Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

Palo Alto is used as our organization's perimeter firewall. In fact, it is our data center. We use it to protect our perimeter level. The model that we use is the PA-5020, which is a bare metal device.

I currently work in ISP operations, where we host DNS servers for customers and also have a few AAA servers for broadband authentication. In Sri Lanka, there are ADSL customers and broadband customers, who authenticate against our AAA service. Additionally, we also protect our internal members using Palo Alto firewalls.

In the event that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls detect evolving and rapidly moving threats, we get help from the Palo Alto teams to resolve the issues. We do the level one troubleshooting and then open a tactic attempt to pass that to tech managers for resolution.

Previously, there were a couple of limited features available from GlobalProtect. However, after introducing these new features, the solution has been very helpful for us. This is very important.

We are a telecommunication service provider and we offer many IT services to our customers. The recent attack has made it very important for us to take precautions. Having a unified platform for our organization is an integral part of being able to identify and address attacks quickly.

Most of the features in Palo Alto are very valuable. Recently, in the COVID pandemic situation, we used SSL VPN through GlobalProtect from Palo Alto, which was very helpful for us to do work at home. We use general category-based filtering. Palo Alto is a very sophisticated firewall.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning in the core of the firewall to prevent attacks is very important. Previously, our country was not targeted by attackers, but recently, we have identified that there are a couple of situations happening in our country. Recently, there has been an unstable political situation in our country, and during that time period, many attackers have been trying to infiltrate our networks. We definitely have to go to the next-generation features such as the Next-Generation Firewalls.

Having a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities is a great feature. We previously used a single management platform, Panorama from Palo Alto, across all of our Palo Alto products. However, Panorama is no longer being supported, due to its end-of-life status.

Having a unified platform helped to eliminate security holes. Between the UTM platforms, and Palo Alto, all features are available in one firewall, so we don't need to buy different products or separate IPS devices and separate antivirus devices. In Palo Alto UTM firewalls, most of the features are available such as antivirus with filtering, which is very important.

The solution is user-friendly.

The pricing of the solution is high and can be improved.

Most other VPN clients include mobile VPNs but Palo Alto does not. We are required to purchase the mobile VPN clients separately. During our RFPs we have noticed that most features by vendors are similar but the price for those features is higher with Palo Alto.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is very stable.

I'm not seeing scalability problems in my scenario, but overall Palo Alto is doing well in terms of scalability. I'm using ten licenses for V systems and the port density is good.

There are five firewall administrators, two engineers, and three technical staff. In my department, there are thirty users and during the work-from-home scenario, all of them are connecting through the SSL VPN. Thirty plus users in our organization and the request for the service that is in our country, in our broadband customer segment are 1,500 thousand.

The solution is at the end of the life cycle and we are in the process of upgrading.

The support from the tech team is good, and their response is fine.

There is a tendering process in my organization, so products that are technically qualified go through a two-stage process: the first stage is the technical qualification stage and the second stage is the financial qualification stage. However, in the end, everything comes down to finances, and that's why Palo Alto was awarded the tender and we switched from Check Point.

The first thing we did was install a client to manage the Check Point firewall. However, I think the new versions which operate at this time don't need the client. Previously, it definitely required a client, so that was a headache. Palo Alto is not like that, it's a dual-based configuration. Also, when we apply the rules, it's also very easy in Palo Alto. Another important aspect is that Palo Alto uses its own based firewall, and Check Point does not. We have to put the configuration to interfaces and likewise. This is very helpful because in my network, in some cases, we have to have a couple of interfaces that are met with the source, and we have to easily apply rules by selecting the source.

The initial setup is straightforward. I was in the deployment stage when this firewall came to my organization. Palo Alto includes a quick reference guide in the box. For an initial setup, everything is available in that quick reference guide. 

We had the Check Point firewall previously and after the tender process, Palo Alto was selected as the new replacement. We took three to four weeks to migrate all the Check Point rules. We migrated around 100 to 150 rules from Check Point to Palo Alto which was very easy.

There is a team in my organization made up of engineers and technical officers. Working under the engineers the technical officers are responsible for the physical implementation of everything. I am an engineer in my organization, and engineers are responsible for installing programs and configurations. We have a timeline to meet for every new implementation, which is a project for us.

In the deployment stage, we had six or seven members on the deployment team. After deployment, we now have two engineers and three technical staff, for a total of five people who perform maintenance.

The implementation was completed in-house.

My firewall is used to protect my internet servers. This means that the servers provide services to our broadband customers. After taking the revenue from broadband customers, Palo Alto is almost covered. However, there is no direct ROI for Palo Alto in my setup.

We are purchasing an annual subscription for signatures, and categories. Our box has ten perpetual licenses for V Systems.

We don't have licenses for SSL VPNs because it is included in the box. For VPNs, we don't need a license. However, if we use the Power VPN client on our mobile devices, we need to purchase the client software.

Before choosing Palo Alto, we evaluated Check Point and FortiGate.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We are currently in the process of procuring a new parallel processing solution. Our current parallel processing solution is reaching the end of its life in 2023, so we need to find a new solution by March 2023. Ideally, we would like to find a new solution from Palo Alto, but the selection process is still in progress so I can't say for sure which model will be chosen.

In the past seven years I have been using the solution, I have only had to open ten tickets for support.

The zero delay signature feature is not implemented because our license is not enabled in our firewall. We use layer seven filtering for our data center.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are protecting our data center. Almost all our country's broadband users request access through this firewall.

I can recommend the Palo Alto firewall for other companies as a perimeter firewall, as a data center, and as a work-from-home scenario for SSL VPN, but I don't have experience with it as a managed service.

To any potential new users, definitely go for Palo Alto, don't worry about its sophistication. With all my experience using Palo Alto, I have had very minor issues. I recommend Palo Alto as a company network solution.

The configuration of the solution is nice. During the time period that I have used Palo Alto, I have had only a few tickets raised and the tech support is helpful. Palo Alto firewalls cover most security threats.

We are using PA-820. This Palo Alto series is being used in our separate branch office. We are managing surveillance and internet activities with this Next-Generation security firewall. We are using the UTM features and running best security practices through this firewall. Moreover, VPNs and other remote access security features are being implemented in our environment with this firewall.

It has a very good security database for attack prevention. There are many security breaches, and most of the 2022 security breaches use automation. It has a really good automation engine that clearly prevents new types of attacks. We recently avoided an attack with Palo Alto.

DNS security is super good in this. Its DNS attack coverage is 40% more, and it can disrupt 80% of attacks that use DNS. Without requiring any change in your infrastructure, you can avoid the attacks. With this Palo Alto firewall, we are able to manage DNS security in a single device because it has single-pass architecture.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It has a VPN. We don't need to go for additional security features or devices in our environment. It is an all-in-one solution. With other firewalls, such as FortiGate, you require separate licenses. For example, for high availability, you would require an additional license, which is not the case with Palo Alto. In this way, Palo Alto is completely in line with our budget requirements. We are also planning to go with the higher version of Palo Alto firewalls in our environments.

It has helped to eliminate security holes. It creates a usage pattern with its machine learning and artificial intelligence features. It uses a good amount of artificial intelligence to create a pattern. If there are any changes in the usage pattern, it notifies us, and we are able to take action.

In our environment, we are running a lot of production servers. So, we cannot compromise on security. We give more priority to security than performance in our architecture. We put 70% focus on security and 30% on performance. Palo Alto completely suits our requirements. They have three-tier security. We can see the application layer traffic, network layer traffic, and session layer traffic.

It integrates perfectly. It integrates with SIEM solutions such as Darktrace. For log analysis, we are able to completely retrieve the logs.

The most important feature is advanced threat prevention. It stops most malware. It provides 96% or 97% prevention against malware. It has a leading intrusion prevention system in the industry. It is really good at malware prevention. It ensures that files are saved in a good and secure environment. It automatically detects and prevents unknown malware with its powerful malware prevention engine. 

It has a unique approach to packet processing. It has single-pass architecture. We can easily perform policy lookups, application decoding, and integration or merging. This can be all done with a single pass. It effectively reduces the amount of processing required to perform multiple actions. This is the main advantage of using Palo Alto.

It is a complete product, but the SSL inspection feature requires some improvements. We need to deploy certificates at each end point to completely work out the UTM solutions. If you enable SSL encryption, it is a tedious process. It takes a lot of time to deploy the certificates to all endpoints. Without SSL inspection, UTM features will not work properly. So, we are forced to enable this SSL inspection feature. 

It has been three years.

It is extremely stable.

It is scalable. There is a VM solution also, so it is completely scalable. 

We have about 3,000 users in our branch office. In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we are also planning to go for Palo Alto as our main firewall. We are planning to go with the higher-end version.

I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

In our branch office, before the Palo Alto firewall implementation, we have been using FortiGate. We switched because of the budgetary requirements. With FortiGate, for the high availability feature, we required two devices. We had to buy two licenses, whereas Palo Alto required only one license. It was completely in tune with our budget. So, we had to go with Palo Alto.

FortiGate did not have single-pass architecture. It took a huge amount of resources for each action. For policy lookups, it took a considerable amount of system resources, such as CPU, RAM, etc. The waiting time was too high for policy lookup, application decoding, and signature matching. All this is carried out in a single pass in Palo Alto. So, it is considerably fast and also secure. There is no compromise in terms of security. It is completely secure, and we are able to do more functions in a single pass with the Palo Alto firewall. So, we save a lot of resources. With FortiGate, security was around 50%. After the implementation of PA 820, it has increased to 80%. We have achieved about a 30% increase in security. Even though PA 820 is not a higher-end series, performance-wise, it matches the higher-end series of FortiGate. So, there is a considerable amount of cost savings. We are able to save 20% to 30% extra.

In our organization, we have multiple vendors. We have FortiGate, Cisco ASA, and other security implementations. We have already purchased many other products. So, we cannot simply suggest Palo Alto across the organization. We have to consider the older purchases.

Palo Alto is a good competitor to FortiGate. Cisco, FortiGate, and Palo Alto are the three main competitors. When we compare these products, they have similarities, but I would suggest going with Palo Alto for higher security. If you are giving more priority to security and less priority to performance, definitely consider this. Cisco ASA and FortiGate are more performance-oriented. So, if you are planning to give more priority to security, I would definitely suggest Palo Alto.

Its initial setup was complex. It was not straightforward. It required a considerable amount of time and effort. Migration was a little bit complex because we had a different vendor product. Migrating to this product required a considerable amount of time and planning because we didn't want to disrupt the networking in our existing environment. It took a good amount of planning and decision-making to migrate to Palo Alto.

Its deployment took about a week. In terms of the implementation strategy, we were deploying it at the branch office. We already had a solution there. So, we had to completely migrate the policies and everything else. We also had to identify the interfaces with the utmost urgency. We first migrated important interfaces and made sure that they all are working fine and all the security features are working fine. After that, we enabled all the policies and other features. In this way, we were able to completely migrate in seven days.

It required three network administrators. They are responsible for actively managing the firewall configurations, taking backups, etc.

With this highly secure environment, we are able to maintain our production-level servers on-premises. We were planning to move them to the cloud for security, but with the implementation of Palo Alto, we were able to maintain them on-premises. We could create a considerable amount of production service, and thereby, we had a great return on investment through this.

It is not that expensive. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing. Other than the licensing, there are no additional costs.

We didn't evaluate anything other than FortiGate and Palo Alto.

I would recommend this solution if security is more important to you. If the performance of the users is more important, I would not suggest Palo Alto. It gives more priority and weight to security. It has a complete security mechanism with AI, log-based analysis, etc. I would recommend it for higher cybersecurity and IT-related environments.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

On-premises, we used Cisco but replaced our core firewall world with Palo Alto because we wanted more visibility. Plus, we were looking for features such as IPS for PCI compliance. We wanted next-generation capability, but we had the ASA traditional firewall with Cisco, which doesn't do much, so we replaced it with Palo Alto. 

In the cloud, we use Palo Alto for the zero trust implementation. Initially, we tried to work with the Azure firewall, but we found a lot of limitations in terms of visibility. It couldn't provide us with the same visibility we wanted for Layer 4 and above.

The solution is deployed both on cloud and on-premises. The cloud provider is Azure.

We have about 6,500 endpoints in my organization and five administrators.

One of our key challenges was for the PCI, the new standard 3.1. There's a requirement that financial applications need to have some sort of zero trust architecture. They need to be completely segregated. We implemented zero trust using Palo Alto so that if we are within the same subnet within the network, we have protection.

The unified platform helps us eliminate security holes. We use another product from Palo Alto, called WildFire, which is basically sandboxing. We have layers of products. Because of WildFire, we're able to identify any weaknesses in the upper layers.

We give a copy of the same packet to WildFire, and this helps us identify things that were bypassed, such as malware or malicious files. It's especially helpful when we're transferring files, like on SMB, because it's integrated.

The unified platform helps eliminate multiple network securities, and the effort needed to get them to work with each other. It's a very good product for us because it fits well in our ecosystem. 

Our other vendor is Fortinet. Previously, we struggled with having multiple products. One of them was command-line based and the other one was web-based. The engineers would have some difficulty because not everyone is good with a command line platform. Palo Alto and Fortinet are both managed by the UI and they're very similar products. They work well with each other, so we use certain capabilities here and there.

For example, for some internet browsing, we generally have a separate solution for our proxy, but there are situations where we need to provide direct internet access to a particular server in a certain situation. The problem is when a particular product does not work with the proxy for some reason. This is where we use Palo Alto's web filtering. If we didn't have a solution that could do this, it would be difficult on our side because how can we provide direct access to the server without securities?

When browsing, the logs provide us with the required information. For example, we allow certain URLs to a particular server, and we have that data also. This goes back into our same solution. With Palo Alto, the connectors are built in.

Our Palo Alto Firewall has the zero-delay signatures feature implemented. For the IPS capability, we rely completely on Palo Alto. If we don't have this implemented and there's a new, ongoing attack, we will be exposed. We make sure there are controls on the policies we have on each layer.

Even if a patch is released for that particular issue, it would take us time to implement it. We actually rely on the network layer, which is our Palo Alto box, to prevent that in case someone tries to exploit it. In the meantime, we would patch it in the background.

One of the key features for us is product stability. We are a bank, so we require 24/7 service.

Another feature we like about Palo Alto is that it works as per the document. Most vendors provide a few features, but there are issues like glitches when we deploy the policy. We faced this with Cisco. When we pushed policies and updated signatures, we ran into issues. With Palo Alto, we had a seamless experience.

The maintenance and upgrade features are also key features. Whenever we have to do maintenance and upgrades, we have it in a cluster and upgrade one firewall. Then, we move the traffic to the first one and upgrade the second one. With other vendors, you generally face some downtime. With Palo Alto, our experience was seamless. Our people are very familiar with the CLI and troubleshooting the firewall.

It's very important that the solution embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline real-time attack prevention. There is one major difference in our architecture, which we have on-premises and on the cloud. Most enterprises will have IPS as a separate box and the firewall as a separate box. They think it's better in terms of throughput because you can't have one device doing firewall and IPS and do SSL offloading, etc. In our new design, we don't have a separate box.

When we looked at Palo Alto about five years ago, we felt that the IPS capability was not as good as having a separate product. But now we feel that the product and the capabilities of IPS are similar to having a separate IPS.

Machine learning is very important. We don't want to have attacks that bypass us because we completely rely on one product. This is why any AI machine learning capability, which is smarter than behavioral monitoring, is a must.

There was a recent attack that was related to Apache, which everyone faced. This was a major concern. There was a vulnerability within Apache that was being exploited. At the time, we used the product to identify how many attempts we got, so it was fairly new. Generally, we don't get vulnerabilities on our web server platform. They're very, very secure in nature.

We use Palo Alto to identify the places we may have missed. For example, if someone is trying something, we use Palo Alto to identify what kind of attempts are being made and what they are trying to exploit. Then we find out if we have the same version for Apache to ensure that it protects. Whenever there are new attacks, the signature gets updated very quickly.

We don't use Palo Alto Next Generation Firewalls DNS security. We have a separate product for that right now. We have Infoblox for DNA security.

Palo Alto Next Generation Firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates with all security capabilities. We send all the logs to Panorama, which is a management console. From there, we send it to our SIM solution. Having a single PAN is also very good when we try to search or if we have issues or any traffic being dropped. 

Panorama provides us with a single place to search for all the logs. It also retains the log for some time, which is very good. This is integrated with all our firewalls. Plus, it's a single pane of glass view for all the products that we have for Palo Alto.

When we have to push configurations, we can push to multiple appliances at one time. 

Previously for SSL offloading, we utilized a different product. Now we use multiple capabilities, IPS, the SSL offload, and in certain cases the web browsing and the firewall capability altogether. Our previous understanding was that whenever you enable SSL offloading, there is a huge impact on the performance because of the load. Even though we have big appliances, they seem to be performing well under load. We haven't had any issues so far.

We have had some challenges. There are some advanced features that we aren't able to use, which include active IP authentication and app ID. We are facing challenges with implementing those two features.

Other products provide you with APIs that allow you to access certain features of the product externally with another solution. In the cloud, we have a lot of products that provide us with these capabilities, such as Microsoft. It has its own ecosystem, which is exposed through Graph API. I would like to have the capability to use the feature set of Palo Alto and provide it to another solution.

For example, if we have a very good system to identify malicious IPs within Palo Alto, we would like the ability to feed the same information into another product using the APIs. These are obviously very advanced capabilities, but it would be great if Palo Alto would allow this in the future.

I have used this solution for more than five years. I'm using version 10.1.

It's extremely stable. We've used it on the parameter and as a core firewall in our data center. In both cases, it's what we rely on today.

The scalability is amazing. When you look at the data sheet, sometimes you'll find that the equipment won't perform well under the same load. However, if something is mentioned on the data sheet and you implement it, you'll find places where you have high CPU and high memory utilization. When you buy something, maybe it should be 50% load, but when you put it into actual implementation, you find out that the CPU and memory remain very high.

With Palo Alto, the CPU and memory are both intact. It's performing well under load. We have different timings where we have a large load and it goes down and then goes up again. In both scenarios, the product is very good. The CPU performs well. Especially during upgrades, it was very stable and straightforward.

We have plans to increase usage. We're doing a migration in the cloud right now, and we plan to move a lot of our services to the cloud. This is where we'll either add more virtual firewalls in the cloud or increase the size and capacity of firewalls that we have there.

The technical support is great. We've faced very, very serious problems where our systems were impacted due to some reason, and they were able to provide adequate support at the same time. When we raised a P1, an engineer started to work with us right away. Some vendors don't touch the customer's product.

Palo Alto's support is great; they're willing to get their hands dirty and help us.

I would rate technical support nine out of ten.

We previously used Cisco ASA. We switched because of the IPS for compliance, but there were other factors as well, such as usability. We didn't have enough engineers who were well trained on Cisco because it's a very traditional kind of product that's completely CLI driven. We only had one or two people who could actually work on it. Even though people understand Cisco, when we asked them to implement something or make a change, they weren't that comfortable. 

With Palo Alto, it was very simple. The people who knew Fortinet also learned Palo Alto and picked it up very quickly. When we had new people, they were able to adjust to the platform very quickly.

It was straightforward for us. For the initial deployment, we had two experiences. In one experience, we replaced one product with Palo Alto. In that particular situation, we used a tool from Palo Alto to convert the rules from Cisco to Palo Alto. It took us around four or five days to do the conversion and verification to make sure that everything was as it was supposed to be. The cloud deployment was straightforward. We were able to get the appliance up and running in a day.

For our deployment strategy, when we replaced our core, one of the key things was if we wanted to go with the same zones and to identify where the product would be placed and the conversion. We tested the rule conversion because we didn't want to make a mistake. We took a certain set of policies for one particular zone, and then we did the conversion and applied it. We did manual verification to ensure that if we went with an automated solution, which would do the conversion for us, it would work correctly and to see the error changes. Once we applied it to a smaller segment, we did all of it together.

For the cloud deployment, we had some challenges with Microsoft with visibility issues. From the marketplace, we took the product and deployed it. We did a small amount of testing to check how it works because it was new to us, but we were able to understand it very quickly. The engineers in UA helped us because the virtual networking for the cloud is a little bit different than when it's physical.

We were able to get it up and running very quickly. Palo Alto provides a manual for the quick start, which we used to do the deployment. It was pretty straightforward after that.

For maintenance and deployment, we have two engineers working in two shifts. We have around 15 or more Palo Alto firewalls, so we can survive with six members. That's more than enough to handle operations.

We offer security services, so it's difficult to calculate ROI. But since we're an organization where we cannot compromise on security, I would say the ROI is very good. We don't have any plans to change the product since we moved from Cisco.

The cost is much better. We've worked with multiple vendors, and Palo Alto is very straightforward. We've done many implementations with Cisco, and they kill you on the licensing. When you enable each capability, it costs a lot. They charge you for the software and for the capabilities. They charge you for the licensing. It's very complicated. 

With Palo Alto, the licensing is very straightforward. For example, if you only have a requirement for a firewall, you can go with that. If you want to go with a subscription, you get all the features with it.

I work for an enterprise, so we have the topmost license for compliance reasons. There is an essential bundle and a comprehensive bundle for enterprises.

Palo Alto also has a security essential bundle, which covers everything that's required for a small organization.

The PA-400 series of Palo Alto is the smaller box for small businesses. The good thing is that it has the same functionality as the big boxes because it runs the PAN-OS operating system in the background. It's a very good product because it provides you with the same capabilities that an enterprise uses. It provides the same operating system and signatures.

It's also good for an enterprise because you get the same level of capabilities of the firewall. There are firewalls that are 20 times more expensive than this. However, on a small box, you have the same capabilities, the same feature set, and the same stability, so I feel it's a very good product.

We chose Palo Alto right away because we couldn't go with the same vendor, which was Fortinet. We needed a different vendor, and the only option left was Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. 

As a recommendation, I would say go for it. It's a very good product. With implementation, we looked at a lot of different processes that said they offered a lot of capabilities. We've used almost all of them, such as GlobalProtect, which is for the VPN capability, and site-to-site VPN. We have done all kinds of implementations and in most of the cases, it's pretty much worked for us.

At some point, you will have requirements where you have third-party vendors, or you have to integrate with a third party. With Palo Alto, you're safe no matter what. With other open-source solutions, they work but you'll face issues, and you'll have to step up your security. 

With Palo Alto, it's straightforward. You'll have adequate security, it works well, and you'll be able to work with other solutions too, create tunnels, and GlobalProtect.

There are people who utilize open source products also, and it works well for them. But if you're an enterprise that provides 24/7 services, it's better to go with a company that has the support and features that work. We don't have any challenges with it. 

This is very important because maybe you can get a cheaper solution, but stability and functionality matter, especially when we talk about zero-day issues every single day. This is where Palo Alto would be best.

Secondly, with new types of technologies, like with Kubernetes or microservices, it's better that you go with a company that's actually able to cope with all the technology changes that are happening in the background. If you have a multi-operating system, you'll notice that the signatures for the attack are different for different types of operating systems. 

For instance, if you have Linux, Windows, and Unix, you need a product that understands all the different types of attacks on different systems. I think it's better to go with something that's well supported, works well, and is stable.

Some of my customers have Palo Alto firewalls, and the use cases include security policies, VPN connections, remote access, side-to-side VPN, and some user ID functionality. To solve these problems, I usually use the web UI monitor, system logs, end capture, CLI, etc. 

We don't have large-scale implementations in Poland as you'd find in Western Europe, but last year I did a big Palo Alto project with 20 Next-Generation firewalls and it was a success. We deployed eighteen PA 800 CVS firewalls for branch offices and a PA 52 series and NPA 5200 series at the data center. It was a high-availability model. The project was a migration from previously used Palo Alto firewalls, including the PA 500, 3000 series, PA 800 series, and PA 32 series. About 95 percent of our firewalls are on-premises, but some customers in Poland want to move to cloud solutions like Prisma Cloud. 

The most significant benefit is threat protection. Anti-malware uses signatures, so dynamic analyzers like WildFire are the best way to protect the company. It is a firewall based on application control, user ID, and security policy. We can use it based on user and application ID without a stateless firewall or TCPIP ports.

Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewalls have security functionality like a traditional IPS system. You can configure it to download new signatures from the threat intel cloud every five minutes. We also have data filtering, disk protection, SD-1, and machine learning functions. We only have one full working path on a Palo Alto Networks solution, but it is not a classic UTM. In a traditional UTM, checks occur in a series, but everything in Palo Alto Networks is inspected in parallel. 

The security features are the most valuable aspect of Palo Alto's Next-Generation Firewalls. It has all the typical static threat protection based on signatures and WildFire dynamic analyzers. I love this feature. Palo Alto Networks updates the signatures of global threats on the cloud every 60 seconds, so we are protected against the latest threats. 

It also has SD-1, but unfortunately, very few customers in Poland want to enable SSL decryption. From time to time, we have customers who want to test this. Machine learning is crucial to security features like anti-spyware and URL security profiles. Palo Alto was one of the first firewalls to have this capability. It helps us analyze real-time traffic using machine learning instead of signatures. Palo Alto has a better web interface than other firewalls I've used.

The DNS Security checks if your DNS queries are valid because infected computers try to connect to the DNS domain. We have this configuration to block access to the domain. We can use the application to block the DNS tunnel link. 

When we enable security functions like threat prevention, performance generally degrades, but this is normal. Of course, Palo Alto could always improve its security. 

I have been working with Palo Alto's Next Generation Firewalls for four or five years because some of my customers use them. 

Palo Alto firewalls are stable compared to Fortinet, Check Point, or Cisco. From time to time, the firewall is unstable, but that's related to the connection 99 percent of the time. I recommend doing a test with a resource monitor to see if the model is right for you. 

Palo Alto firewalls are scalable because we can find models suitable for any infrastructure in the company's portfolio. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks' support eight out of ten. I periodically have problems, but I typically try to resolve the issue myself. Sometimes I need to send a troubleshooting file to support, but that's rare. Palo Alto Networks provides us with lots of troubleshooting information we can use.

I worked with Fortinet and Cisco firewalls, like PEAK, FirePOWER, and ISA. I also used Check Point firewalls from time to time. I believe Palo Alto has the best technology in the world, and there is a significant demand for these solutions in Poland, so I want to be a person who can implement and configure this technology.  

Many customers think about security in terms of their entire ecosystem, so we have on-premises firewalls and Prisma Cloud, plus endpoint protection solutions like Cortex XDR. I have two customers in Poland who have WildFire in an on-premise sandbox. 

Before implementation, I have to prepare a technical project document containing information about what I will do on this infrastructure, like migration or something like that. I start implementation once the customer approves this document. 

Prior to the physical installation in the server rooms, I need to connect the management interface to the network to update the software and signatures. I have to perform tasks to prepare a device to work. Once I've configured the device, I can switch the firewalls from the current security setup to Palo Alto's firewall. 

It depends on the customer, but sometimes my customers want to enable dynamic protocols first, but they don't enable them. About 95 percent are in working route mode, but we have L3 interfaces from time to time. Generally, migration is simple because I don't use an expedition tool. I made some changes, switching the firewall from the older models to the new ones. After that, I used the optimizer to convert rules, including the TCP UTP power services. 

Then I enabled this project's network and security functions, like the aggregation interface and the trunk. I use aggregation interfaces with virtual interfaces, like the 802.1 queues, sub interfaces with VLAN, and DHCP server relay. I haven't used dynamic working protocols. I only used static working protocols, but maybe my customer will be ready for dynamic working protocols in the future.

The time it takes to deploy depends on the project. Usually, it's about two weeks for the basic installation. However, my current project took between one and two months. Some customers require a lot of other tasks, so the installation might take six to eight weeks.

I'm able to do everything by myself, but I have some problems with functionality every now and then. For example, I recently had a problem with the side-to-side VPN, but the configuration was okay. In the end, I found it was a problem with the internet connection, not the VPN. Initially, our internet provider told us that everything was okay on our networks. 

Unfortunately, Palo Alto Networks products aren't cheap, but you have to pay the price for good security technology. I don't know the exact price, but it's about $10,000 to $15,000 without a subscription. Cisco is priced similarly. FortiGate is inexpensive in Poland, so a lot of customers prefer that.

Though it's pricey, customers ultimately realize Palo Alto is the best security solution because it's stable and the network security functions are practical. Cisco has some problems from time to time, but I feel comfortable with Palo Alto Networks. 

I rate Palo Alto Networking Next-Gen Firewalls seven out of ten. I have to qualify that by saying that I probably don't know enough about Palo Alto Networks technology because we don't have advanced projects in Poland. I want more opportunities to develop my skills with this technology. I want to know more about Prisma Cloud and Strata products. 

Depending on the client's infrastructure, I would recommend a different Palo Alto firewall. I would use PA 220 or maybe a PA 420 maybe for a small office. These devices are for small and medium-sized businesses. We would use a 52 and a 54 series or a 7000 series for a large enterprise.

A VM deployment might be suitable for some security projects. We've even deployed Palo Alto in Polish government institutions. For example, I implemented a VM 500 security solution two years ago. This device works in high availability mode. I think VM is a good starting point for a customer. It allows them to try the security product, open the Web UI, etc. After that, we should develop a proof of concept test and show the customer how this device works on their infrastructure. 

I would recommend a Palo Alto firewall with next-generation security functions like IPS, and the ability to use user or application IDs. I will tell my customers about dynamic functionality and threat intelligence in the Palo Alto Networks cloud.

We use the solution to filter out the traffic from our internal networks, not a public-facing network.

The predictive analytics and machine learning for blocking DNS-related attacks keep track of IP addresses and DNS names from other countries requesting access to our resources. The solution helps us identify any malicious activity and maintain our network safety. We first check the DNS issue and put it into the blacklist. If we get a similar DNS issue from another country in the future, we block the IP range altogether.

Apart from traditional technologies, we have been relying on signature-based identities. For example, we have been following up on what is in the data system and the firewall. These systems can only detect what has already been returned by the data system. If any security vendor does not update its databases or firewalls, or if its upgrades or firmware are not up to date, then malicious attacks can occur. The advantage of Palo Alto is its real-time analysis, as opposed to traditional methods that use signatures. Palo Alto Network NG Firewall has come up with some great behavioral analytics and the Wildfire feature, which helps organizations stay safe from false positive notifications or alerts.

The unified platform helps eliminate security gaps. We had certain servers that we hosted with open ports and we needed to ensure that these ports were closed. When we first set up the solution in the production environment for testing purposes, we detected traffic coming from ports on the server that had not been identified by our previous firewall. Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls uses all of its resources to detect security threats. The solution helps our organization close security vulnerabilities, Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls provide us with the instruments we need to complete our job. 

The unified platform helped eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together. We need to be able to detect the type of traffic being generated from which applications are on which systems and by which users. This will help us identify which IPs are making the requests. Previously we had to rely on multiple tools to collect this information. Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls also provide one graphical interface to display all the information. The solution simplified the process by dropping two to three tools and giving us a clear view of some first-hand data, especially data that has been preliminarily investigated in the case of cybercrime, which is essential.

Security is our primary concern which we build our networking concept around and networking is secondary. We have a single sign-on agent and a dedicated service to run the firewalls. Our architecture is set up in a way that, if a DDoS attack occurs, all the traffic would go down and we have to be prepared. When we consider both the network and security features, we are more inclined toward the security side. Our clients are usually understanding if the downtime is only two to ten minutes and we can recover quickly. 

There are no actual delays happening on the side of setting the solution up because we have all the resources documented on YouTube and on the website itself. We haven't experienced any delays in identifying and collecting the documents or installing the server. However, once we began the onboarding process, some technical issues arose. We forgot to include a customer's request for support from Palo Alto and as a result, the customer executed support themselves either through our website or a call, but a customer service agent acknowledged and resolved the request quickly. Because of that issue, we have been able to allocate adequate resources for implementation. We feel as if we are receiving premium service.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls are policy editing and rule assigning for firewalls, as well as Wildfire. The solution does a great job of identifying malicious items and vulnerabilities with URL filtering. When combined with Fortinet, we have instant results.

Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls is doing impressive work with its AI technology, which is important to our organization. I have forwarded the papers to the director board in a recommendation to make the solution public-facing. We are considering using Palo Alto as an internet-facing firewall for our next project because the solution is an excellent firewall appliance with impressive features and a great UI.

The user interface can be significantly simplified. The dashboard and other features can be more thoughtfully designed. We get all the data in a single dashboard, which gives us additional insights. However, it takes time to sort it all out so it's easily accessible. If the data can be presented in a more graphical and structured way, it would be more helpful.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

We have had a very minimal number of false positives with the solution and it has been very stable. There have been no issues with the firewall itself. In the previous case, we had a lot of tension between the firmware update and the customer service department. This was due to the system working itself up. We had absolutely zero capability issues.

The solution is scalable with the Azure environment. I believe it is scalable because we have many data connectors. We were able to speed up the process within the hybrid environment.

We had some technical support from Palo Alto at the time of installation.

Positive

We have been using the FortiGate firewall for almost 20 years in our environment, but we recognized the Wildfire feature and some of the AIM firewall systems. FortiGate is not a next-gen firewall. Other applications such as Gartner insight offer better connections and recommend a firewall, similar to Palo Alto Networking NG Firewalls, for better application performance. We procured the solution and we have been testing it. We don't like to put all our eggs in one basket. We need multiple firewall solutions to connect with our environment. If one fails for any reason, we can have the second one take over the job. We have servers hosted in the cloud environment and each server has a different firewall installed. If we lose our connection due to a firewall issue, a firmware issue, or if Fortinet couldn't detect malware or a zero-day attack, we would be out of luck without Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. We are considering utilizing both solutions to best suit our needs. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Depending on the resources and skill set of the network engineers the deployment should take between 15 and 20 minutes.

The solution provides good protection and is worth the price.

The only additional cost to our organization comes from having to train our engineers on the proper use of the solution.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have two network administrators, which have been working on the design end, three analysts working on the system itself who are continuously monitoring the firewall status, three cybersecurity engineers, and two network engineers to deal with the networking concepts and any delays with the networking protocols. We also have three cybersecurity engineers to follow up with the monitoring, checking the security incidents, and responding. In total there are five users administrating this firewall on eight servers. The firewall acts as a router, filtering the packages between five servers on the other side. This provides an eight versus five network filtering job. The firewall is not public-facing. We are utilizing it to filter up the data, and packets of files, which are moving between the load balances.

We have an environment for production and for development. The development environment is for scaling our application. The production environment goes to the public, and we have a staging environment for testing our application. We have a joint venture with our clients, which we call UIT. This joint venture helps to reduce costs and create an environment that is beneficial for both our clients and us. We only use our staging environment occasionally, whenever we need to push something new to our service for testing purposes. It will be used around two to three days a week, or twelve to fifteen days a month. We are underutilizing the solution currently because we have only completed five percent of the development. We have analyzed the cost and are trying to procure the solution in our live environment.

The cost of security can be expensive when we analyze new technology and the need for new technologies to cover emerging vulnerabilities and malicious acts. I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because most of the colleagues in our environment, such as Cognizant, Deloitte, and many other IT companies use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. 10 to 12 years ago, Fortinet was the leading security solution that most people were using followed by Cisco Firewall. Presently Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide the most value from a security solution, such as the detection of vulnerabilities and malware, in a cost-effective way. 

Apart from the standard features of any firewall system, Palo Alto Networks offers some additional benefits that make it worth the price. These features include URL filtering and deep packet inspection, with the best feature being Wildfire. I recommend the solution.

We use Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls daily to create firewall rules that permit network traffic for specific applications and end users.

We use various models, including the 800, 400, and 3200 series. The specific model required depends on the size of the remote site where it will be deployed.

Embedded machine learning is crucial because hackers increasingly leverage AI to develop innovative methods of infiltrating networks. AI enables them to create more sophisticated malware and threats, intensifying the arms race between defenders and attackers. To counter this evolving threat landscape, next-generation firewalls must incorporate AI and machine learning capabilities to analyze and mitigate threats effectively.

AI and machine learning are valuable aspects.

UTM solutions like those offered by CheckPoint and Fortinet all offer a single pane of glass for managing security. Palo Alto is the same, but as a newcomer to Palo Alto, I've found its management, particularly with Panorama overseeing our hundred firewalls, challenging. Pushing changes, especially to individual firewalls, often results in failures, requiring full system updates. This inconsistency creates significant hurdles. While I suspect similar complexities exist in Cisco Firepower and potentially Fortinet, Palo Alto's implementation seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Palo Alto claims their NG Firewalls are highly customizable, but this isn't always true. We've encountered an issue where changes to a firewall cannot be reverted. Unlike Cisco Firepower or ASA, where changes are only committed after saving, Palo Alto commits changes immediately and places them in a queue. This prevents reverting changes, even accidentally made ones. For instance, today I was testing firewall rules without intending to push them, but the changes were already committed to the locally managed Panorama server. This lack of control is a significant drawback compared to vendors like Cisco or Checkpoint, where uncommitted changes are not saved.

Executives often praise Palo Alto firewalls, but these same executives rarely have hands-on experience managing them. Unlike them, I deal with the daily complexities of firewall operations. While every firewall has its shortcomings, Palo Alto is no exception. Cisco's ASA, for instance, was frustrating to manage through its ASDM interface, but the CLI configuration was reliable. Unfortunately, other vendors like Checkpoint and Fortinet heavily rely on management servers, limiting CLI options. Pushing changes can be a nightmare with any firewall, often involving unnecessary whole pushes due to errors or version mismatches. Palo Alto is no different; it's prone to bugs and challenges like any other product. Contrary to popular belief, executives who lack firsthand experience with firewall management often exaggerate Palo Alto's strengths.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been problematic. Due to failed configuration pushes, I've encountered issues requiring Palo Alto Technical Assistance Center involvement. Based on DNS hostnames, objects are supposed to be automatically resolved by Palo Alto, but this functionality proved unreliable, necessitating a firewall upgrade and patch to correct a bug. Contrary to claims, Palo Alto has not exceeded expectations; managing as other firewall brands has been as frustrating. Each firewall platform has complexities, but I don't believe Palo Alto surpasses Check Point, Fortinet, or Cisco Firepower. While it might have advantages over Cisco Firepower, when compared to Check Point or Fortinet, Palo Alto does not offer greater performance.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for nine months.

When installing a Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, we connect it to the network via a management interface and configure basic settings. Next, we register the firewall with Panorama, its management server, and then plan the network transition.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are overpriced. While Fortinet offers a more affordable option, Palo Alto commands premium prices due to its strong brand reputation among CISOs and security executives. Despite this, I believe Palo Alto firewalls are overhyped and underperform expectations. Many of these executives, who lack hands-on firewall management experience, base their decisions on marketing claims rather than practical knowledge. In contrast, Check Point pioneered next-generation firewalls, offering advanced features before competitors. However, its reliance on a centralized management system limited flexibility. Cisco, while improving, has also moved towards centralized management, restricting CLI access. Ultimately, I prefer the balance of features and flexibility Check Point offers.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls eight out of ten.

We are a consulting group that specializes in deploying Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for a telecom-related partner in Pakistan. Additionally, we implemented global protection for remote users. Furthermore, we configured different policies for internal users based on their job designations and privileges, such as URL filtering and application controls.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' advanced machine learning capabilities offer real-time attack prevention and are crucial in our security setup. We implemented a multi-layered security approach and are currently working towards a zero-trust model, including defense for development. According to the Gartner report, Palo Alto ranks second after Check Point, highlighting the significance of security in our environment.

We access all the firewalls via Panorama. We configured certain global user profiles to allow access to our site for remote or work-from-home situations, which we then access through GlobalProtect.

Before we started to use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we had a different FortiGate firewall that presented several issues such as deep security URL filtering and throughput issues. However, with Palo Alto, we were able to address these problems, particularly with the use of parallel processing. We have successfully deployed inbound and outbound SSL inspection, as well as different URL filtering, making Palo Alto a more resilient option compared to other products.

It is important the solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Compared to other products, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' unified platform is a ten out of ten and suitable for all environments. 

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help fill security leaks by enhancing confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help automate multiple security tools and unify them.

The solution assisted us with managing our network operations and reducing related costs. We use various Network Management Systems to monitor our network, including Palo Alto which we monitor from its dashboard. Additionally, we use various Security Operations Center solutions, as well as SolarWinds. We also utilize different monitoring platforms to track network traffic.

The WildFire feature offers protection against Zero-Day attacks, and we find that Palo Alto is a valuable tool for mitigating such attacks using WildFire.

Palo Alto's single architecture provides parallel processing and reliability as well as superior visibility compared to other products. The reporting feature is excellent and can impress management during presentations or when accessing logs.

The application IDs, application controls, URL filtering, visibility, monitoring, and reporting are the most valuable features.

I would like to have an on-prem sandbox solution included in a future update.

The cost has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical team is good.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. I give the setup a ten out of ten. The deployment took three months to complete. We require five to six people for deployment.

The implementation is completed in-house.

The cost of Palo Alto Network NG Firewalls is significantly higher compared to Huawei. For instance, while we can buy a Huawei box for 100 rupees, a Palo Alto box costs 100,000 rupees.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is an impressive product.

The solution is used for our enterprise clients.

Although Palo Alto is not the most inexpensive firewall solution, it is worth the cost to ensure proper protection for our networks.

Palo Alto PA-400 series cost and performance for small offices are good.

Our primary use for the solution is as a perimeter device and firewall. 

Suppose a packet enters our organization with a new, unknown signature. In that case, the firewall can upload it to the primary database and generate user alerts to inform users of the malicious signature, blocking it if necessary.

The solution's most valuable feature is the robust firewall, which we can also use as a UTM device. 

The Wi-Fi analysis and zero-day threat prevention are very good features. 

The product defends our production, blocks files, and prevents data leakage. It's a complete package for advanced security, which is excellent for a firewall.

It's beneficial and vital to us that Palo Alto NGFW embeds machine learning in the firewall's core to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. Suppose it observes any abnormalities in our traffic. In that case, the product can detect that through machine learning and generate a lock so we can mitigate an attack or a vulnerability in the system.   

Palo Alto NGFW's machine learning works well to secure our network against threats that can evolve and morph rapidly. A particular strategy we encounter on our system is when a packet comes in and behaves abnormally. Palo Alto detects the abnormality, generates an alert, and responds based on our policies by blocking or discarding the package.   

We use the firewall's DNS security, and it's excellent for blocking DNS attacks thanks to the continuously updating Palo Alto threat database. For example, the product blocks users from accessing sites with a known malicious DNS.

The price could be more friendly, which would be good for Palo Alto and us. If the price were a little lower, then it would be a viable option for mid-level businesses, who may not be able to deploy at the current price point.

We've been using the solution for one and a half years. 

The solution is very stable and robust. 

The product is scalable and very easy to configure; we enjoy the configuration and operation of the firewall. 

We contacted Palo Alto technical support on several occasions, and they're excellent; they always try to resolve our issues as soon as possible. 

Positive

We previously used Cisco ASA and Check Point NGFW and switched to the Palo Alto solution because it offers more robust and complete protection and features.

The initial setup is straightforward, and it depends on the network configuration. If we want to make few network changes, we can deploy the firewall in Virtual Wire mode, and we don't have to mess with IP addresses and so on. If we want to deploy with a new configuration, we can do that in Layer 3 mode.

If we upload a pre-planned configuration to our network firewall, the deployment can take as little as 10-15 minutes. We have a team of nine engineers responsible for daily policies, troubleshooting, etc.

We deployed via an in-house team; we have a big team, so we deploy ourselves whenever possible.

The solution is worth the money for organizations operating in critical environments with lots of sensitive data and information. Data leaks can lead to broken trust with clients and a suffering reputation in the business community, including brand damage.

Palo Alto NGFW is relatively expensive compared to the competition.

I rate the solution 10 out of 10.

Palo Alto NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is an important feature. It provides a robust kind of security counter at the perimeter level.  

The solution's unified platform helps eliminate security holes. For example, the firewall can easily block attempted SQL injections with the help of App-ID. 

Palo Alto NGFW's unified helped to eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work with each other. The solution provides vulnerability assessment and protection, antivirus prevention, data leak prevention, file blocking, site blocking, and application blocking, all in one product. It's an excellent firewall device and very useful for our network. 

We have the zero-delay signatures feature implemented with our firewall, and it's essential because attack signatures are updated immediately. Attackers are trying to find new ways to harm our network daily, and the zero-delay feature makes it so that the network is updated in seconds, and the first user to see a new threat is the only one to experience first exposure. This functionality improved our security.   

To a colleague at another company who says they are looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, it depends on their environment. I recommend Palo Alto or Check Point if they are a financial institution. If they are a mid-level non-financial institution, I recommend Cisco Secure Firewall because it's also a good firewall.

To someone looking to use Palo Alto NGFW for the first time, analyze the packet flow of your organization and understand which types of packets you're getting and which type of services you are providing in your data center or enterprise. Multiple data centers require a high security level, so I recommend activating the Layer 7 feature.

The biggest lesson I learned from using the solution is the importance of following all the steps in the operation manual when upgrading or updating.