Palo Alto Networks WildFire Reviews

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.

• Much more visibility during an attack lifecycle; found a lot of infected hosts and vulnerabilities.

• App-ID
• Easy migration
• Credential-based attack prevention
• PBF easily configured
• Whole team can use the firewall and understand it

The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Customer Service:

Customer service is excellent. Their support is top-tier for sure.

Technical Support:

Technical support is excellent. Their support is top-tier for sure.

We previously used legacy Cisco ASA. We switched because it was buggy and had no visibility; it was not easy for the rest of my team to use.

Initial setup was straightforward.

A vendor team implemented it. They were amazing.

It IS a bit expensive, but I think you get what you pay for. Value is there.

Before choosing this product, we also evaluated Check Point, Cisco, and Fortinet.

• App-ID
• User-ID
• Ease of deployment and usability
• Filtering Mechanism like SP3 Engine

From a technical perspective this has given us a new high as this is how a technology solution should function. From a sales perspective, we have been able to pitch the solution to new customers as it seems cheap to customers when we bundle the solution, compared to getting each device for individual functions.

• IP SLA tracking
• GRE tunnel support

I believe these are the major improvements in the pipeline.

I've been using it for four years.

It crashes too frequently for a few boxes, which could be expected from a new vendor as it evolves. The best part is RMA, as you get the box back quickly if you have it in the contract.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

If it is Arrow support, it's pathetic. I wouldn't recommend them. However, if you go directly with the PA team they are the best tech junkies I have worked with.

6/10.

We used to have Netscreen as our favourite, but it went EOL. Being an MSP we have to have expertise with all the devices. Although, Netscreen is our favourite.

I would say that this is difficult to answer, as the setup would be adaptable based on the mode you use, and the way the firewall can be configured. If you ask an expert it would be straightforward. If you ask a newbie, it would be not that difficult to configure if you follow the mentioned steps.

Go forward, this is an amazing device to be implemented if you have the cost to bear.

It has one of the best WebUIs that I have used, because at a glance looks simple, but offers us a lot of options to secure all the traffic that is passing through the device (or all traffic that the user decides to pass through). Besides, the way that scan the applications to detect what kind of application is do not affect anything about the device's performance. The way that the product process or handle the traffic, is one of the best in the industry.

Well, I work as a security consultant, so one of my functions is to help and provide to the end users with recommendations about technologies or process to secure their network. So, one of my customer decide to migrate from TMG/UMG to Palo Alto, it took a while, but during this process, I showed them many ways to improve their current security with Palo Alto, and after a while, they are very comfortable with the technology, for them now, it is easier to apply some kind of web filtering or application filtering than the past.

I'd like to see a wizard to create IPSec VPNs. They need to  improve the graphics to show the network behavior.

Deployment is easy.

The stability is acceptable.

It depends about the project, but offers a good HA option.

Always show to the customer what the product can do for them and what not, is a good practice, because they can open their eyes and to be sure what are the benefits of that technology. Always analyze the network topology, using the customer's network diagram and ask every doubt that you have, for my experience a good analysis and deployment plan give us a successful implementation.

It can do sandboxing on the premises, and it can be directly integrated with Palo Alto NGFW. The malware information on the file that has been sandboxing will be directly updated to the Palo Alto NGFW, and added to the Palo Alto Networks NGFW malware signature library. Also, the credential data within the file that has been sandboxing still be kept on the premises.

Palo Alto Networks WildFire can detect many types of attacks that are using malware embedded on files/URLs with minimum time, and it can increase the effectiveness of resources (time and people) to prevent the malware.

In my opinion, it could be developed to be dependent not only on signatures, but also on patterns and behavior of malware. What I would like to see in the next version/release is to be able to handle much more file types on premises during deployment, because now on premises deployment a .APK file must be sent to the cloud for sandboxing.

I can't remember exactly, but probably more than six months.

For now, I have no issues with the deployment.

For now, I have no issues with the stability.

For now, I have no issues with the scalability.

Both customer server and technical support are very good.

In our case, before we contact Palo Alto Networks technical support, we can contact the Palo Alto Networks local distributor, who provide Palo Alto Networks technical support locally.

I forgot what the name or product that used previously, but the reason I choose Palo Alto Networks wildfire is it integrated with Palo Alto Networks NGFW that already used on the network environment

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is simple.

We’re the ones who implement the Palo Alto Networks WildFire in our customers environments.

It’s not about what we will get directly from having Palo Alto Networks WildFire as an ATD device, but it’s all about the loss of resources you suffer if you don't have it implemented.

User identification and the Applipedia are the most useful. The integration of the Applipedia with the application identification at layer seven makes it a very comprehensive, and secure, firewall.

We have the ability to see what traffic is coming and going in a much deeper and more detailed fashion. We have also found, and stopped, several malware applications before they infected the endpoints.

I've used it for five months.

During initial testing we were too strict on what was allowed outbound. We ended up needing to open up more broad categories. We also found that several websites do not function well with the SSL Decryption feature. We also found that a custom script is required to put the SSL Decryption certificate into Mozilla Firefox.

No the product has been very stable and reliable.

We implemented it in a smaller environment but, find that the 3000 series has plenty of power and has the ability to grow with us as we provide north-south as well as east-west security between internal environments.

Customer service is very friendly and responsive to any request.

I have found the tech support to be impressive. Support agents are available 24/7, and I have never waited for more than an hour to speak with an agent. I would consider the first team you call to be equivalent to most level two or three engineers.

Previously we used Cisco ASA 5510 and Fortinet. Fortinet was an old version and was phased out due to this. The Cisco ASA was replaced do to the limited capability of the out of box functionality and reporting.

Initial set-up was straightforward and easy. We were able to get both devices on the network and set-up to look at traffic within a few hours on split up time. The products complexity came from the terms and the overall thinking of how the product works.

We did it in-house.

Before choosing Palo Alto we also reviewed Cisco ASA, Fortinet, and Sophos.

The product is straightforward to implement, though if you are looking for a quick implementation, I would suggest bringing in an expert.