Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

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. 

We provide localization services and use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to protect our environment.

We have two on-premises Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls that are managed in the cloud.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform for centralized management. This is one of the most critical features of the NG Firewalls.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls utilize embedded machine learning to combat the evolving landscape of cyber threats. This is crucial because traditional security methods often fall short against modern malware and sophisticated attacks. By employing machine learning, these firewalls proactively identify and mitigate risks in a way that static rules-based systems cannot, effectively countering the advanced techniques increasingly used by malicious actors.

It helps reduce downtime in our organization by 98 percent.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls offer a comprehensive suite of security features, with Intrusion Prevention System and certificate inspection being among the most valuable.

The machine learning feature, with its continuous potential for improvement, directly enhances the security of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for almost 12 years.

The technical support is good, and Palo Alto has excellent documentation.

Positive

We also use FortiGate Firewalls in addition to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Both offer similar features and prices and are considered top competitors in the market.

The return on investment from Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls has been significant, as the enhanced security they provide to the enterprise effectively offsets their cost.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are affordable, and we get what we pay for.

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

We have over 10,000 end users.

When choosing a firewall, cost often reflects capability. While budget-friendly options exist, their security levels may not match those of higher-end providers like Palo Alto or Fortinet. Investing in a robust firewall often provides enhanced protection and advanced features, justifying the higher cost.

We have three employees and one consultant who are responsible for the maintenance of our NG Firewalls.

We're using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as a backup hardware solution. When the main firewalls have an issue, we're using the backup solution and hardware firewalls to avoid any network issues or prolonged downtime.

Palo Alto Networks Firewalls helped us reduce downtime. When we have another backup solution, the firewalls come down, we have backup hardware, and we have a Docker site that can work if we have an issue in our HQ data center.

Palo Alto provides more security. 

I have no issues if the subscription is renewed on time. 

Some configurations can take time.

The dashboard needs improvement as I find it more complicated compared to Sophos. It is not as user-friendly, especially when trying to easily check problems or generate reports which are easier with Sophos.

I've used the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. It has a feature that allows load balancing across multiple lines. If one line drops, another line can maintain service until the issue is resolved and we return to the original line.

The solution is scalable for large companies, however, it is expensive for medium and small companies.

I would rate technical support from Palo Alto at an eight out of ten.

Positive

We are still using a Sophos appliance as well. However, we are planning to consolidate to using just one solution soon.

I was involved in the setup. I participated with the company that ran the implementation. They didn't provide me with most of the information necessary to help implement in other areas.

The consultant company we're dealing with is the one handling the setup for this solution, not us. The consultant is a partner with Palo Alto.

As an investment, if you're going to use it for enterprise, it's good.

The price of Palo Alto Firewalls is too expensive compared to Sophos licenses and appliance hardware.

For medium companies, I would advise using Sophos. For larger enterprises, Palo Alto is more suitable.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use it for perimeter security because it gives application layer security and we also use it for VPN access.

We use the PA-3200 and PA-200 models. In terms of the version, we are one version behind the latest one. The latest version is 11, and we are still on version 10.

The biggest benefit we have seen from it is the ability to identify the traffic of our networks based on the application ID that Palo Alto can provide. Palo Alto firewalls have the most extensive App-ID library, so we are able to identify which applications are necessary for business and which ones are not. We can then block those that are not crucial for business at the firewall itself, so App-ID in the firewall was the biggest benefit to us.

Palo Alto NGFW embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, which is important and very helpful. I wouldn't be able to compare it to any other product because we have used Palo Alto for eight years, but the machine learning that they have embedded into their OS has been very helpful. Based on the learning that they have done, they have been able to analyze the traffic and coordinate traffic patterns to alert us about possible malware and even block it.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Palo Alto NGFW has been able to give us all that we need from one particular appliance itself. If we wanted, we could have also used the DNS feature, and in that case, one device could have met all our needs.

Because it's a unified platform, management is easy. You have to learn only one particular management interface. Once our IT team gets familiar with the management interface, it's easier for them to apply security policies, monitor the traffic, and manage the plans using the same GUI. There are no learning curves for different products.

We try to keep our security fairly tight. The policies that we have created on the Palo Alto NGFW have been based on security requirements. As of now, we haven't detected anything that would point to a hole in our environment, so it is very hard to say whether Palo Alto NGFW’s unified platform helped to eliminate any security holes.

It has helped to eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together with each other. It has helped us consolidate into one vendor. Earlier, we used to have an appliance for the firewall, and then we had an appliance for VPN. We had a separate appliance for the collection and correlation of data. We have eliminated all of those. They are now in one box. The same firewall gives us security policies and lets us collect all the data about the traffic flowing in and out of the network and correlate events. It has helped us eliminate the VPN appliances that we were using in the past. It has helped us to eliminate two other vendors and bring all the services into one.

The single-pass architecture is good. Everything is analyzed just once, so it improves the performance. 

Application layer firewalling has been the most valuable feature because it gives thousands of application IDs that we can use to control traffic into and out of our environment. The second most important feature has been the GlobalProtect VPN feature.

The only problem that I see with the Palo Alto NGFW being an all-in-one appliance is that because of the different features that are being put into a single appliance, the OS tends to be beefier. Over the eight years, we have seen that the number of features or analyses being put into the appliance itself has a tendency to slow down the appliance, especially at the time of bootup. So, any time we are doing maintenance work, the time required for the appliance to boot up and be fully functional again is significantly longer than eight years ago. They could find a way to make this all-in-one appliance faster.

They should also make the documentation much easier to understand. Given all the features that they have built into the firewalls, it should be easier for the end users to understand the product and all the features available on the product. They should be able to utilize the product to the maximum capabilities. The documentation and the tech support available need to improve. The tech support of Palo Alto has deteriorated over the past few years, especially after our pandemic. Getting tech support on our issues is very difficult. They could definitely improve on that.

I've been using it for about eight years.

It's very stable. We have had no issues. There are only two issues that I recall ever happening on our firewalls. The first one was when they released an application ID that caused a problem on the network, but they were able to resolve it quickly within a matter of hours. The second issue was also because of the change in the OS. In both cases, the resolution was quick.

In terms of scalability, they have a huge range of models, so depending on what your requirements are, you can scale up from the very base model that goes from 100 megabits per second to the largest one that goes to 10 gigs per second. They have a wide range of appliances that you can upgrade to based on your needs.

In terms of the traffic that can pass through the firewall, it has been fairly good for us. We have not had to upgrade our network. Being a small company, we don't have too many users. In the past eight years, we have not had to change our bandwidth for the increase in traffic. Whatever we selected four years ago, they remain the same. We have not had to upgrade the hardware capabilities just because our traffic is increasing, but in terms of feature sets, we have added more and more features to the appliances. When we started off with Palo Alto, we were only using the firewall features, and then slowly, we added a VPN for mobile users. We added a VPN for site-to-site connectivity, and the scalability has been good. We have not had to upgrade the hardware. We have just been adding features to the existing hardware, and it has not caused any deterioration in the performance.

We have about fifty users that are split between the East Coast and the West Coast. Each coast has only about twenty-five users. All in all, we have about fifty users using these products.

It used to be good in the past, but over the last few years, it has been very bad. You open a case, and you expect somebody to get back to you and help you out with the issue. They say that based on the SLAs, somebody will get back to you within a certain number of hours for the priority ticket that you created, but that getting back actually includes the initial response where somebody is just acknowledging that they have the ticket. That does not mean that somebody provides me with the solution or takes action on it. If I open a priority one case, which means my network is down, somebody will get back to me within two hours based on the SLA, but that response only includes the acknowledgment mentioning that your case has been received. That's it. It's a different question whether someone is going to get on the phone with you or give you an email about how to troubleshoot the issue and fix that issue.

I'd rate them a six out of ten based on the response time and the quality of the responses received over the last three or four years.

Neutral

We were using Cisco's router-based firewalls. They had some advantages, but they did not have a graphical interface for configuration, which was the weakest point. Getting team members on the team who were not familiar with the command line configurations for our Cisco firewalls made us select a product that provides a graphical interface for configuration, and that was a reason for moving to Palo Alto.

It has been fairly easy to set up. The initial setup is good. The migration to a new box can also be pretty straightforward.

I have had experience with setting it up from scratch, and it has been good. It's more on the simpler side. The initial setup to get the firewall in place with basic security principles is straightforward. When you go to the advanced features, it gets trickier.

The deployment duration depends on the complexity of the network and the kind of rules that you want to implement. The physical appliances are relatively straightforward to set up. For the base security, it doesn't take more than a couple of hours to set it up, but it can take a relatively long time to set up and configure the firewalls that sit in the cloud.

We use physical appliances and virtual appliances. The physical appliances are in our on-prem environment, and the virtual appliances are in our cloud environment. It took about four hours to set up the physical appliances from scratch, whereas the virtual or VMCD ones took a lot longer. It took two to three days to set them up.

For the VMCD ones, we had to get help from their pre-sales support team, but for the on-prem physical appliances, we did the implementation ourselves.

It isn't cheap. It's cheaper to replace the equipment every three years than to upgrade. We have done two refreshes of their appliances. What I have seen is that the initial hardware cost is low, but you need a subscription and you need maintenance plans. After every three years, if you're trying to renew your maintenance or subscription, that can be very costly. It's cheaper to just get a newer solution with a three-year subscription and maintenance. It's cheaper to replace your hardware completely with a new subscription plan and a new maintenance plan than to renew the maintenance subscription on existing hardware. That's the reality of the Palo Alto pricing that gets to us.

You pay for the initial hardware, and then you have to pay the subscription cost for the features that you want to use. Every feature has an extra price. Your firewall features are included with the appliance, but the antivirus feature, DNS security feature, VPN feature, URL filtering, and file monitoring features are additional features that you need to pay for. So, you pay extra for every feature that you add, and then based on the features you purchase, you have to pay the maintenance plan pricing too.

Before moving to Palo Alto, we did evaluate other options. In those days, we tried out the Check Point firewall. We tried out Fortinet, but Palo Alto was the one that met our needs in terms of the features available and the ease of learning its features and configuration. We went for it also because of the price comparisons.

Try to get hold of a presales engineer and do a PoC with all the features that you're looking at before you make a purchase decision.

It isn't cheap. It's definitely the faster one. It meets all the needs. If you're looking for an all-in-one solution, Palo Alto NGFW would definitely meet your needs, but it isn't the cheapest one.

We have not used their DNS security feature because we use a competitor's product. We use Cisco Umbrella for that. The reason is that for the DNS security to work, the traffic from those endpoints needs to flow through the firewalls, but we have a lot of mobile user devices whose traffic does not flow through the firewall and we'd like them to have DNS security. We use Cisco Umbrella because that's an endpoint application that protects the endpoints from vulnerabilities based on the DNS reputation, and all the traffic from those endpoints does not necessarily need to go through a central endpoint, like a firewall.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto NGFW an eight out of ten. 

We have multiple offices across the United States. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the best solution for securing our network, and the best part is that we can provide a single working solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' embedded machine learning is very important. Every packet is inspected by the firewall, and if it is heuristic or contains a virus or some other unknown packet, it is sent to the Wildfire feature for review. If the packet is safe, it is allowed to pass through, otherwise, a signature is left to protect the organization. The updated signature is then sent to the entire network for the same packet.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning helps secure our networks against threats that are able to evolve rapidly.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls DNS security helps prevent DNS-related attacks in combination with our policies and machine learning.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that integrates with all security capabilities.

The zero-delay security feature with cloud technology is able to immediately releases the signature and update the database.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls single-pass architecture has fast processing and security because of the separate models. The networking speeds rely more on the routers, not the firewall.

The solution provides the ability to process the packets regularly saving us processing time and that is very valuable.

The user ID, Wildfire, UI, and management configuration are all great features.

The stability, scalability for enterprise-level organizations, and technical documentation have room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for six years.

When it comes to network security, there is no such thing as stability; every day brings different forms of attacks, which we must constantly work to prevent.

The solution is scalable but has room for improvement at an enterprise level.

We have around 1,000 people using the solution.

The technical support is good. We receive a quick resolution for our issues.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment time depends on the type of implementation the organization requires but it is not complex. We can do everything from the firewall GUI without having to install any software.

The implementation is completed in-house.

The solution is expensive. Other vendors such as Fortinet provide the same features for less.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a good solution and I recommend it to others for their network security needs.

Compared to the other firewalls, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are the quickest.

We use these firewalls to manage wastewater systems for over a hundred municipalities across the country. As a result, we exclusively use them in the operational technology (OT) space.

One of the key benefits is that it enables us to secure environments that may pose more significant security challenges.

The centralization capability is the most valuable feature of this solution as it enables us to monitor our systems efficiently. Additionally, the firewalls are excellent, with straightforward configuration and comprehensible interfaces that our engineers can set up with ease.

The cloud firewall solution offers a unified platform that integrates social security capabilities, but it comes at an additional cost.

I think having the ability to see the big picture is important for us, and that's not always easy to achieve. 

As for how important it is for us to have Palo Alto NG Firewalls and defense machine learning at the core of the firewall for real-time attack prevention, I think it's a bit premature to say. There are many players in that field currently, and I would prefer to see them get it right before jumping in just for the sake of being there.

A major concern is making the licensing more accessible to enable small municipalities to afford and manage their own systems independently.

I have had experience working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for a minimum of three to four years.

I would rate the stability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine or ten out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are very scalable.

As far as I know, the technical support for this solution is excellent. 

My team has used it a few times and has always been satisfied with the service. I have never received any negative feedback regarding the support lines.

I would rate the technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

A lot of the municipality's systems rely on Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to stay online, and we've found that they provide better uptime compared to most other solutions.

Our downtime has been reduced by 80 to 90% with the implementation of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

I was not involved in the deployment process.

We have seen a return on investment. By centralizing our monitoring of systems, we have been able to make our lives easier.

The licensing leaves a lot to be desired. 

We buy the license and then we can't transfer the license without paying an exorbitant fee to our client if they leave us, and that just seems to be a bit of a pain point for us, and there's really no way to partner effectively to make that more reasonable.

We continuously review firewalls, whether it's Check Point or Fortinet, or Cisco. But Palo Alto has been the best for us.

As most of our environments are in the cloud, we don't have a lot of experience in securing data centers.

If a colleague at another company is only looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would advise them that Palo Alto Networks is not the right solution for them. 

While it may not be the most affordable or the quickest to set up, the investment in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is well worth it in terms of reliability and security. 

Choosing a firewall based solely on cost and speed may result in a false sense of security and leave the organization vulnerable to breaches and downtime.

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

In most cases, our use cases were for migration and conversions. People were coming off of dated Cisco platforms and other types of firewall technologies that might not have met next-generation standards, like App-ID. Then, Palo Alto Unit 42 had to go out there and investigate with threat hunters, etc, which was not that well-known or used. Then, Palo Alto sort of showed everybody that world back in 2007 or 2008.

Mostly, I was dealing with people migrating off of their platforms onto Palo Alto. Unfortunately, in most cases, they wound up just converting them into service-based firewalls, like what they were already using, because they weren't ready to accept the requirements behind actually creating an effective App-ID policy yet for their company.

It wasn't well adopted at first. Even though everybody wanted it, people were putting it in and not really fully deploying it. Once I started working for Palo Alto, we had a whole lot more control over getting people to actually utilize the technology, like it was meant to be used. Mostly, it was going in as a service-based firewall with some App-ID. However, people weren't really taking advantage of the SSL decryption and other things necessary to truly utilize the firewall effectively.

I have an active customer who has 600 users using Palo Alto. I have another active customer with 300 users using Palo Alto.

It helps the organization function better by virtue of cleaner and more predictive Internet access and usage being conducted by the employees and constituents of the company. It helps ensure that they have a stronger security posture. It is preventive medicine If you have DNS Security in place. You will be happy you had it. If you don't have it, you may never need it. However, if you did need it, and didn't have it, you will wish that you did. It is one of those things, like insurance.

Machine learning is definitely here to stay. Machine learning has to be a part of everybody's solution now, especially going out into the cloud where we don't have as much hardware control. We don't control our perimeters as much anymore. We need to have machine learning. So, machine learning has been a critical point in the evolution of this product.

DNS Security incorporates Unit 42, WildFire, and all the rest of their antivirus and threat features. It can be very effective because it will know about these bad actor zones and DNS hacks before it gets to your network, which is important. Everybody should be using it, but I haven't found as many people adopting it as they should.

For anything manipulating TCP 453 or any type of DNS-type application, you will want to be all over that. It is definitely a big problem.

It is not a unified solution yet. That is probably why it has been hurting them in the cloud evolution. It does not have a complete single-pane-of-glass management,

I worked for Palo Alto for about three and a half to four years. I retired from them last year. Before that, I was with Juniper firewalls. So, I have about 10 years experience, on and off, with Palo Alto in various, different scenarios.

They push stuff out that is not quite ready. If you use the product one version back, then you are pretty good. However, if you try to stay cutting edge, you are going to run into stuff that doesn't work. They are forever releasing stuff that doesn't work right or as designed. Every company does that though, so it is just a question of who is worse. You need to be careful with some of the newer stuff that they release. You need to bake it very well before you put it into production.

I am not absolutely certain they have done a good job in scaling out. They may start to suffer now and going forward because there are other, more cloud-ready platforms out there starting to shine over Palo Alto. They are not the prodigal son anymore.

It has limited scalability since it is still very hardware-centric. They have a cloud VM model, but I haven't had too much experience with it.

The tech support was once great, but now it is poor. The tech support has gone south. It is really difficult. I had a Priority 1 case last a week in their queue, and after multiple complaints, I finally got somebody to take the case. These are things that are unacceptable in the business world. They could train their employees better.

Several years ago, I would put technical support at eight or nine out of 10. Now, they are down around two or three, which is really low. I have had very bad luck with their support lately.

Negative

It depends on whether you are coming in from a migration, which means that you expect everything that you will be doing to be out-of-the-box. It has to be if you are putting it in place. You can then evolve it from there to make it more capable. 

I find the technology pretty easy to work with. Some people don't find it as straightforward. That probably leaves some areas for improvement, where people almost have to do a boot camp to fully take advantage of the product. That shouldn't be the case for a new customer. It should be a little bit more seamless than it is, but it's not bad. I can't really knock it. It is fairly simple to employ, if you know what you are doing.

Most migrations take anywhere from two to six weeks.

I did the deployment. I was using it while I was at Palo Alto. I am still managing them, even outside of Palo Alto. It has been a consistent experience.

The return on investment doesn't necessarily show right away. However, if a company gets hacked and taken down, they are out of business. So, was your return on investment strong if you put these firewalls in and it prevented that? Absolutely. However, if you put them in and you never get attacked, then you might ask, "Would you have gotten attacked before?

There is a license for DNS Security, which I have never actually licensed, but it is a very powerful tool. DNS security is important, and I think that Palo Alto's capabilities are effective and strong there. However, I don't find a lot of companies taking advantage of it.

This is not the firewall to choose if you are looking for the cheapest and fastest solution. Palo Alto NGFWs are expensive. By the time you license them up and get them fully functional, you have spent quite a bit of money. If it is a small branch office with 10 to 15 users, that is hard to justify. However, my customers will do that if I tell them, "You still need to do that," then they will do it since it is still an entry point into the network. 

You really need Premium Support, Applications and Threats, DNS Security, and antivirus. The extra bolt-ons, such as Advanced URL Filtering, you need to determine by use case where you are going to use those licenses, then see if you really need them. You might be adding a bunch of licenses that you will never actually get to effectively use. Their licensing model has gotten a bit exorbitant and a la carte . You will wind up spending quite a bit of money on licenses and renewals.

There is another company out there that I like quite a bit in the firewall space who does a really good job and has a very fast, inexpensive firewall. That is Fortinet. My two favorite firewall companies are Fortinet and Palo Alto. I recommend Fortinet in cases where people don't have the money, as you can get a very nice solution from Fortinet for a lot less money. Fortinet is a good player. I like Fortinet. 

Palo Alto's interface is a little nicer to work with, e.g., a little easier and more intuitive than Fortinet. This makes Palo Alto a little nicer for the end user, but Fortinet is a kick-ass solution. I would never downplay it. It is definitely really strong. For $600, you can get a fully functional next-generation firewall on Fortinet, and you can't do that with Palo Alto. That is a world of difference in pricing.

Machine learning is taking logs and feeding them back through. Everybody is doing machine learning now. You need to have some type of machine learning in order to understand what is going through your environment since you can't be predictive anymore, like you used to be able to be. There is no way of knowing what things are going to do. Therefore, machine learning helps the firewall become smarter. However, machine learning is only as good as how it is utilized and how effectively it is deployed, and it is not always obvious. With Palo Alto, it was difficult to get the API keys and whatnot to work correctly, getting real, effective, actual, usable machine language stuff to use in the policies. It was a lot more hype than reality.

Their zero-pass architecture is not really zero-pass, but it is better than others. It still has to run the traffic through again, once it is recognized at the port, service, and route level, to be acceptable. Then, it has to bring it back through to try to recognize the application. So, it is not necessarily a 100% zero-pass, but the way it works. 

It is like in the Indianapolis 500 when a car pulls into a pit stop. Instead of having one place in the pit stop where the tires are changed, another place in the pit stop that does the windows, and another place that does the gas, they have all the guys come around the car and do their work on the car at the same exact time. That is what is happening with Palo Alto. The packet gets there and the services attack the packet versus having to run the packet through the mill. That is what makes it faster, but it still has to do it more than once before it really knows. It is definitely better than what anybody else has done up to this point. 

With a single-pass cloud, we are not concerned with hardware as much anymore. Now, we are concerned with technology, implementation, and how controls are deployed. That is more important now than where the hardware is, e.g., if the hardware is integrated or deintegrated. I don't know if that is even that important anymore, but it was at one time.

As long as you are comfortable with the price point, you are not going to make a mistake going this way. It is definitely best-in-class and a first-class firewall. I would never be ashamed of putting Palo Alto Networks NGFWs into my network. It's a very good product. As much as I might complain about this and that, there isn't any product that you would put in the network where you are going to have 100% confidence in it. There will always be something. Palo Alto NGFWs are the best way to go.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.