Palo Alto Networks PA-Series Reviews

There are various use cases, particularly for desktop scenarios. One of them involves exploring contacts. Virtual firewall use cases revolve around different scenarios, such as transitioning to the cloud. For instance, when Barclays uses Azure or AWS, there's a focus on meeting security obligations and implementing threat prevention to comply with regulations like GDPR or PPA. This includes creating segmentation to align with regulatory standards. As part of this process, security features available in cloud platforms like virtual firewalls and threat prevention are incorporated.

After the implementation here, especially since I work in the data center, I've noticed the significance of security. For example, Veeam, CDL, and other aspects became crucial, especially during the COVID period when users started working from home. This situation led to numerous blocks, and user profiles were getting blocked due to issues with IP addresses ending up on blocked lists. However, after implementing the 3M series virtual firewall, we were able to effectively manage security for our cloud applications, like those in AWS. This enabled us to monitor remote workers and take necessary actions, such as blocking problematic IP addresses. Consequently, we reduced the number of tickets raised with ISP providers.        

A valuable feature that we can consider is the deployment time, which is significantly reduced. It is almost 90% faster compared to other solutions. This leads to quicker deployment and less downtime.

I have found that the tool works well for me, but there are areas where security testing and protection could be improved, especially in virtual or cloud environments. However, in this project, once we deployed it, we haven't encountered any issues.

The cost is currently manageable, but as we migrate fully into the cloud, additional features like capacity upgrading and improvements to hardware resources will be necessary, especially since our equipment consists of older-generation switches and routers. So, I'm looking for additional capabilities in these areas.

I've been working on my current project for more than two years now.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten. 

The deployment is quite straightforward, and it's faster than it used to be. This means that there is less downtime involved.

From my perspective, managing the price is important, especially because we're a small business. For larger organizations like Barclays, we provide our requirements to the client, and they place the order on BigFix. It's their responsibility to consider their budget and make decisions accordingly. We appreciate the features we get, but the cost-sharing still depends on the client.

The client needs to provide approval for the POCs used by our team; it's not within my control.

When evaluating options, you should consider team members who are knowledgeable in supporting next-generation firewalls like NGFW. We also need to factor in the specific product offerings. For instance, if we have options like the PA-440, PA-850, and PA-8350, we should compare their prices and features. It's important to make decisions based on the situation and the needs of the organization.

Considering factors like availability and the specific situation, I would rate this an eight. It's important to explore other potential cases as well.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

My company operates at multiple sites. My company has multiple work-related departments, and for each department, we have multiple servers along with multiple printers and other devices. My organization has to restrict certain accesses based on company policies. Generally, my company has to look after what accesses are to be allowed and which are not to be allowed, based on source and destination. If some business cases require some access, then our company allows access for those on the firewall.

Palo Alto Networks generally offers some very good features, like antivirus, DLP, URL filtering, and dynamic blocking. All the attributes offered by Palo Alto Networks are quite good and fall under the next-generation firewall features.

With Palo Alto Networks, every two or three months, there are some updates or bug fixes that happen. Everything is good with Palo Alto Networks.

With Palo Alto Networks PA-Series, I find that the support team takes a long time to resolve the issues that a user may face during the use of the product. You need to keep describing your issues to the support team since Palo Alto Networks usually provides you with a few engineers who then connect you with another set of engineers, making it a long process. When it comes to the support offered by Palo Alto Networks, our company has seen that we need to escalate an issue to senior management, which takes a lot of time. The support part of the product can improve a little bit.

I have experience with Palo Alto Networks PA-Series. My company has a partnership with Palo Alto Networks. I use the solution's recent version, which is PAN-OS 10.0.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

More than 5,000 people in our company use Palo Alto Networks PA-Series.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Earlier, my company was involved with Cisco ASA Firewall and Check Point Software.

The product's initial setup was easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

If you are involved in the initial configuration part, then the deployment process related to the product may take around two or three hours.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

It's our basic firewall, mainly web filtering and application filtering. We use it in a multi-site environment, especially with cloud-based firewalls.

Web filtering and application filtering are the most valuable features. 

The cloud-based aspect helps significantly. It integrates seamlessly with other Palo products like Prisma Cloud, offers robust VPN protection, and it's all in one convenient package.

The UI definitely needs work. In my opinion, the UI could be simpler and more user-friendly for the average user.

For example, I encountered complexities with policy management. Policy management is one of the areas where the UI is not intuitive, and managing policies can be quite complex.

I have been using this solution for one year. We work with all the technologies from Palo.

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten because cloud deployment makes it incredibly easy to scale.

High-tech, multi-site, or multi-region companies, regardless of size, can benefit from Palo Alto. 

Faster response times would be more beneficial.

Positive

I have experience with Palo Alto's PA-Series and Fortinet FortiGate. 

However, my preference depends on the setup. If I'm looking at a single site, a straightforward deployment, I'd go with FortiGate. 

If I'm looking at multi-site, complex deployments and a cloud-based design, then Palo Alto.

The initial setup is fairly complex. There's a definite learning curve involved in setting it up correctly.

We require assistance from a third-party company for the setup.

The prices are pretty high, definitely on the upper end. They're among the highest in the pricing tier Firewall category.

In general, I'd rate this solution at least an eight out of ten. It has some room for improvement.

Firewall implementation and firewall rule edition are the primary use cases.

It's very secure. It inspects the application. Compared to script-based or CLI-based firewalls, it's easier to use the GUI (graphical user interface) to implement the firewall. 

It has its own logging system. You can go to monitoring and check the logs to see if a connection is getting blocked. You can use multiple types of logs to check if a file or a port is getting blocked or if there are any TCP resets from the source or destination. It's easy to troubleshoot with the monitoring and logging it provides.

There seem to be some issues with TAC (Technical Assistance Center) or Palo Alto support. Anytime you open a case, a level one engineer joins, and then you have to escalate it to level two or three. The support system has changed in the past few years, and that's something they need to look into.

In future releases, I would add one feature where we can take a subnet or take an IP and create a list of rules that are for that IP. There is an option, but it's not as expansive as I would like. When you run a report, you have to run it for a hostname. And when you look at the report, you see the hostnames, but you don't see the IPs. Like, there is no additional column for seeing the IP of the hostname or the subnet of the hostname. So that creates an issue. You have to go into the file and take the export list of firewall rules, and then you have the hostname got have the IP, then you have to note down the IP addresses.

I have been working with this solution for more than eight years. 

It is a very stable product.

The solution scales easily. For example, when we did a migration, we brought in more than 14,000 firewall rules from Juniper into our Palo Alto. After importing, obviously, that's a huge number. But, after doing that, the CPU went really up because we have so many rules. And after having to talk with Palo Alto, they told us to get a better model. We have the 5500 model. So, we were asked to replace the Palo Alto with a bigger or better model. That's what we're gonna be doing.

We can absolutely update the firewalls with a better GPU and CPU. With a better CPU, it can handle more connections. Especially when the environment grows, adding new data centers and more applications. So, after a year or two, there is a need to either bring in more firewalls or upgrade the existing ones you have.

Currently, there are around 12 end users using this solution in our organization.

There are certain issues when we open a ticket with TAC (Technical Assistance Center), the issue goes to engineering, and then they inform us that the fix for the issue we're having will be included in the next software update. 

So, there are some issues in the backend or with new features that don't work correctly. We usually open tickets for that, and then usually, they assure us that this issue will be fixed in the next update.

Neutral

Juniper environment we had was reaching the end of life. That's why, rather than bringing in new Juniper devices, the enterprise architecture team decided to go with Palo Alto.

The initial setup was easy. I was migrating from the Juniper SLX firewall to Palo Alto, so I had to move a lot of firewall groups and create a script on the engine tool to facilitate the move. There were some hurdles. But, personally, it was pretty smooth. The transition was pretty smooth.

So we have physical on-premises, and also instances on the cloud, AWS Cloud.

I would recommend using this product , but it's important to have whiteboard sessions with the network and another team to give them information on exactly how to check the BGP settings. You need to go over with the team the things they need to do on the GUI and on the CLI. So, you definitely need to educate the team before using it.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. It's very stable. There are some tools for pushing the rules to Panorama, pushing the rules to the device, especially if you're working with a team, if you're working on a rule and someone pushes to Panorama, or if they want to push your firewall rules. Someone could push you if you have set up something for a change and you need to the changes at a certain time, if another member comes in and puts a change, you definitely need to have your changes or your pushes to the device or to Panorama, you need to have good communication between the team. So there are some good and bad things with Panorama. As you work on it, you adjust.

In our network security architecture, we utilize the PA-Series firewalls by integrating them seamlessly. Migration from Cisco to PA-Series was surprisingly easy, and we have centralized management using Panorama.

The most effective features for threat prevention in the PA-Series are its integration with Cortex and the use of machine learning AI for advanced threat detection. These capabilities, especially present in the newer generation firewalls like the PA-4000 series, enhance our security posture significantly.

Migrating from old to new Palo Alto Networks firewalls can sometimes encounter hiccups, and there is room for improvement in streamlining this process for smoother transitions.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for nine years.

I would rate the stability of the product as a nine out of ten. We have not faced any issues with it.

I would rate the scalability of the product as a nine out of ten. We have approximately 3,000 end users.

I have had a great experience with Palo Alto Networks technical support. Response time and quality have been excellent, especially for RMA cases. Any issues, whether for functionality or hardware, were resolved quickly. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Palo Alto Networks stands out from other solutions because they consistently strive to innovate and stay ahead of the curve. Their user-friendly interface and customizable security options make them a top choice. Additionally, they offer a wide range of security solutions without forcing you to invest in unnecessary features, similar to SecurePoint's approach with blades.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks PA-Series was straightforward, especially with prior network and security knowledge and a helpful training course. The intuitive web UI made the process comfortable, and overall, Palo Alto Networks seems to be heading in the right direction with user experience improvements.

I have experience deploying and managing PA-Series firewalls in a multi-site environment, including international locations connected via MPLS. We use them for perimeter security and have centralized management through Panorama. Deploying and managing them across sites has been straightforward and effective which makes Palo Alto Networks a preferred choice for our network security needs.

The PA-Series has consistently helped us prevent cyber-attacks through its threat prevention and vulnerability profiles. By configuring security profiles effectively, including antivirus and threat prevention, we have successfully mitigated various threats.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks PA-Series as a nine out of ten.

The resolution of the Palo Alto is very good. It is a well-known product in protection from an outside perspective. We use the solution for major or minor attacks. Also, it provides defence, security, and URL filtering. It is excellent in terms of security. It assures me against network threats.

Palo Alto should integrate artificial intelligence for security purposes in the background for well-known threats and new risks coming to the market.

Additionally, they could introduce a central dashboard where we can centrally monitor and mitigate all the risks automatically.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for six to eight years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

More than 300 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

We used Sony Firewall, but later on, we switched to Palo Alto because it is a popular security brand.

The initial setup depends on many policies, but it is not very difficult because we have been using it for more than eight years. It is not very complicated, but you need expertise for security.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap.

We have third-party support for the Palo Alto equipment. We call the implementation partner only whenever we need configuration information or changes. They make changes for us. We have not been directly involved with OEM for any support.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for Internet Security and VPN. The product is a complete UTM Box, so we also use it for IDS, IPS, advanced security and enabling GlobalProtect service. 

It has a three-layer architecture, and it helps customers to deploy the solution quickly. The product also has an easy-to-use dashboard and user-friendly wizards. So the solution allows easy configuration and monitoring. 

The solution provides good reports in addition to great stability and hardware. Managing this solution is not challenging and doesn't need any expert appointment. The product can be fully managed on your own with some basic knowledge. 

The product's gateway services can be improved. Along with the firewall, if a user wants to work with a VPN and if you want to check the posture of your endpoint, that service needs to be separately purchased. They have this feature, but if this service is clubbed with the solution, it will be very useful for the end users. 

For Mac OS and Apple products, there remains some challenge for VPN; it requires an SSL certificate to be installed separately, and this can be improved. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable, has no bugs and the product is up to date. The support team of this solution is also great, and they are up to the mark, so your money won't go to waste. 

The solution is absolutely scalable for us, as an SMB.

I would rate the customer support a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The solution is easy and fast to deploy. The product can be deployed within a day and requires only one engineer or architect. Maintenance of this product is very easy and user-friendly. This solution can be maintained with basic knowledge and the user doesn't need to be certified like Check Point. This solution can be easily managed with the help of the provided white papers and can also be used very well for analysis. 

This solution can definitely provide a good ROI. 

In comparison to market competition, the price of this solution is great. When compared to Check Point, this product has an affordable and reasonable price. 

I have also used CrowdStrike, Check Point and Cisco. Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is better than them, but this solution's role is different from the other solutions I use. This solution is completely used by us for Internet Security, Check Point is also there for the same purpose, but I was not happy with that product. 

I would definitely recommend others to go for this solution. I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

In my role as a tech, I provided support for various firewalls, including the PA, PM, and virtual series. It wasn't limited to a specific product like the PA-800 series, PA-1000 series, PA-9000 series, PA-7000 series, or PA-5000 series. We received training for all firewall types.

Palo Alto gives proper training for the product, not cutting corners over that. They don't assume you have previous knowledge and experience and start working directly, which happens in most companies. 

So, they provide product training very thoroughly. This helps the support system to have the necessary knowledge, not just before starting to work or troubleshoot. 

In the 11 months, we were initially trained on various OS versions and given tools like vSphere because we didn't have access to the Palo Alto environment. 

Later, when we got access, we were given a tool to design our own networks, study them, and, if needed, raise concerns about issues. 

The engineers or senior engineers would then study and guide us. They trained us for new upgraded versions of the OS regularly. Even as a third party, we had complete access to the Palo Alto Networks domain, tools, database, knowledge base, and everything. 

This gave us the opportunity to build our skills and understand what Palo Alto requires us to do. We could troubleshoot it properly with customers. 

There are constant updates for the operating system. It is a nice thing also, but it has its own disadvantages. Continuous updates are there. The users face issues like, how often do I need to update that? 

Within a period of five months, I'm updating it two or three times. It gives them a feeling that they are not confident about their product and have to update it so frequently. 

Plus, there are certain bugs, like in the 10.1 version, it's had some bugs. Then, they are upgrading it to the 10.2 version. They are updating that for the bugs. But the time duration between the two is less than the others. 

If we go for Cisco, they don't have their OS upgrades frequently as parallel to us. So that's the disadvantage.  

I was working on a project outsourced from Palo Alto to a company. I was employed in that company for 11 months. During that time, I received guidance and training directly from Palo Alto Networks. I served as a tech engineer for the entire duration. It was quite recent, about three or four months ago.

It is stable. It's just the thing about the frequent updates. So that's the only issue there. So if they somehow reduce that frequency, all these will be easy.

It is scalable. But that depends on what model you are using.

However, other PA-Series models, such as the device on the APAC, are highly scalable and support other vendors.

Moreover, within the network, the device is scalable. 

The customer service and support are really good. And they continuously ask the support team to go through some training updates. So, continuously, we have these updates on the KPIs on a knowledge basis. And the last time, we had this training on the latest version upgradation. So they continuously give the training.  

I was physically present during the setup processes because many times, customers come saying, "I have purchased this new product, but I don't know how to install it." 

There were two teams: the sales team was there, and they had their own engineers. They used to provide the customers. 

But at times, we also had to get involved in case there were any technical glitches or issues because the sales engineers did not do troubleshooting. 

So for that, some of our engineers got involved. At that time, we used to give the setup, whether it was a VM, a cloud, or a physical device. 

At times, customers lack the knowledge of installing and deploying it into the system. So, we used the knowledge base to supply them with articles on the basic level. But even if the customer couldn't understand that, then we used to set it up ourselves directly.

The setup and everything was pretty much given in the KB articles in the knowledge base. So that was pretty much good. And if the customer is not able to understand, then I used to do that.

I supported both the cloud version, which is a VM version and the physical device.

For the cloud deployment of this product, you don't need to buy physical hardware, a modular device from Palo Alto, which is cost-effective and cost-efficient. It can be deployed in AWS or Azure, any cloud provider.

However, the disadvantage or the downside, I can say, is that it is on another network and it is software-based. It is not 100% under your control because it is mostly connected to the AWS or Azure environments. Some controls are not 100% with the user.

If I deploy a VM on the Azure network, then I have to define something compatible with the Azure network. That is the con for cloud deployment. But if the user needs cost-effective solutions, they can go for the cloud.

With the physical device or hardware, it is under your control. You can manage it properly and get excellent tech support directly from Palo Alto, unlike the cloud, where support has to be from both ends.

Sometimes, this creates confusion or complexity, but not always, but it may create complex support. In the case of the physical device, it does not because it is provided by one single vendor.

The disadvantage is that Palo Alto devices are costlier than other devices in the market, like Fortinet or CheckPoint. However, Palo Alto has an advantage in continuously striving to provide better support and upgrading their software or operating system.

On average, the time taken to deploy the solution actually depends on what the environment is and what other vendors are connected to it. So, if it is a Cisco router, where is it connected with what else is in the environment? It actually depends on that. 

And it also depends on how much the customer has, like network knowledge. So, if they need to have some policies to block or allow, IP addresses, and more, if they have all that handy, then it is like two hours or something, not more than that. So it's pretty well done. It is a faster thing. But if the customer is not that handy, then it makes it difficult for us.

Maitaince is not required unless there is some issue, like a manufacturing defect once or twice. It wasn't, of course, too many times. 

But sometimes, it occurs because the device gets old or there is a manufacturing defect. It was a hardware replacement directly. So,  it was pretty much good. That process was a piece of cake. 

Palo Alto Networks has a program that allows customers to transfer their device licenses to another company. This means that if you have purchased a Palo Alto Networks firewall and you no longer need it, you can sell it to another company, and they will be able to transfer the license to their name. But for that, I need to go to Palo Alto and first discuss it with them. So they have this other team. So they check and verify everything.

This is something that I have never encountered with any other vendor.

The pricing is a bit on the higher side but it is reasonable because they give that kind of level of support and everything else.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. The one con is that it's a little more expensive than others. But the pros here are that it has good support.

Overall, it is a good product, and you can definitely have it with other vendors. So it doesn't have any issue. If you only have Palo Alto, you cannot have others in the environment. You can definitely have others connected there. There is no issue. 

And the technical support team is also there to guide you. It's a very good team. So you can always go ahead and purchase Palo Alto. It's a little bit pricier than others. But it is worth it because you'll get other support and everything is very good.