Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

It is our main Internet firewall. It is used a lot for remote access users. We also use the site-to-site VPN instance of it, i.e., LSVPN. It is pretty much running everything. We have WildFire in the cloud, content filtering, and antivirus. It has pretty much all the features enabled.

We have a couple of virtual instances running in Azure to firewall our data center. Predominantly, it is all physical hardware.

I am part of the network team who does some work on Palo Alto Networks. There is actually a cybersecurity team who kind of controls the reins of it and does all the security configuration. I am not the administrator/manager in charge of the group that has the appliance.

With its single pane of glass, it makes monitoring and troubleshooting a bit more homogeneous. We are not looking at multiple platforms and monitoring management tools. It is more efficient from that perspective. It is more of a common monitoring and control system for multiple aspects of what used to be different systems. It provides efficiency and time savings.

It is fairly intuitive. 

The central management of Panorama actually works. It is what FortiManager aspires to be, but Panorama is usable. You can push config down, do backups, and use templates from other sites, copying them over. The reliability and throughput, plus Panorama's control features, are its main selling features.

It is a combined platform that has different features, like Internet security and the site-to-site VPN. Previously, there were different components that did this. If it was a remote access VPN client, then you would have to go onto one platform and troubleshoot. If it was a site-to-site, it was on a different platform so you would have to go onto that one. It would be different command sets and troubleshooting steps. From that perspective, having that combined and all visible through Panorama's centralized management is probably one of the better benefits.

We had a presentation on Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a few years ago. I know the number of CPU cores that they have inside the firewall is crazy, but it is because they have to pack all the performance and analysis in real-time. It is fast. I am always amazed at the small PA-220s and how much performance they have with their full antivirus on it. They can pass 300-megabits per second, and they are just about the size of a paperback book. As far as how that single-pass processing impacts it, I am always amazed at how fast and how much throughput it has.

Once in a while, they have new features being released that can be buggy. My criticism is more general to all sorts of network or security devices. In general, everybody is releasing less-tested software. Then, it usually ends up that the first few customers who get a new release need to end up troubleshooting it. That is one of my criticisms because we have been hit by this a few times. I shouldn't single Palo Alto out as any better or worse than anybody else because they are all doing it now.

It is not like we are getting singled out. In some cases, we are looking for a new feature that we want to use. So, we upgrade and use it, and others are too, but the first release will tend to be a little bit buggy. Some of the stuff works great, but it is the newer features that you are usually integrating into your Windows clients where weird stuff happens.

I use it every other day.

It is pretty reliable. All the services pretty much work. It is not too buggy. With any hardware/software manager these days, when you get new features, they tend to not be too thoroughly tested and can be buggy. We have been noticing this. For example, they had zero-touch deployment and the first few iterations just didn't work. While we have encountered a few bugs, I don't think they are any worse than anything else we get. The underlying hardware seems to be pretty reliable. You can do configuration changes, reboot and reload them, and they just keep coming back and work.

Our cybersecurity guys tend to do the patching and upgrades when they come around. When one of these things had a hard disk failure, they got that restored or replaced. For day-to-day maintenance, other than typical operational changes and troubleshooting, I don't think there is that much maintenance to be done. Every few weeks, there is probably somebody who goes for a few hours and checks the various patch levels and possibly does upgrades.

The upgrades are fairly easy to do. You just download the software, the central management system, and tick off the devices that you want to deploy it to. It will automatically download it. Then, you just sort of schedule a reboot. I don't know how many hours per week or month people put into it, but it is pretty reasonable.

We have about half a dozen core firewalls and 30 to 40 remote firewalls. We haven't hit any scaling limitations yet. What we have is functioning well. At some point, our main firewall in our data center might be overwhelmed, but it has pretty high throughput numbers on it. So far, we haven't hit any sort of limitations. So far, so good.

The physical appliances are sort of tiered. You have your entry-level, which is good for 300-megabits of threat detection. The next ones have 800-megabits of threat detection. So, if you have a site with around 50 people, you can get the entry-level. However, there is always a point that if you have too many users doing too many things then the physical appliance just can't handle it. Then, you need to upgrade to a higher-level appliance. This is expected. When that happens, we will just sort of get the higher-level model or plan for two years of growth to get the right size. Therefore, as far as scalability, it just comes down to planning. 

As far as the management platform, that would be more of a case of just adding CPU cores into your virtual machine as well as more memory. So far, we haven't had any scalability limitations. It is possible that we will see it at some point, but we haven't so far.

This is not Palo Alto-specific. It seems to be across all the different vendors that there is a little bit of a hit-and-miss on whether you get a tech person who knows what they are doing and are interested in your problem. When you call frontline support, you can get somebody who doesn't know what they are doing and puts you off. Or the next time you call, you can get a tech who is on the ball and super helpful. This is sort of a smaller problem. It is a bit of a crapshoot on how good the support will be. I would rate the frontline technical support as five or six out of 10.

If it tends to be more of a critical problem, and you involve the sales team, then you are forwarded onto somebody who really knows what they are doing. However, the frontline support can be hit-and-miss. Their second-tier support is really good. 

The top-tier support is 10 out of 10. We did have some more serious problems, then they put one of their engineers on it who has been amazing.

Overall, I would rate the technical support as eight out of 10.

Positive

I did work with Cisco ASA, prior to FireEye, where they purchased and integrated it as sort of the next generation part of their ASA. 

One of our remote access solutions for remote access clients was Cisco ASA. That was just getting to its end-of-life. It actually worked quite well. It was pretty hands-off and reliable, but the hardware was getting to end-of-life. Because we had the Palo Alto capable of doing similar functions, we just migrated it over. 

It was similar for our site-to-site VPN, which was Cisco DMVPN that we are still using, but we are migrating off it since its hardware is reaching end-of-life. By combining it into the Palo Alto umbrella, it makes the configuration and troubleshooting a bit easier and more homogenous. 

Before, it was just different platforms doing sort of similar but different functions. Now, we are using similar platforms and devices rather than having three different solutions. This solution is sort of homogenized; it is sort of all in one place. I suspect that makes security a bit more thorough. Whereas, we had three different platforms before. Some of the delineation isn't clear, as they sort of overlap in some respects to what they do, but having it in one location and system makes gaps or overlaps or inconsistencies easier to spot.

I was gone for a few years when they brought this in.

Adding additional appliances is very straightforward. 

Having one manager/system with a common interface and commands, rather than three or four, is more efficient.

It is expensive compared to some of the other stuff. However, the value you get out of it is sort of the central control and the ability to reuse templates.

It is a good product, but you pay for it. I think it is one of the more expensive products. So, if you are looking for a cheaper product, there are probably other options available. However, if you are looking for high performance, reliable devices, then it has kind of everything. Basically, you get what you pay for. You can get other firewalls for cheaper and some of the performance would probably be just as good, but some of the application awareness and different threat detections are probably superior on the Palo Alto Networks.

As far as a firewall solution, it is one of the best ones that I have seen. It is fairly expensive compared to some of the other ones, but if you have the money and are looking for a solid, reliable system, then Palo Alto is the way to go.

For what we use it for, the solution is good.

I am part of the network team. There is a cybersecurity team who has control of its reins and does all the security configuration. I am not the administrator of it or a manager in charge of the group with this appliance.

I find the whole machine learning and AI capabilities a bit overhyped. Everybody throws it in there, but I'm actually a little bit suspicious of what it is actually doing.

I don't follow or monitor some of the day-to-day or zero-day threat prevention protection abilities that it has. 

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10, as I am always hesitant to give perfect scores.

We have implemented our own private cloud where we host different services for a number of internal companies that are part of a group. We have financial companies, hospitality, and construction companies; a large variety. We use Palo Alto to provide security protection for all these companies.

Previously, with our old firewalls, we did not have any visibility. The application layer was zero. We didn't have any visibility there. And we also didn't have any reports. Now, we have good visibility and we are able to get reports and we can monitor the network much better. That's a big change for us and a big help.

There are a lot of helpful features

• monitoring
• reporting
• WiFi.

You can easily integrate it with Active Directory, and you can use the GlobalProtect VPN for internal and external purposes. The URL Filtering is also clear and the application filtering is a plus. The application filtering is much better when you compare it to FortiGate or other firewall vendors.

Also, the fact that Next-Gen Firewalls from Palo Alto embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline and real-time attack prevention is very important. Nowadays, all the modern attacks, hackers, and bad people are becoming more intelligent and automating attacks. Embedding AI is a good idea.

We have complete visibility through the logs and the alerting. It depends on how you configure the firewall. You can configure it to get alerts whenever there's an attack or whenever something is happening. That's how we can assess if the firewall is doing the job correctly or not. We are happy with the way the firewall does its job.

There has been a recent change in the graphical interface. For the monitoring part, they could have a better UI.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls since 2012.

The big firewalls, like the PA-300 and the PA-3020, are very good, stable, and performant. They are very reliable. The smaller models are reliable, but the performance on their management plane is a bit slow. Even the management plane of the PA-850 is a bit slow when you compare it to some of the bigger models.

Scaling is easy. We currently have about 1,000 endpoints.

We haven't worked with their technical support.

We replaced a Cisco ASA Firewall with Palo Alto, and then we started replacing all our other firewalls with Palo Alto. Cisco ASA was not a next-generation firewall at that time. And no firewall could beat the traffic monitoring and the visibility that we had on Palo Alto.

We did a PoC before going to Palo Alto. We placed the Palo Alto in virtual wire mode, meaning a transparent mode. Without changing our existing network infrastructure, we were able to plug the Palo Alto into our network where we could see all the incoming and all the outgoing traffic. Without creating any policies or any blocking, we were able to see all the traffic and we were impressed with that part and we decided to switch to Palo Alto.

The first deployment was very complex. I was not the one who implemented it, it was an integrator, but it was a headache due to some difficulties. After that, things became easy. We have implemented six or seven Palo Altos, and things are easy because of our familiarity with the whole deployment process. The first time we were using this firewall we were not at ease with the product. After that, we got used to it and it became easier.

Because of the issues with the first one, it took one week for the deployment, for the complete transition from Cisco ASA to Palo Alto. Since then, all the deployments have been done in one day.

We have seen ROI as a result of the visibility and reporting. These are two things we didn't have, and now that we have the visibility, we can ensure  that our network is secure.

If you compare Palo Alto with other firewalls, it's a bit expensive.

At that time, Palo Alto was the leader and I think it was the only next-gen firewall.

We have looked into other firewalls since then. In 2017 or 2018, we decided to replace one Palo Alto with a Forcepoint Next-Gen Firewall. We placed that in the network but, after six months, we replaced it with Palo Alto.

If someone is looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would say the fastest is good, but not cheapest. Palo Alto Firewalls are not cheap.

We use it as an Internet-facing parameter firewall. In my environment, it has security and routing. It is on a critical path in terms of routing, where it does a deep inspection, etc.

There have been a lot of improvements from security to service.

It is critical that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. In my environments, we have an integration with a third-party vendor. As soon as there is new information about new threats and the destination that they are trying to reach on any of our network devices, that traffic will be stopped.

Setting up a VPN is quite easy. 

It gives you a lot of information when you are monitoring traffic. 

In terms of user experience, Palo Alto has very good user administration.

Machine learning is important. Although we have not exhausted the full capabilities of the firewall using machine learning, the few things that we are able to do are already very good because we have an integration with a third-party. We are leveraging that third-party to get threat intelligence for some destinations that are dangerous, as an example. Any traffic that tries to go to those destinations is blocked automatically. There is a script that was written, then embedded, that we worked on with the third-party. So, machine learning is actually critical for our business.

There is a bit of limitation with its next-generation capabilities. They could be better. In terms of logs, I feel like I am a bit limited as an administrator. While I see a lot of logs, and that is good, it could be better.

I wanted Palo Alto Networks engineering to look at the traffic log, because I see traffic being dropped that happens to be legitimate. It would be interesting for me to just right click on the traffic, select that traffic, and then create a rule to allow it. For example, you sometimes see there is legitimate traffic being dropped, which is critical for a service. That's when actually you have to write it down, copy, a rule, etc. Why not just right click on it and select that link since that log will have the source destination report number? I would like to just right click, then have it pop up with a page where I can type the name of the rule to allow the traffic.

I started using Palo Alto in 2015.

It is very stable. We had two outages this year that were not good. They were related to OSPF bugs. Those bugs affected our service availability. 

It is quite scalable. I have been able to create a lot of zones to subinterfaces for a number of environments. I don't really have any issues regarding scalability. It meets my expectations.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls technical support is very poor. Three or four months ago, I had a bug where the database of the firewall was locked. You cannot do anything with it. We looked for documentation, giving us a procedure to follow, but the procedure didn't work. We logged a complaint with Palo Alto Networks, and they gave us an engineer. The engineer relied on documentation that doesn't work, and we had already tested. In the end, the engineer gave us an excuse, "No, we need this account to be able to unlock it." This happened twice. The way out of it was just to restart the firewall. You can restart the firewall and everything goes back to normal. Therefore, I think the support that we got was very poor.

Neutral

I have used Check Point and Cisco ASA.

Initially, when I started with Palo Alto, we had Cisco ASA, but Palo Alto Networks beat ASA hands down.

We have a multi-vendor environment with different providers. Our standard is that we can't have the same firewall for each parameter, so there is some kind of diversity. 

We had ASA looking at one side of the network and Palo Alto Networks looking at the other side of the network. We also had Juniper looking at another side of the network. At the end of the day, ASA was very good, I don't dispute that. However, in terms of functionality and user experience, Palo Alto Networks was better. 

Palo Alto Networks beat ASA because it was a next-generation firewall (NGFW), while ASA was not.

When we bought Palo Alto, we had Juniper devices in our environment. We were told that it was a bit like Juniper, so we were happy. However, some people were a bit skeptical and scared of Juniper firewalls. Because of that, it took us a very long time to put them on the network. However, as soon as we did the implementation, we realized that we were just thinking too much. It was not that difficult. 

We deployed Palo Alto Networks as part of a project for data center implementation. The implementation of the firewall didn't take long.

We buy through a third-party. Our account is managed by IBM.

We have seen ROI. There is more visibility in the environment in terms of security. There was a time when we suspected a security breach, and this firewall was able to give us all the logs that we expected. 

Palo Alto is like Mercedes-Benz. It is quite expensive, but the price is definitely justified.

One thing is system administration. In our opinion, Palo Alto administration is easier compared to other vendors. I know other vendors who have Check Point. You have to manage Check Point, and it is a bit cumbersome. It is a very nice, powerful firewall, but you need more knowledge to be able to manage Check Point compared to Palo Alto. Palo Alto is very straightforward and nice to use.

In our environment, troubleshooting has been easy. Anybody can leverage the Palo Alto traffic monitoring. In Cisco ASA and Check Point, you also have these capabilities, but capturing the traffic to see is one thing, while doing the interpretation is another thing. Palo Alto is more user-friendly and gives us a clearer interpretation of what is happening.

One thing that I don't like with Palo Alto is the command line. There isn't a lot of documentation for things like the command line. Most documents have a graphic user interface. Cisco has a lot of documents regarding command lines and how to maneuver their command line, as there are some things that we like to do with the command line instead of doing them with the graphic interface. Some things are easy to do on a graphic interface, but not in the command line. I should have the option to choose what I want to do and where, whether it is in the command line or a graphic interface. I think Palo Alto should try to make an effort in that aspect, as their documentation is quite poor.

We would rather use Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

I compared the price of Palo Alto Networks with Juniper Networks firewall. The Juniper firewall is quite cheap. Also, Palo Alto Networks is a bit expensive compared to Cisco Firepower. Palo Alto Networks is in the same class of Check Point NGFW. Those two firewalls are a bit expensive.

It gives us visibility. In my opinion, the first firewall that I would put on our network is Palo Alto Network and the second would be Check Point.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very good firewall. It is one of the best firewalls that I have used.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks as nine out of 10.

We have had a couple of big projects with government companies here in Ukraine. One of those projects involved three data centers with a lot of security and network requirements, and we implemented Palo Alto as part of this project.

The use case was to build the new data centers with a firewall that would not only work on the perimeter but also for internal traffic. We deployed eight PA-5200 Series firewalls and integrated them with VMware NSX, and they're working together.

One of the points that helped us win the tender is that Palo Alto NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. The customer's security team was asking for this feature from the firewalls because machine learning makes things much easier than manually sitting there with some kind of SIEM and searching for all kinds of attacks and critical issues. The machine learning is really helpful because it's doing the work automatically.

We had a small project with the PA-800 Series appliance where we implemented DNS Security. DNS Security is a good feature because, in the real world with web threats, you can block all web threats and bad sites. DNS Security helps to prevent those threats. It's also very helpful with Zero-day attacks because DNS Security blocks all DNS requests before any antivirus would know that such requests contain a virus or a threat to your PC or your network.

In general, Palo Alto NG Firewalls are 

• easy to manage
• good, reliable appliances
• easy to configure.
  

They also have a good balance between security and traffic. They have good hardware and, for management, they have their own data plane. If traffic is really overloading the data plane, you still have the ability to get into the management tools to see what's going on. You can reset or block some traffic. Not all firewalls have that feature.

They have really good clients, such as a VPN client. You can also enforce security standards on workers in the field. It's a really good product. And now, for endpoint security, they have Cortex XDR. You use the same client, but with additional licenses that enable more features.

The only area I can see for improvement is that Palo Alto should do more marketing.

We work with customers, but we are not using the solution ourselves.

The scalability is really good because they have a chassis version of appliances. They plan to build new chassis. But for the really big projects here in Ukraine, we can easily cover what we need with the PA-8000 Series with Palo Alto chassis appliances.

In our project with the three data centers, each data center was able to process 40 gigs.

First-level support is provided by our distributor Bakotech. They are technical guys and they really know the product. Unlike some support providers who just send you manuals to ready, they're really helpful. You can call them at any time and they get back to you shortly and help.

The initial setup is really easy. If you're working with Palo Alto Panorama, which is their management server, it's very easy to deploy a lot of appliances in a couple of days, because you're just sending out the configuration and templates on a blind device. In a couple of hours that device is working like the rest.

Another valuable aspect of Palo Alto NG Firewalls is that the appliances and software are really reliable in terms of stability and performance. Some firewall vendors don't write real information on their datasheets and, after implementing them, you see that the reality is not the way it was described. For example, when it comes to threat prevention and how much traffic appliances can handle, there was a project where we beat another vendor's firewall because Palo Alto has the real information on its datasheets.

I have some experience with Cisco, on a small project but there was a somewhat older software version, and there was a lot of lag. When changing something in the configuration, once you pushed "commit" you could go have a coffee or do other stuff for 20 minutes or more, because it took a really long time to push that configuration to the device.

If a colleague at another company said to me, "We're just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall," I would tell them that the cheapest is not the best. If you need really reliable hardware and software, and don't want headaches after the implementation, just buy Palo Alto.

The PA-400 is really strong and not only for SOHO or SMB companies. They have a really big throughput with Threat Prevention and DNS Security enabled. It's a really good appliance in a small size. But it's not only for small companies. The PA-460 can easily handle the traffic of a midsize company, one with 100 or 200 employees, and maybe even a little more. The PA-460 can handle about 5 gigs of traffic. With Threat Prevention, they can handle 2.5 gigabytes of traffic. For a regular office, that's good. It might be a little small for big companies.

Regarding DS tunneling, it is mostly peer-type attacks. With tunneling, it depends on what type of tunneling is used. You need to look at the specific case, at things like whether it was an internal DNS tunnel or one from the outside to the inside between branches. Most of the time, you can see that kind of traffic with a firewall if you have enabled full logging and you drop the logs into a good SIEM, like ArcSight or others. You will see the anomaly traffic via tunnels. You can also switch on decryption so you can decrypt a tunnel and see what is going on inside.

We have had no issues from our customers who are working with Palo Alto NG Firewalls. They fully cover all our customers' needs.

These firewalls are only used for perimeter purposes, in gateway mode.

In addition to our environment being secure, we can monitor compliance of VPN users. Security and monitoring are the two big benefits.

It's also very critical for us that it provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. We have multiple vendors and multiple solutions. Palo Alto has to work with them. For example, when it comes to authentication, we can integrate LDAP and RADIUS, among others. And in one of our customer's environments, we have integrated a new, passwordless authentication.

Apart from the security, Palo Alto NG Firewalls have nice features like App-ID and User-ID. These are the two most useful features.

With App-ID, we can identify exact traffic. Even if someone tries to fool the firewall with a different port number, or with the correct port number, Palo Alto is able to identify what kind of traffic it is.

With User-ID, we can configure single sign-on, which makes things easy for users. There is no need for additional authentication for a user. And for documentation and reporting purposes, we can fetch user-based details, based on User-ID, and can generate new reports.

Another good feature is the DNS Security. With the help of DNS security, we can block the initial level of an attack, and we can block malicious things from a DNS perspective.

The GlobalProtect VPN is also very useful.

The solution has normal authentication, but does not have two-factor or multi-factor authentication. There is room for development there.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for two years. I've worked on the 800 Series and the 3000 Series.

It's quite stable. They are launching a new firmware version, but compared to other products, Palo Alto is quite stable.

I have worked with Palo Alto's support many times and it is quite good. Whenever we create a support ticket, they are on time and they update us in a timely manner. In terms of technical expertise, they have good people who are experts in it. They are very supportive of customers.

Positive

The initial deployment is straightforward; very simple. The primary access for these firewalls is quite simple. We can directly access them, after a few basic steps, and start the configuration. Even the hardware registration process and licensing are quite simple.

The time it takes to deploy a firewall depends upon hardware and upon the customer's environment. But a basic to intermediate deployment takes two to three months.

Our customers definitely see ROI with Palo Alto NG Firewalls, although I don't have metrics.

I am not involved in the commercial side, but I believe that Palo Alto is quite expensive compared to others.

One of the pros of Palo Alto is the GlobalProtect, which is a VPN solution. GlobalProtect has broader compliance checks. I have worked on Check Point and FortiGate, but they don't have this kind of feature in their firewalls. Also, Check Point does not have DNS Security, which Palo Alto has.

If you're going with Palo Alto, you have to use all its features, including the DNS Security, App-ID, and SSL decryption. Otherwise, there is no point in buying Palo Alto.

We basically use it to protect our network from various malicious activities out there. We have two subscriptions. We have the WildFire subscription, which is similar to DNS filtering. We also have Threat Protection, which allows the firewall to inspect traffic up to Layer 7. It inspects applications as well as unknown applications, quarantining and stopping things. So, you are not always chasing, "What applications should I be running on this device?" It does a good job of all of that. The management of it is a little tricky, but that is how it goes.

We are running the PA-3250s. We have two of them. They operate in Active/Passive mode. Therefore, if one fails, then the other one takes over. 

It is pretty important to have embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, because all these different attacks and threats are constantly evolving. So, you want to have something beyond just hard pass rules. You want it to learn as it is going along. Its machine learning seems pretty good. It seems like it is catching quite a few things.

There is a web-based GUI to do management, but you need to know how the machine or firewall operates. There are hundreds of different menus and options. I have used other firewalls before. Just implementing or designing a policy with Palo Alto, if you want a certain port to be open to different IP addresses, then that could take 20 to 25 clicks. That is just testing it out. It is quite complex to do. Whereas, with other places, you tell it, "Okay, I want this specific port open and this IP address to have access to it." That was it. However, not with Palo Alto, which is definitely more complex.

The VPN is only available for Windows and Mac iOS environments. We have a variety of iPads, iPhones, and Android stuff that wouldn't be able to utilize the built-in VPN services.

I would like easier management and logging. They can set up some profiles instead of having you create these reports yourself. However, you should be able to set it up to give you alerts on important things faster.

We have had this in place for four years. I have been at the school for almost a year and a half. So, this is my second year here at the school, so my experience with it has probably been a year and change. I use other firewall solutions, but I have gotten pretty comfortable with the Palo Alto solution.

It is very stable. We have never had any issues with any failures on it.

I haven't felt any performance lags on it. It has been handling everything just fine.

We purchased it a few years ago. Since then, we have had a lot more clients on our network, and it has handled all that fine. You go into it and just have to scale it higher. Palo Alto doesn't give you too many choices. There is not a medium; it is either very small or very big. So, you don't have a choice in that.

We have never had to call Palo Alto. Secure Works does all our support maintenance on it.

I have been here for a year and a half. Before, the firewall that they were using (Barracuda) was barely adequate for what we were doing. We got new ones simply, not because we had a software/hardware-type attack, but because we had a social engineering attack where one of the folks who used to work for us went on to do some crazy things. As a result, the reaction was like, "Oh, let's get a new firewall. That should stop these things in the future."

The initial setup was pretty complex because they did not do it themselves. They actually hired some folks who put it in. 

We use Secureworks, which is a big security company. They actually send an alert when there are problems with the firewall or if there are security issues. They handled the deployment. 

We also use another company called Logically to monitor the firewall in addition to all our other devices.

Active/Passive mode is very redundant, but they require you to buy all the associated licensing for both firewalls, which is kind of a waste of money because you are really only using the services on one firewall at a time.

I would suggest looking at your needs, because this solution's pricing is very closely tied to that. If you decide that you are going to need support for 1,000 connections, then make sure you have the budget for it. Plan for it, because everything will cost you.

If another school would call and ask me, I would say, "It's not the cheapest. It's very fast, but it's not the cheapest firewall out there."

I have been looking at different firewalls because our service and maintenance contracts are up on it. We have two different outsourced folks who look at the firewall and help us do any configurations. My staff and I lack the knowledge to operate it. For any change that we need to make, we have to call these other folks, and that is just not sustainable.

We are moving away from this solution because of the pricing and costs. Everything costs a lot. We are moving to Meraki MS250s because of their simplicity. They match the industry better. I have called the bigger companies, and Meraki matches the size, then the type of institution that we are.

If someone was looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall product, I would suggest looking at the Meraki products in the educational space. I think that is a better fit.

Its predictive analytics and machine learning for instantly blocking DNS-related attacks is doing a good job. I can't be certain because we also have a content filter on a separate device. Together, they kind of work out how they do DNS filtering. I know that we haven't had any problems with ransomware or software getting installed by forging DNS.

DNS Security for protection against sneakier attack techniques, like DNS tunneling, is good. I haven't had a chance to read the logs on those, but it does pretty well. It speaks to the complexity of the firewall. It is hard to assess information on it because there is just a lot of data. You need to be really good at keeping up with the logs and turning on all the alerts. Then, you need to have the time to dig through those because it could be blocking something, which it will tell you.

I haven't read the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW, but it sounds interesting. Though it is a little bit of snake oil, because the worst attacks that we had last year were purely done through social engineering and email. I feel like this is an attack vector that the firewall can't totally block. So, before you put something in, like Palo Alto Firewalls, you need to have your security policy in place first.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10. Technically, it is a good solution, but for usability and practicality, I would take points off for that.

We're slowly migrating our on-premises solutions to the cloud. We implemented the next largest size VM for the PA-7050s because we're using 7050s on-premises, due to the bandwidth requirement of 100 GBS.

After changing our firewalls to 7050s last year and this year, both our internal firewalls and our border firewalls are 7050s.

Having embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention is something that will greatly enhance our abilities and some of the things that we're doing. We deal with it daily now, versus a time when an incident only occurred every so often. In fact, we see incidents all the time, which include things like phishing attacks. Having some of the functionality inside the firewall  

I would rate Palo Alto's machine learning capability, which secures our network against rapidly evolving threats, pretty high. We own a product that I want to get rid of by Cisco, called Stealthwatch. It generates alerts and it's really built for East-West traffic. Of the alerts that we get, 99.9% of them are already blocked by the firewall. I'm not really worried about my North-South traffic because Palo Alto is there. For what they have in the box and the different subscription models, I'm not worried because Palo Alto does such an excellent job of catching stuff.

The biggest improvement to our organization since implementing Palo Alto is that there are a lot of things I no longer have to worry about. There are a lot of things that I used to do, that I don't have to do anymore. For example, I don't have to worry about putting up a honeypot. It's superfluous now because I've got default deny and there is no sense in opening up the border to allow people to come onto my network just to go to the honeypot.

The basic IDS/IPS is taken care of, so I don't need to purchase a product like FireEye. I'm not worried about my core, critical systems.

This next-gen firewall platform has definitely helped us to eliminate security holes. Comparing it to Cisco, which is port-based, a port can be spoofed. This is something that we see every day. When going from a port-based paradigm to an application-based paradigm, there is no comparison. It is more granular, which allows me to be more specific about, for example, port 80 traffic. Port 80 has any number of applications that it can be but if I specify applications, I can pick up all of the port 80 traffic. This means that I can make sure that they cannot spoof an SSH connection as a port 80 connection.

As a growing shop, we have been trying to integrate and get something that we can use as a single pane of glass, and we're getting there. Palo Alto has helped a lot. For example, the new feature for us is the data lake, which allows us to send logs anywhere. This is something that we couldn't do before, so this solution has enabled us to do a little bit more and get rid of some tools.

I don't feel that there is much of a trade-off between security and network performance. Our layer-two network is very robust and I build around them. The architecture is based on what our networking can do, capacity-wise. We haven't had to adjust anything, even when we were running the smaller Palo Alto units, to make things function.

Wildfire has been a very good feature. It allowed us to get rid of our honeypot machines, as well as our IDS/IPS solution. When we put it on the border, it was blocking everything that we were getting ahead of time, and we weren't getting any hits. This includes URL filtering, spam prevention, and anti-virus.

We are using a data lake for our log storage. Because our Splunk license is only so large, we couldn't do a lot of logging. Palo Alto does not create small logs, like a Cisco box. In fact, with Palo Alto, you can't capture all of your logs.

From a layer three network perspective, Palo Alto is a workhorse that gives us the best value.

This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is 100% important to us. This is a great feature.

The user interface is beautiful. They've done their homework on UI design. There are small little tweaks but that's really a preference more than functionality.

One of the downsides of logging with Palo Alto is that we do not capture the beginning of a session. It only captures at the end of the session. This means that if we're trying to mitigate something, such as an incident that happened, we can't say definitively that it happened at a particular time. The reason is that Palo Alto keeps track of every session that happens and if it were set up to do that, we would overload the firewall and overload the logging of anything because we do terabytes worth of data every day.

Having a single pane of glass, where we can see all of the stuff that we have to be able to react to, would be very helpful. We're a small shop but we have to cover the entire security spectrum. It makes it hard because we have to wear many hats. A single pane of glass where we can put alerts and other information would make our life a lot easier. As a small EDU, we just don't have the resources that the private companies have, so we have to try to find the best bang for the buck.

From a documentation standpoint, there is room for improvement. Even Palo Alto says that their documentation is terrible. It may be true for any company, where you're going to find documentation that is outdated or has not been kept up to date, but that's my main complaint.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for between 10 and 15 years.

The stability is fire and forget. You don't have to worry about it. I've had to babysit Cisco devices in the past but I've never had to do the same with Palo Alto.

I've always had really good assets over the years and in all, they have changed perhaps two or three of them. Overall, they've been wonderful.

The scalability is wonderful. In the last iteration that I did, I folded 12 different firewalls into one box, across campus, without any problems with network degradation.

Without our two boxes, we have 16 firewalls set up. There are two of us responsible for maintaining the system, and our job titles are cybersecurity network engineers. 

The way the interfaces are set up makes it really easy to use. Also, the different routing protocols that you can use within the box make life easy when it comes to setting them up. 

The product covers the entire university. We use it at the edge for one of the departments, and it acts as their edge firewall. They pay for their solution and we maintain it for them.

We have deployments in other campuses, as well.

As we segment the network, depending on the zoning, we will be adding new interfaces to do certain things, such as setting up DMZs.

The support has been wonderful. I have not had any bad support that I can think of over the years. They've always been there.

Prior to Palo Alto, we used a combination of solutions. This included honeypot machines, and products for IPS/IDS.

We used to be a Cisco shop and I'm glad that we are no longer one. I've been trying to get rid of Cisco for years. The problem with them is that it's unwieldy. It's an old-school way of doing things. For example, everything is port-based. They tried to get into the next-gen firewall space, but the way they grow is that they buy other companies and try to combine technologies to make them work. That doesn't work.

One thing that I've never liked about Cisco, and still don't like, is that if I did an OS upgrade, I was guaranteed that I would be there for at least three to five hours. This was for a simple OS upgrade. Palo Alto has made my life a lot easier from that perspective, which is something that I really appreciate.

Outside of the problem with the OS upgrade, security was becoming more prevalent at the time because of hackers. Cisco was just port-based, and we wanted to move to something that was mobile and more granular. We wanted something that would give us better security and Cisco just didn't have it. 

We don't use the DNS security capability with Palo Alto because we use Cisco Umbrella for that, and it works great.

The initial setup is very easy. I can do it in my sleep. The process will take between 15 and 20 minutes for a new deployment. If it's an existing system that you're moving stuff over from, it depends on whether it's Palo to Palo or from something else to Palo. It can take between two and three hours, depending on how many rules there are, and the other things that you have to set up. Once you're up and running, it takes no time to debug it.

Comparing the initial setup to a Cisco device, Palo Alto is much easier. With Cisco, you can't do a simple reset to factory default settings without breaking it. The time I did this, it took me two weeks to finally get it up and running, and I had to call the Cisco SEs to come in and fix it. That's how bad it was. Setting up Cisco is a nightmare.

In comparison, setting up a Palo Alto is child's play. It's like ABCs versus a university course when it comes to getting something set up in Cisco. We have run into problems with Palo Alto in the past but for the most part, it's an easy process.

When we first implemented Palo Alto, we hired a consultant, ProSys, to assist us. They know our network. They've been with us for years and they've got some Palo Alto experts. The reason we asked for their help is that we didn't know anything about Palo Alto until after we took the courses.

One of the problems at the university, in general, is that we don't do a lot of these processes every day. This makes it hard for most universities to be able to do a lot of these more complex setups on their own without getting outside help. The people who are in big businesses that deploy these things on a daily basis get to see this stuff all the time. Universities don't, so we normally have to rely on outside help.

Overall, our experience with ProSys was good. We like working with them.

Palo Alto is not a cheap solution but it is competitive when it comes to subscriptions.

The hardware is something that you can buy all day long, regardless of the vendor. It's when you start adding in all of the subscriptions that it is either going to make or break the budget. All things considered, Palo Alto is comparable.

There are several extra features available and what you use depends on what you want to do with the firewall, and how it's going to be deployed. AV is an option, the Threat Prevention app is extra, along with URL filtering, and WildFire. You won't have all of the options on all of the servers. For example, the internal servers won't be doing any web surfing, so the requirements are a little bit different.

I'm more worried about my building to building, East-West traffic because I can't afford to put a Palo Alto in every building. Instead, I put a Palo Alto in front of me to deal with the North-South traffic.

We knew about Palo Alto and that's what we wanted, so we did not evaluate other vendors or products.

I've worked with my SE on this with at least four or five other schools that did not use Palo's, but since turned to use them. I speak with my SE often, and I also speak with my colleagues at other schools about my experiences. I generally explain what my experience with Palo Alto is compared to what I've had with other firewalls.

I don't want to become a Palo Alto-centric shop. We can use certain cloud features that they have, such as SaaS products. However, I choose not to, so that we can have a little bit more flexibility in what we do.

When we were a pure Cisco shop, we saw the problems with doing that. Palo Alto does a really good job at everything they do but, I just want to make sure that from my university's perspective, we don't get stuck. If all of a sudden, somebody else comes out with another product, we don't want to be stuck with a specific vendor, unless they are definitely the best solution.

We use other products in addition to Palo Alto to help along the way. For example, we use Corelight from Bro Zeek, Terracotta, and other things that I can stream together and send to our SOC to look at. We also have XDR, although it's not a fully functional one because we don't have the endpoint component. That is what is killing a lot of EDUs because we just don't have the budget or the money to be able to go out and buy all of the products that help us to function the way we need to.

In the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW, 100% of the evasions were blocked. For a C-level person, that's great news. They read those types of things. As a technical person, it's important to me because it makes my life easy.

Palo Alto sells a next-generation firewall called the PA-400 series, and depending on what a company's bandwidth needs are, it would be a good choice. For example, if they're not doing anywhere close to a gig worth of traffic, such as in a small office, home office, or small business, then it would be a good solution. It also depends on what the business does. If there isn't much traffic then a PA-400 would be fine.

If a colleague of mine at another company were to say that they are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, based on my experience with Palo Alto, I would tell them that they get what they pay for. Palo Alto is not cheap but at the same time, their product is not really comparable with others. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

If you consider Fortinet, for example, they call themselves a next-generation firewall but they really aren't. They are what you call a GPO, which is related to policies. It is important that you look at what other people do and how they do it, but for the most part, there's not anybody out there doing what Palo Alto is. 

Another one is Cisco. They do the same thing that Palo Alto does, although it takes three Cisco boxes to do what a single Palo Alto box does.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It is a data center firewall solution and a centralized management for remote office firewall solutions. We have 30-odd remote offices where we are putting firewalls in to replace the standard routers that we used to have. This solution will give us a little bit of routing and firewall capabilities.

We are deploying the PA-440 Series in our remote offices.

Historically, DNS would have been from local providers. Now, having a centralized DNS allows us to make sure there are no issues of DNS cache poisoning and DNS exfiltration. 

The solution has definitely helped us with the security holes around visibility and uniform policy deployments across the estate. Unified, centralized configuration management definitely helps us reduce the risk by having a central place where we can create a policy, and it is deployed everywhere, without the risk of human mistakes creeping in, e.g., typo mistakes creeping into configurations.

The firewall feature is great because we didn't have specific firewall capabilities beforehand. The anti-malware features and the ability to plug into our mail scanning are valuable as well, so we can share data between our email antivirus scanning solutions. That integration has been quite useful.

Palo Alto NGFW embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, which is another string to the bow of our layered security approach. So, it is important. It is not the big reason we bought it, but it is a useful component to our layered security approach. Security best practices push for a layered approach because there are so many different factors that you need to cover: 

• Email threats
• Malware
• Viruses
• Accidental human mistakes made internally to your network.
• Malicious humans in your network and outside your network. 

Therefore, a multi-layered approach really is a security best practice way of attacking security. You can't just worry about the parameter; you need to worry about what's inside your network and how things come in.

The key thing is that we don't have to try and play Whac-A-Mole. The machine learning-powered firewalls do that for us. As a recruitment company, we can never have the necessary technologies available to us to try and do this ourselves, so leveraging the machine learning power from Palo Alto reduces the risk for us.

Palo Alto NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is very useful. This prevents us from having to go to a lot of different systems, and in some cases, many different systems in many different regions, because we are a global company with 60 remote offices around the world in 30 different countries. Its centralized platform is really what we look for in all services, whether it be security or otherwise.

When we looked at it originally, we needed to host the Panorama environment ourselves. I would prefer it if we could take this as a service. It might be that it is available, but for some reason we didn't choose it. The downsides of hosting are that we need to feed and water the machines. We are trying to move to a more SaaS environment where we have less things in our data centers, whether they be in our cloud data centers or physical data centers, which can reduce our physical data center footprint.

We started with a couple of firewalls about 18 months ago. We started them in our data centers and are just about to deploy them in our remote offices.

It has been very stable.

On the maintenance side, we haven't increased our team at all. One of the great things that we have been able to improve is the capability of our team without increasing the number of heads who are using Palo Alto.

It is scalable with what we need. I am not looking at thousands and thousands of devices, so it is well within what we need for our few hundred devices.

We often didn't deploy tools because it was too hard to try and manage them with our small team. This solution has enabled our small team to be way more effective than they were before. It gives us the visibility and control that we need.

We have a senior network administrator and about five operational guys. There are also some service desk-level guys and about 12 of them have visibility into activities, but they don't actually change things. Change control is quite closely guarded.

We have deployed the solution in a couple of data centers. We are deploying it across 30 offices this year and plan to do the next 30 to 30-ish offices in the next 12 to 18 months, as some of their hardware retires or has expired. We are not pushing it out too fast. We are going with the cadence of the business.

The technical support is very good. We had some nasty questions, but they were sorted out quite quickly. The problem that we had, because it was live, was it took us a little bit of time to deploy stuff. We also have a good relationship with their pre-sales engineers who offered advice and guidance, specifically as part of the deployment.

We previously had Cisco ASA Firewalls in some locations and Cisco Security PAK Routers in other locations that gave us a base level of firewall. So, we didn't previously have any next-generation firewalls. These are our first real next-gen firewalls.

We switched solutions because we didn't have enough of the network security covered. Also, we wanted centralized visibility and control, which was key for us.

When we did some red team testing, we found that there was a way to get some data out through our existing DNS environment. We knew we had to fix the centralized DNS management, visibility, knowledge of the DNS queries, and the visibility of the DNS queries as a result of some testing that we did. Whereas, before they were all geographically disparate, having a centralized place to look at to be able to do some analysis and visibility really are the key things for us.

The initial setup was not simple, but it is simplified. What was really good was the free training beforehand. As an architect, I don't get my hands that dirty, but I was able to go through a number of the free courses beforehand, or workshops, that were done online. Their training platform was very useful in helping me get an understanding of the product and how we would deploy it in our own environment. The actual deployment, as with anything network-related, is fairly complex because we have a very connected network with a lot of different entry points. While it takes time, it was very useful to get the training beforehand.

The deployment took about three months, but it was in the midst of a data center migration. It probably only took us a month to deploy it properly, but then we had to migrate services over, which took another six months. Again, this was part of our data center migration project. To actually get the solution installed was very quick, it took only a couple of days to get it up and running. However, to move services onto it, you need to be a bit careful when you start to move the live services onto it.

Our implementation strategy was really focused around our data center migrations and moving stuff out of one data center into another. As we moved services from one data center to the other, we brought them onto Palo Alto's in the new data center rather than onto the existing old routers and firewalls. So, it was really governed by the business, applications, and what we could move when.

We used Palo Alto directly for the deployment. Our experience with them was great.

To deploy it, we didn't employ any more staff. We did send a few people out remotely. With COVID, travel is a little bit tricky. So, we have some remote agreements with some suppliers who will go out for a day, plug a device in, and help us with the initial out-of-the-box config. That is normally two to three hours per site that we have to do, which is what I would expect from this kind of device.

Look at Palo Alto because it is a bit modular, so you can take the components that you need when you need them. You need something that will do the job. It doesn't matter if it's cheap and fast, if it quickly lets through vulnerabilities. You need something that will be reliable.

We were very happy when they released the PA-440s. Previously, we had been looking at the PA-820s, which were a bit of overkill for us. Price-wise and capability-wise, the PA-820s hit the nail on the head for us.

Go for a three-year deal, then Palo Alto will bring in some discounts. We also deployed them as HA Pairs to make sure we had resiliency.

We looked at Cisco and Fortinet. The reason that we went with Palo Alto was they were fairly cost-effective. They were also a bit easier to manage. The central management and control of Palo Alto was a little bit nicer than the Cisco side of things. I think everyone achieves the same things in slightly different ways. The way Palo Alto achieves their centralized management and control resonated a bit better with us and our requirements.

We haven't actually deployed Palo Alto NGFW’s DNS Security yet, but we will be doing that.

It is great that 100% of the tested attacks were blocked in the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NGFW. It is a great story, but I never trust 100% because that's why we have layered security. However, it definitely provides a great level of comfort in our security structure.

I never give anyone a 10, so I will give the solution a nine (out of 10).