Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

My primary use case of this solution is on-frame and in-cloud security of the infrastructure.

We use this with different clients in the financial sphere, the health sector, and the insurance sector. Across all of these different verticals, we use this product.

Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides.

As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity. And, the industry is currently moving towards automation and orchestration. I would like to see more of this in the product. They are part of the future roadmap to AI (Artificial Intelligence).

It is stable, and we are also trying to integrate this with the Palo Alto MIME shell. We did that, and also I have inquired recently about Evident, which is a recent acquisition. So I have requested for demos, and still I did not see any response from Palo Alto yet. This is something that we would like to explore.

It's pretty much scalable. We were able to manage both the cloud, and also the on-frame devices or appliances from centralized management station. So, we just implemented in the  migration onto the cloud.

We used tech support to help us implement the product initially. 

I have prior experience with Cisco Firepower. But, they are very expensive in comparison to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was complex because we were switching from traditional firewalls to application-based firewalls. We needed Palo Alto's help insetting up initially. From there, we tried to understand, and followed suit with implementation.

It is a reasonable price compared to other solutions on the market.

Some of our clients used to have the traditional firewalls so where we do have enabled the application control but being it's a pretty small firewall. At the end of the day, even in spite of them demanding the application controls, it's on top of the firewall functionality (especially in terms of controlling the applications). So, after implementing the Palo Alto firewalls, they have achieved more than what is expected, and we are able to control the number of applications; who gets to have access, and what is flowing inside the network. Anything that is traversing the firewall, is available right now.

My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway. It creates a proxy or an appropriation for the suspicious files that can be damaging. 

The cloud-based services are a nice feature.

I do not find it as secure as other solutions. Furthermore, the cloud-based solutions are still not legally available in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia. Some countries do not allow the service according to country obligations. They can not use the cloud services for government offices. So, Wildfire is not allowed in several locations.

I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power.

I have previous experience with FireEye and Symantec. I find that Symantec is a standalone on an enterprise level secure market, which I cannot say for WildFire.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

The primary use case for this solution is the attention to detail. IT is also easy to manage, and easy to use. It is a really good product.

The reporting feature helps our performance. 

I really like the product, it is easy to manage and easy to use.

In the duration of our use, it has been stable.

It is a scalable product. We have had no issues with scalability.

I have not had issues with technical support of this solution.

The initial setup was very easy for us. 

The pricing is OK, it is not too expensive.

We looked at other products, but found PaloAlto to be the best solution for our needs.

I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance.

We don't want a virus. We don't want people visiting unknown sites and opening us up to any type of malware or any type of virus attacks.

We haven't had a virus. That is a good thing. It makes my job easier. For the organization as a whole, no viruses mean people keep their jobs, which is a good thing.

It is an outstanding solution. It is one of the top solutions out there from what we have tested, and we have even tested Cisco Firepower.

You can see everything that's going on in your network. It constantly updates their signatures and new anti-spyware signatures. That is updated daily.

It catches modified signatures of known viruses. It is an easy interface to use. 

They should make their user interface a little more user-friendly.

We are a decent size organization. If the product can fit our organization, it should be able to fit pretty much any other organization just as well.

Their technical support is outstanding and top-notch.

They were things that only somebody who had worked with Palo Alto before would probably be able to break down, then tell you how to set up your initial rule sets and explain what exactly they do. The vendor helped us look at what we have going out versus what is coming in.

They provided in-house support when we initially set it up. They made sure that we were supported from start to finish. Any questions we had, we had someone that we could reach out to, and we had an answer within a matter of minutes to hours. They are very responsive and easy to work with.

Test it in your environment because everyone's environment is different.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Price matching up with features.
• Support
• SLA agreements
• Customer relationship management.

Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones.

Threat Prevention and WildFire features should be enabled in Palo Alto. With this product, we receive the best monitoring and reports.

The VPN and decryption need improvement.

No, I did not encounter any issues with Palo Alto's firewall. The product is very stable.

No, but you should do the rightsizing before buying the product. 

They provide a medium level of technical support.

I used Cisco. Palo Alto is better for datacenter and Cisco for perimeter.

Straightforward to use.

More expensive than other firewalls.

We evaluated Cisco Firepower.

My advice is to install Palo Alto's firewall as a datacenter. You should enable the features (Threat Prevention (AS, AV, and Vulnerability Protection), File Blocking, URL Filtering, WildFire, etc.).

Palo Alto's firewall is the best firewall right now. I have used Palo Alto since 2014.

This product/feature is an enhancement to traditional company/corporate AV and VP solutions, not a replacement. As such, it strengthens existing protections and provides significant visibility into files and applications that are moving through the company's systems.

Detailed reporting on analysis of content. The inspections are easily applied to security policy profiles and profile groups, and may be assigned on a per-rule basis.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

I have never accessed PAN (Palo Alto Networks) technical support regarding this feature.

This is a fairly unique feature offered by Palo Alto Networks (may be comparable to FireEye). As such, it was an addition to our existing protection suites.

Very straightforward. Basically, a few check boxes and desired behaviors.

It is expensive, a feature more accessible to enterprise class customers, but provides an enhanced possibility that Zero- or near-Zero-day threats may be identified and mitigated. The cost of the product weighed against the potential impact of even one successful crypto malware-type exploit may justify the expense.

No, again this "WildFire" is a fairly unique feature. The closest comparison may be FireEye, but I have not used that product.

Consider your level of exposure to exploits of any nature. Also, consider the impact (cost and loss of business) of even one successful exploit to help make a business decision regarding this product.

I would also advise that the decision should be considered with regard to the company's ability/willingness to provide the assets to keep abreast of these types of products and features. There are no set and forget type functions.

It provides the enhancing network and endpoint security for the client through its IDA and IPS system filtering.

The most valuable features are:

• High availability with active-active and active-passive modes.
• Redundant power input for increased reliability.
• Fan-less design.

The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve.

Technical support is excellent, I would rate it a 10/10.

It is quite easy to set up.

The pricing and licensing option should be categorized for various countries such as for Bangladesh.

We looked at Forcepoint NGFW.

Technical support is excellent and it is a promising option.

WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them. When Wannacry first came out, wildfire was detecting it and dropping incoming threats within seconds. We were dropping over 10,000 files per day with no additional firewall load at all.

Dynamic analysis.

I am very happy with WildFire and can see no obvious areas of improvement at this point.

This product is rock solid in terms of stability.

There were no problems with scalability. We have rolled out more firewalls to clients, and no scalability issues were found.

Technical support is fine. We have never needed to contact them regarding WildFire.

We previously used Fortinet. However, we found it to miss a lot of incoming viruses, because at the time, they had no sandbox style service.

The setup was very easy. Simply license the feature and enable it within your scanning profiles.

This feature is implemented in-house.

As soon as it began dropping incoming threats, measured in days, that desktop scanners could not find, it hit its ROI.

It's not particularly cheap, but it is absolutely worth it.

We evaluated Fortinet and Cisco.

Do it.