The granularity of the signature could be improved. 

Mission learning techniques on firewalls are good but should continue to expand and detect unknown threats on the fly. The capability seems to be a bit limited on certain types of traffic. 

The solution should include a checkbox to select or bypass the profile on a firewall or policy. 

The option to customize signature fields or allow feeds from other tools or environments would be interesting.

We are attempting to improve the use of URL filtering beyond threat protection.

I'm not sure what the remaining threat protection features are off the top of my head. But beyond that, we use URL filtering.

We have three approved cases for using external dynamic lists that are stored in a bucket repository. Then, for each URL site that needs to be whitelisted, we add it to the external dynamic list in order to gain access to this email.

I would like Wildfire to be implemented.

We use the equivalent in Cisco is the integration policies. We have the Wildfire but we are not currently implementing it.

We don't have the license to use it, but we are not currently implementing it until we present the use cases that the company gives some value to and they approve the use of it.

Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve the commercial offing. Other solutions, such as Fortinet provide better commercial features.

The initial setup is complex. 

We'd like more APIs to manage programmatically the IPS to orchestrate it and
avoid logging into the graphical user interface console. We'd like to have some robots to manage the solution's tasks.

The application’s pricing and dashboard need improvement. It could be user-friendly.

There could be some firewalls with fiber optics interfaces.

The installation was complicated.

The solution needs to improve Reverse DNS functionalities.

Right now, when you check the IP address, it tells all. It assumes that that IP address is locally available on the inside. When the request is going back to me it's supposed to do what we call rights. Instead of giving me the public IP address in my response, it's supposed to give me the private IP address or the local IP address so that I can reach the device locally. That's the challenge right now.

Sometimes when you want to group a set of ports, and communicate with Palo Alto, you cannot group TCP and UDP ports together. This needs to be adjusted.

The IPS can be improved on the solution.  The itineration, for example. Also, if additional features, like SD Wan, etc. can be added. This would be helpful.

Other additional features that could be added include Individual Traps. In terms of enhancement for overall protection, we would like more Traps or other solutions that are developing within the firewall.

The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market.

The price of licenses should be lowered to make it less costly to scale our solution.

I would like to see consolidated licensing for on-premises solutions. This would give us all of the features available for the one box.

The resource consumption should be addressed. The technology firewall anomaly network could stand improvement. 

The pricing could be better. 

In most areas, Palo Alto Threat Prevention is a fine choice. The application is very good. The most important feature we find to be the NCR Reader. It is best for application security. I don't know how they could improve it more. The application is already working fine with good results. 

Support is really good with Palo Alto and we are resellers of the software to our customers. They will let us know how they find it valuable after we implement it. Most of our customers have found Palo Alto Threat Prevention very good to use. We have a number of customers in the market. Everybody is happy with the product. Overall, Palo Alto Threat Prevention doesn't need much more. From a general point of view, you get everything. If it is content filtering, it should be no problem.

In terms of what needs improvement, the only thing I don't like is the support.

It's not so easy to set up a test environment because it's not so easy to get the test license.

The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get.

We use four Palo Alto solutions in stand-alone mode and but it's hard to use when I use it in Panorama. Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved. 

I think they can use some improvement on FID. There are lots of false positives and those can be eradicated. Sometimes you can't identify a 10-year-old doc, but they can probably update those signatures and false positives, so it would be helpful and save us a lot of time. 

Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems.

Some bugs, which will be rectified by Palo Alto in the next update.

The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available.

The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are.