We use this solution to protect the perimeter and use it as a proxy for the servers.
We have the firewalls installed in our data center at present and are planning to put them in the corporate and branch offices as well.
We use this solution to protect the perimeter and use it as a proxy for the servers.
We have the firewalls installed in our data center at present and are planning to put them in the corporate and branch offices as well.
A couple of years ago, we removed the explicit proxy for the servers and made the proxy transparent for the servers. We were able to make it softer for the servers' web filtering.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. They have a couple of solutions in the cloud that we are trying to add to our ecosystem.
Because Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are installed in our data center, it is very important that Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. We need to protect our servers.
The cloud could be improved. I would like to have more visibility of the network vulnerabilities as well.
I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for more than five years.
The stability is good.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have good scalability.
Palo Alto's technical support is good, and I would rate them an eight out of ten.
Positive
Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine on a scale from one to ten.
We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for security purposes and to mitigate risk.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls enabled us to have better visibility overall.
The inline, real-time attack prevention provided by embedded machine learning is not bad.
Also, the firewalls are moderate in terms of securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, i.e., from the smallest office to the largest data centers.
We have been able to reduce downtime because we have better visibility. We're faster and can act preemptively.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls do not provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities.
Customer support could be improved.
I've been using this solution for about one year.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are stable.
The firewalls' scalability is good.
I would rate Palo Alto's network support a six out of ten.
Neutral
We have seen a slight ROI, enough to justify the cost of the solution.
The cost is steep, but most firewalls cost a lot.
If you're looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would not recommend Palo Alto NG Firewalls.
Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.
I place a high value on attending the RSA Conference. I get a lot out of it because I'm able to learn about up-and-coming companies. I can see what options are available, whether someone's doing it better, and if I can get a cheaper option.
Attending RSAC does have an impact on my organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year.
We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for segmentation and basic routing. They are the gatekeepers for the network.
I like being able to investigate anonymous VPNs and also like to use traffic-capturing features. We've had some anonymous VPNs coming to our network, and we're trying to make sure that internal users are not able to use those to get past our security.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have a very nice interface for logging and monitoring. I find it easy to navigate and use, and the interface is organized as well. I can find answers within a couple of hours and have seen time savings.
We have Azure firewalls that are licensed through Palo Alto. It's super important that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities because we are moving almost entirely to Azure. Thus, the more Azure integration we have, the better it's going to be for us long term.
These firewalls have been efficient at securing data centers consistently across all workplaces.
We haven't had many downtime issues with Palo Alto.
The customer-facing side needs to be improved in terms of the engagement and involvement of support staff.
My first exposure to this solution was about a year and a half ago.
The firewalls are relatively stable. We have a few that go up and down, but that has more to do with licensing issues than with the firewall itself.
Technical support needs to be improved with regard to the time to respond and the response itself. We've been getting the same responses over and over again. It would help us out a lot if the technical support staff were more engaged or involved.
From what I've heard from our firewall engineer, I would rate technical support a four out of ten.
Neutral
We utilize GlobalProtect and have seen a better return on investment with regard to security and peace of mind.
Licensing is a big issue for us because of the complexity and the lack of engagement from Palo Alto. It has been hard to talk with them as we don't get the best answers.
We are always evaluating other vendors and are currently looking at Cisco. Though both Palo Alto and Cisco firewalls are feature-rich and provide very good value, Cisco is better at customer engagement. They are easier to talk to as well.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are not the cheapest and fastest, but they are one of the top ones in terms of the most effective firewalls.
Overall, I would rate NG Firewalls an eight out of ten. They're definitely a top competitor.
I love the opportunity to see technical demos and take hands-on tours with some of the products at RSA conferences. They are the best part because I get to learn and gain exposure to new technology. It is particularly helpful when we want to look at other avenues.
We deployed Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for inbound and outbound protection, as well as DMC protection, in our data center.
The key aspect of this solution that provides the most value is its next-gen capabilities, which represented a significant change for us. Previously, we had been using Check Point.
We switched to this solution due to its advanced next-gen capabilities, which allowed us to create rules based on applications rather than ports or protocols. As a result, the solution became much more relevant to our needs compared to our previous solution.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls allowed for more flexibility in defining rules, as it was based on applications rather than strict port and protocol definitions. This made it easier to adapt to changing needs and configurations.
We were able to automate things using the API. Savings are minimal, but we save a significant amount of time when we deploy rules that we learn when we deploy the policy. Is the process still the same? Perhaps the implementation will take only a few hours or minutes.
We have been exclusively using it for the Next-Gen firewall, MDPN, and remote access for a while.
It integrates the core capabilities into one.
To make it more affordable, we had to separate the integrated features into individual components. The integrated solution was more expensive than when we broke it down into separate components.
I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for over five years, and perhaps even as long as ten years.
The stability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is very good.
We have upgraded it several times for additional features, and we have never experienced any crashes or performance issues. Overall, it has been quite stable.
In terms of scalability, the cost is a limiting factor. We can buy a large number of them, but it would not make financial sense for us to do so due to the high cost.
In contrast to the cloud environment where you can scale incrementally and horizontally, in our case, we have to purchase the entire unit. As a result, scaling our responsibilities becomes challenging.
We have around 2,000 compute resources that need protection, so getting a large firewall is necessary to safeguard our environment.
Technical support is very good.
I would rate the technical support an eight out of ten.
F5 and Cloudflare are types of support that were really good. There is no escalation whatsoever. The first person you get to already is the top-notch technical person.
With Palo Alto, you have to escalate, but eventually, you get to a good one.
Positive
The deployment process was easy.
We used a migration tool to transfer from our previous firewall to Palo Alto, and it proved to be quick.
We received support from a Palo Alto sales engineer.
While Palo Alto is expensive, it's still the better option compared to the other two vendors that were evaluated since they didn't provide the necessary performance and benefits.
Overall, the expenses for Palo Alto are manageable, and it's worth the investment.
It's too expensive.
Although Palo Alto is a good and fast product, it is not the most affordable option out there, and it may not be the easiest to use.
We evaluated Cisco and Fortinet.
During our evaluation process for selecting a firewall vendor, we prioritize performance as the number one factor.
Price range is ranked second in importance.
Other important factors include ease of use, API support, and next-gen features, all of which are used as evaluation criteria. We have previously used Magic Quadrant, but it is important for us to carefully choose our firewall vendor.
Integrating machine learning at the core of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls would be highly beneficial. The ability to automatically detect threats without the need to create rule sets manually would be a game changer.
Attending events like RSA is valuable to me because it allows me to explore different vendors and products. Sometimes, I come across new vendors that I haven't heard of before, which is good.
Attending events like RSA can have a significant impact on our company's cybersecurity purchases throughout the year. If we come across a new vendor with a fresh approach to protecting the company or identifying threats, we are definitely interested in exploring their offerings.
I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.
As a Security Engineer, I use this solution for protection. I put in additional rules and also use the solution for forensic investigations and to look at traffic logs.
I like that Palo Alto Networks does a good job of keeping the firewall updated with the latest threat signatures.
We use Panorama, so we're able to manage an entire array of firewalls in one console. It's really useful because we can make one change and deploy it to all of our firewalls.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls do a great job at providing a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. For example, we can easily export our firewall logs into our SIEM. We have so many tools to manage that having a unified platform makes our job easier.
This firewall is great at securing data centers consistently across all workplaces.
We have high availability, and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls helped reduce downtime.
The performance of the Panorama interface needs to be improved. It tends to be very sluggish at times.
I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for five years.
I have not heard of any complaints or issues regarding the stability of the firewalls.
We can easily add nodes into Panorama with no problem. As such, scalability is not an issue. We have an enterprise environment with approximately 15,000 users in multiple countries.
I haven't had to call technical support, but my colleagues have. They've always spoken positively about the experience and would probably rate the technical support an eight out of ten.
Positive
My organization used Cisco Secure Firewall ASA and switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because Cisco was lagging behind in many features. For example, the management interface on the ASAs was awful compared to that in the NG Firewalls.
We have absolutely seen an ROI in the fact that we haven't ended up in the news. We can look at any time and see all the threats that have been stopped by Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.
If you are looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would say that it's a risky angle to take. Security costs money, and you'll get what you pay for.
The benefits I receive from attending an RSA conference are networking, meeting people and having conversations face-to-face, making contacts in the industry, getting suggestions about products, and attending briefings about specific products.
Also, attending RSAC can have an impact on your organization’s cybersecurity purchases because you may find out about products that you hadn't heard of before.
Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight on a scale from one to ten.
We mainly use the solution for traditional firewall boundaries.
The solution helped us meet our security requirements.
The fact that the Next-Gen firewalls are integrated with identity is the best. It gives us the ability to track what an individual is doing and helps us provide access to only what they need in order to do their job.
Because we want to free up our operators from the routine tasks of investigations, it's important to us that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention.
Technical support could be improved. Palo Alto's technical support used to be great. Whenever I had a problem, I could pick up the phone and call and get answers. That's not the case any longer.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls don't provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It's missing some features for geofencing and understanding locations.
These firewalls are primarily used for edge defense. In terms of securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, that is, from the smallest office to the largest data centers, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls don't have a strong zero trust model.
NG Firewalls have not helped us reduce downtime in our organization. Because of technical support issues, we've taken some hits.
I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for 20 years.
It's always been a stable product.
This solution is a firewall that's a hardware appliance, and that's not the direction the industry is heading. Everybody is going toward a software-defined perimeter. Palo Alto doesn't have a strong say on it. They took what they had for their hardware and just put it in the cloud without understanding what being cloud-centric is all about.
I would rate the technical support a three out of ten.
Negative
Our ROI is that the firewalls have been used quite a few times for investigations. We've gathered the evidence we needed to act upon an issue.
These firewalls are not cheap, but they have a reasonable licensing model.
If you are considering attending an RSA Conference, note that you won't gain enough information by attending one conference. However, when you attend year after year, go through the expo, and talk to vendors, you will begin to see trends. You'll see that what's hype one year is no longer a reality another year. Thus, the experience with RSA is a multiple-year experience.
Attending RSAC has made an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases. We've brought products back into our infrastructure based on what we discovered from talking to vendors at the RSAC.
Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a seven out of ten.
We are resellers. We're testing this solution in our network and learning about the scalability, how to set up the firewall, and the rules. It's a layer 7 firewall, so we want to know about the capabilities and detection.
The solution is deployed on-premises.
The most important feature is the firewall. We can make rules to filter the application layer of traffic. It's a very helpful feature.
The interface is user-friendly. It minimizes clicks and the need to type comments. With the GUI, we just have to drag and drop. It's quite helpful. For those who don't have a lot of experience with Palo Alto, there's a lot of good documentation.
The machine learning is very good. From our tests, the detection is quite good. I would rate the machine learning a nine out of ten.
I would like to see more integration.
I have used this solution for about eight months.
I'm a consultant and appliance tester. My job is to test the network and know how it works.
The stability is good.
I don't know about the scalability because we only have one appliance, which we haven't upgraded.
I haven't contacted technical support, but all of the answers to my questions are available in the documentation.
We previously used Fortinet.
The installation is straightforward. It's just a simple button. The deployment took less than two hours.
We used four people for testing the capabilities and for the deployment. There were also three or four people outside my team who were involved.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
To those who are interested in using this solution, what I would first say is that Palo Alto is a leader in Gartner. I would give them recommendations about the technical side, what we have done in our testing, the protection rate, the benefits, and how quickly and accurately the firewall can detect threats.
This solution helps us standardize. We have a presence in the Americas, the Pacific, and Europe and have to manage three firewalls. The previous solution made it difficult to standardize, but with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, it's a little simpler. It just makes it a pleasant experience overall.
Security is the biggest thing nowadays, including threat response, incident response, and root cause. We found that a lot of the logging and dashboard capabilities offered by Palo Alto fill the missing skill gap that you run up against. It makes it easier for our tier-two staff to get involved in some of the deeper root cause analysis. The dashboards, logs, and reports make it easier for our staff to dive right in and not get lost in what tools they should use. It's easy because they're all right there.
Our firewall engineers like the automations that are involved with the firewall rules. For example, we integrate with Azure, and Azure constantly updates the IP addresses for their whitelists. There are hundreds. With the previous solution that we had, our firewall administrators had to hand-jam a lot of their IP addresses, so it became more of a deterrent to manage the firewall because of the overhead involved. Now that it's automated with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, they've been more apt to use the tool than they did previously.
It allows our firewall administrators to speak more confidently when we have an incident response. When they detail their root cause analysis and possibly what the problem is, the leadership receives that information with a little more confidence, and it's a little more palatable. This makes our lives easier when dealing with an incident response.
From a leadership perspective, the reports are genuine, palatable, and easy to understand. They allow me to make logical leaps.
There are servers that go along with Palo Alto, at least for the identity management part. We chose to use a Windows platform, so the only maintenance involved is the patching of the servers and then the occasional agent upgrade for the servers. Palo Alto versions would need to be upgraded as well, along with security patches.
For the most part, we don't see it as a lot of overhead in terms of maintenance. We try to have a maintenance weekend each month for our network team, in addition to a patch maintenance weekend for our system administrators. Overall, we really haven't had to patch.
As part of our internet filtering, we integrate heavily with Active Directory, and we use security groups to separate staff into two groups: those who should have full access to the internet and those who should have limited access. It may be just the way the topology is for our domain controllers and that infrastructure, but at peak usage, there seems to be a delay in reading back against the security group to find out what group the user is in.
We've been using it for roughly five years.
It's deployed on-premises, but we are presently moving into Azure, so we are looking at the Palo Alto appliances for that environment as well.
Stability-wise, we have three regions in which we use Palo Alto, and we are not pegging the resources for these boxes at all. They're meeting and exceeding our expectations in terms of stability, but we're definitely not pushing them to the limit.
In terms of the scalability of the appliance itself, there are some licenses that you can upgrade where you don't have to bolt on any hardware. You may have to upgrade a module. The supporting appliances are VMs that we stand up in the data center, and those handle more of the identity management pieces of the Palo Alto solution.
Palo Alto's technical support has been great. We recently had an issue with DNS where we were having difficulties tracking where an endpoint was making DNS requests. We got a little lost in some of the admin consoles for Palo Alto. We opened a service request, the call was returned within two hours, and an administrator from Palo Alto stayed on the phone with our engineers for about three hours and really helped us by generating some unique queries.
I would rate technical support an eight out of ten with respect to the engineers. They've been very responsive and quick. They have always followed up within the timeframe that Palo Alto said that they would.
Positive
We switched because of the end of life in a hardware's life cycle. With us moving into the cloud and having a much larger endpoint presence, we wanted something that was a little more robust. We also had fewer head counts for our firewall or network administrator staff. So, we wanted a tool that we could access easily and not have such a large training curve. We went with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because it made a little more sense for us.
In terms of ROI, protecting our customers is obviously number one. The implementation of our previous solution required agents to be installed on all our endpoints. That was a little more difficult because we have a large number of endpoints globally. The administrative overhead to manage the updates for those agents was not favorable.
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls allowed us to rely more on the existing infrastructure, Active Directory, to help us with identity management and security groups. It has made it simpler to manage.
We evaluated two other options.
The sales team that assisted us with refining our requirements and explaining some of the new feature sets that are coming out helped us see that some of our requirements were no longer needed. It really helped us to learn more about the service that we were looking for, and Palo Alto just made it an easier discussion for us.
I recommend fully engaging Palo Alto's sales team. They're very knowledgeable and very friendly. We have three regions, PAC, Europe, and the Americas, and time zones and the quality of support always come into question when you're spread out. We haven't seen any gaps no matter what time zone we had a problem with in terms of sales and post-support. It has been great all the way around.
Overall, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a rating of eight on a scale of one to ten.