trying to research basically right now before purchasing another solution. We are looking for firewall management. We have multiple-vendor firewalls and we are looking to manage them from one console. From there I can manage all my multi-vendor firewalls, DMZ, internal firewalls, group firewalls, et cetera. That is why I was looking at AlgoSec, because it is capable of doing re-certification as well as integrating with NSX as well. There are a lot of things it can do. AlgoSec seems to meet my basic requirements for the solution.  

We are using multiple vendors like Cisco, Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Juniper. We are not limited to one vendor. We have different environments and different firewalls for each environment.  

But mostly, in the current market over here, the clients are preferring to go with Palo Alto as a DC (Data Center) firewall to use internally because IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) is really strong. As for Fortinet, people are preferring that as a solution for DMZ.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would give Palo Alto a rating of nine-out-of-ten.  

I would not give the product a ten and it is not really because there are additional features can be included to make it a perfect ten. Nobody is perfect. Based on smaller support issues is not really something I can rate a product on. Based on their performance in being a leader of these technologies and the leaders and the inventors of next-generation firewalls — based on that, I am giving them a nine. They have better processing which Palo Alto is the only one doing. Based on that and IPS system I give them a nine. And because I am not a perfect guy, I keep one Mark.  

The solution was a firewall that bridged the internal systems with their DMC equipment and/or restricted systems access that wasn't generally available to anyone outside of the organization.

The solution gets the access controls down to an even more precise part of the network traffic. It's not just any user going to an IP address or going to a port to get on the network. It's very thorough.

Our organization liked the fact that it wasn't just firewalls that handled addresses and ports. It also handles actual URL inspections. 

The solution is at the cutting edge of technology. 

The solution has good at controlling restricted access.

Palo Alto has better and finer controls than, say, Cisco or Check Point.

The solution is very strong from a security standpoint.

It's like anything else. What's good today might not be in a day, a week, a month, etc. The solution needs to constantly be adapting and updating.

The solution needs a series of OS changes.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The stability of the solution is rather excellent. It is really stable unless somebody messes up a configuration. We didn't face any bugs or crashes or have any issues with glitches.

The solution was scalable for our purposes. We distributed it to three or four different locations and these were all internal edge firewalls. It wasn't more than a half a day to get any new location up, once the network equipment was in place. (For example, switch hardware, cables, etc.). We would just bring in the hardware, set it up, connect to it, and finish turning it on.

The technical support is excellent. There haven't been problems that they couldn't resolve quickly. Pretty much are all cases that we had were dealt with to our satisfaction.

Prior to Palo Alto, we had been using Check Point. There wasn't a technical reason that we switched. As an organization, we just periodically switch technologies.

I can't really answer any questions related to the initial setup as there was another person who handled it. However, I do believe it was straightforward for them. My understanding was that deployment only took a day. It wasn't a long process.

For the initial deployment, I'm pretty sure they used a subject matter expert. After that, the organization did not need outside assistance. One of our own team members ended up becoming the subject matter expert for a lot of the implementation strategy.

I don't have an idea of what the licensing costs are.

I'd advise companies considering setting up the solution to make sure they have a trained team. If the team doesn't have any expertise with this type of firewall, then they've got to take some training. The training's pretty good and once you understand the concepts, it's pretty quick to put together. 

At the time we implemented it, it was easier than Check Point and the Check Point had a lot of similar capabilities. It also offered finer filtering on what was going to be allowed through various parts of the firewall ports. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten due to its reliability and ease, and the consistency of configuration.

The solution has the best features for parallel processing and scalability.

The solution's pricing could be better.

We have been using the solution for one year.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability a ten. It is suitable for medium-scale businesses.

The solution's technical support team is good.

Positive

I rate the solution's initial setup process an eight out of ten. The time taken for deployment depends on the size of the field and other specific requirements of customers in terms of enhancing their skill paradigm. It takes approximately four hours to a day to complete. 

I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. It is expensive.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a seven out of ten. Its networking, as well as endpoint and system security features, need enhancement. 

I am using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series as a perimeter firewall.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is its management abilities. Additionally, the updates are very good.

We had some issues with upgrading in the past. They could make the process easier.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series has improved their central management but if they could improve upon it more that would be a great benefit.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for approximately 12 years.

The solution is very stable, we have had no issues.

We had some scalability issues with Palo Alto Networks K2-Series. I do not know how good the hardware firewalls are, but the cloud platform is scalable.

When we had some minor issues we were in contact with the technical support and they were very good. We have not used the support often.

The initial setup was easy.

When comparing Palo Alto Networks K2-Series with other solutions it is on the higher end of the price scale.

This solution is best suited for small to medium-sized businesses.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to protect our network perimeter because we have some software products that have internet connectivity.

The most valuable features are the intuitive user interface, ease of use, and reporting.

They could improve by providing more features in the solution.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

The solution is stable. I have never had an issue using this solution since I started using it. I have not had any restarts or other troubles.

The solution is scalable but it depends on the hardware being used.

I have not needed to use the technical support since we have not had an issue.

The initial setup is easy.

I did the implementation myself.

The price of the solution is expensive. They should provide more features to match the high price of the solution.

I have evaluated Cisco and Fortinet firewalls solutions.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a seven out of ten.

We use the firewalls to defend our perimeter and data center.

For me personally, the support, in general, is the feature I have found most valuable.

Palo Alto boasts a lot of great features that cover all markets from small businesses to large enterprises.

It's very easy to see everything on the dashboards. 

It would be nice if it could easily be integrated with Elasticsearch or Nagios for monitoring and reporting.

They should lower their prices for small businesses. They should offer subscriptions or box-sets because a lot of companies want to buy it, but they just can't afford it. 

It's not that expensive necessarily; the market is just doing poorly at the moment.

Everything I could possibly want has already been implanted into the new version, including the Internet of Things, machine learning, and SD-WAN; every feature I wanted has already been integrated.

I have been using this solution for roughly eight years.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is very stable. I've never had a problem with Palo Alto. The only problem we experienced with it was when the fan broke down — even then, it still kept on working without the fan. No harm was done and Palo Alto replaced it very quickly.

This solution is very scalable.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It only took us a few hours. On the other hand, deployment times vary. Sometimes it takes just a few hours, and other times, due to testing, it can take months. It's not complicated, but when you have to replace something, you have to consider the amount of testing before you put it into production.

We are the integrators.

I would recommend Palo Alto. With Cisco, when you engage Firepower, the performance decreases. Next generation functions with Palo Alto are much, much better. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a rating of ten.

You should always choose the best version of a solution. As your company grows, you will want to work with more power and better features.